NAIBUNGA CONSERVANCY TRUST LAIKIPIA, KENYA

Name: Naibunga Conservancy Location: Laikipia, Kenya Year of establishment: 2001-3 Contact: Beatrice Lampaira (Manager): lempaira@yahoo.com +254-723298329

Written by Fiona Flintan and Diana Puyo (2012)

Context Naibunga Conservancy Trust is found in the western region of Mukogodo Division in Laikipia District, northern Kenya. The climate in the area is arid and semi-arid with low mean annual rainfall that averages 400 mm per year and occurs in a bi-modal pattern. Consequently the area experiences cyclic droughts with the most recent ones recorded in the year 2000 and 2009-10. The altitude ranges from 1,300 m to 1,500 m. The main vegetation is acacia bush land, and scattered open grasslands. The soils in the area are generally deep, fertile and well-drained but agricultural production is limited by poor rainfall. The Ewaso Nyiro River which runs along the western border of Naibunga Conservancy is the main drainage system and lifeline of the area. The area has high levels of poverty that can be attributed to a number of factors including loss of livestock due to droughts, diseases, lack of social facilities, inadequate pastures, poor management of group ranches, high illiteracy levels, lack of employment opportunities, insecurity arising from banditry and cattle rustling and, generally the inability to exploit available natural resources (Sumba et al 2007). In addition one can add inequitable land redistributions during the colonial period and subsequently after Independence that have marginalised local land users (see below) (Letai 2011). Consequently, basic social indicators are also poor.
Laikipia District

A high number of people are dependent on relief food, illiteracy rates are high (less than half of school going children are in school) and infant mortality rates are high (Sumba et al 2007). The main livelihood system is extensive livestock production, though this has been challenged in recent years by loss of access to resources due to privatisation of lands, and a subsequent breakdown of communal management systems and reduced capacity to overcome drought (see below). Because of the arid conditions, livelihood options are limited. The main alternative sources of livelihoods are bee keeping, and lately, wildlife tourism. Bee keeping has been carried out in some parts of the area for many years. This

may be because many of the Laikipia Maasai community of today evolved from the Ndorobo who were hunter-gatherers. Many households use traditional hives numbering 30-200. However access to markets is poor so that trade has not flourished. In the past, a honey project started by donors collapsed because of mismanagement and internal conflicts among the clans (Sumba et al 2007). Laikipia is one of the richest wildlife areas in Kenya outside protected areas, with about 250 species of birds and 50 species of mammals. It provides important dispersal areas for wildlife from neighbouring private ranches during the wet season. Human-wildlife conflicts are widespread in the area due to livestock predation, and competition for water and grazing between wildlife, people and livestock. Land and land tenure Prior to the colonial period the Laikipia Plateau was inhabited by mainly Maasai. However treaties instigated by the British in the early 20th century resulted in the movement of most Maasai out of the area to make way for the creation of large commercial ranches for white settlers. After Independence the large commercial ranches were retained as part of the colonial government and Kenyatta administration agreement. However some settlers opted to leave or sell their land to the Kenyatta administration. The Kenyatta administration in return settled Kikuyus from central province in these lands in the name of land buying companies. Many of these people did not settle in Laikipia but instead used the land as collateral for accessing bank loans i.e. became absentee landlords. Much of the rest of the land was later divided into group ranches to settle pastoralists (Maasai) under the World Bank rangeland development programme. The remainder was registered as government land or outspans (Letai 2011). This land use arrangement was maintained up to the late 1990s when agitation for reforms under a new constitution began. Since then there has emerged a new pattern of land ownership and land use with these initial patterns either changing hands or its initial investment plans altered. During the same period much of the government land (outspans) was grabbed by senior government officials, politicians and military officers. At the same time, some Maasai elites acquired large land holdings. However, most Maasai continued to live on group ranches in Mukogodo, where few changes in either the land ownership or land use arrangement were witnessed. A few pastoralists have since moved out of the area due to population pressure or increasing aridity in the group

ranches. They have bought land or settled as squatters in the smallholder farms given to the Kikuyu (ibid). Over time the increase in land changing hands or the land use pattern among the bigger commercial ranches or the small holder farmers has led to a huge rush for land in Laikipia. New patterns of land use are emerging and differential land ownership is occurring (see Figure 1). Today, there are 48 large-scale ranches representing 40.3% of the total land area in Laikipia. Large-scale farms are 23 and represent 1.48% of Laikipia district. 122 smallholder farms represent a total of 27.21% . These farms were initially large-scale farms bought by groups of individuals who later sub-divided them into smallholdings of between 2 5 acres. In addition there are 36 pieces of land owned by the government representing 6.58% of the land area; and two categories of forest disturbed forest reserves covering 2.78% and intact forest reserves (4.75%). For more details on these different land categories see Letai 2011.

