Negative Impact of Community Development Through Community-based Wildlife Conservation: From the Case of Kimana Sanctuary, Southern Kenya

Abstract

Today, theories about wildlife conservation emphasize the importance of local participation and decentralization, and wildlife benefits are regarded as an incentive for local people to join the conservation effort. In Kenya, where more than three-quarters of wildlife habitat is outside protected areas, Community-based Conservation (CBC) has been initiated on community lands. Kimana Sanctuary was a flagship case of CBC. It was established with the purpose of habitat conservation and benefit sharing through practical local participation in management of the protected area and in the tourism business. At first, the sanctuary was managed by local people, but because of the meager benefits obtained, it was leased to a tourism company in four years. With the change in management, the community received an increase in benefits achieved local development, i.e, land subdivision and the adoption of agriculture. The people understood the value of wildlife for tourism, but they did not agree on wildlife roaming on their lands. CBC assumed three factors: empowerment, benefits and local initiative. Of these, only benefits have been achieved. Local empowerment for the management of the sanctuary was insufficient, and the people did not accept wildlife conservation on their lands, which outsiders intended to push forward. Receiving the wildlife benefit without participation in practical activities, the local people had no conservation initiatives. To realize collaboration between the locals and the outsiders, consensus on conservation outside of protected areas and provisions against wildlife damage are essential.