There are 13 group ranches in Laikipia representing 7.45% of the total land area. All of them are found in the northern dry part of the District and are occupied by pastoralists who use them for communal grazing. Some of the group ranches such as Il-Ngwesi, Kijabe, Lekuruki and Koija have wildlife conservancies and tourist lodges. None of the group ranches have sub-divided and remain intact. Increasingly however they are facing growths in population that are placing a strain on natural resources. A group ranch is a legally recognised institution formed under the Group Representatives Land Act, CAP 287. It usually encompasses a large tract of land that is delineated and

registered, and which is owned privately by the group (registered under the Land Adjudication Act Cap. 284) and used equally by the group members. Pastoralists communal land use and livestock movement within the group ranch boundary is permitted. The definition of who is a member of the ranch community is unclear. In most cases only men and widows are registered and considered group ranch members. The majority of women are not registered as group ranch members and therefore can be marginalised especially from decision-making and benefit distribution. Within the group ranch it is common for the community to organise itself along the traditional neighbourhood system. This is a form of decentralization of power where a leader, with assistance from a committee, manages a number of households in each neighbourhood. These leaders are responsible to the elected ranch committee. Though the group ranches have not been directly affected by the changes in land use taking place in Laikipia, they are seeing an indirect impact as pressures on ranch boundaries increase and as land access becomes more competitive. There is more and more fencing going up and privatisation of traditional drought dispersal areas (e.g. on lands that used to be open due to absentee landlords). In addition more individualistic attitudes are replacing traditional resource sharing and access. This has meant that mobility has been evermore restricted and dry season grazing areas made inaccessible. As a result, and with slight changes in the weather pattern many pastoralists suffer heavy losses of livestock and crop failure as they have limited options to adapt, leading to a general increase in vulnerability among such groups.

What can we learn from the experience of Naibunga Conservancy and the group ranches There are four key areas of learning: 1. Understanding the different land tenure systems in the Laikipia area, their distribution and their impact on land use. In particular there are opportunities to learn about the development of the group ranch system, to what degree it provides security of tenure, its governance structure, and its impact on the lives of pastoralists in the region (in relation to other land tenure systems and land uses).

2. Understanding the development of the Naibunga Conservancy Trust, and its relationship with the group ranches and the communities that live there. This includes understanding the Conservancy approach, its rationale, its manifestation at different levels, and its impact on local land users and their livelihoods. 3. Observing and drawing lessons from the development of the conservation approach taken by many of the group ranches including the influence and activities supported by the Naibunga Conservancy, amongst others. For example, do the benefits of investing in conservation practices including the designation of (previously) grazing areas to conservation purposes, outweigh the costs involved for local communities? 4. The lessons learnt from land use planning processes carried out by some of the group ranches in order to zone their lands as a way of developing livelihoods from conservation/tourism, and for better managing the rangeland. Assessing the benefits and challenges of the approach, and to what degree it has assisted in better securing rights to resources for all community members, and protecting it from outsiders.

The establishment of Naibunga Conservancy Trust Established between 2001-3 with assistance from the Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) and the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), the Naibunga Conservancy Trust is a partnership of nine group ranches located on the western side of Mukogodo Division, Laikipia District. The ranches comprise: lmotiok, Musul, Nkiloriti, Koija, Tiamamut, Kijabe, Morupusi, Munishoi and Ilpolei. Approximately 12,000 people live in the area being mainly Mukogodo Maasai. There are also some individually held farms in the area owned by Maasai, white Kenyans, and foreigners. Naibunga is a Maasai word suggesting connectedness or collective responsibility. The ranches included under the Conservancy are not fenced, nor is the boundary of the Conservancy fenced. This allows free movement of wildlife across the ranches and in/out of neighbouring conservation areas. Some of the group ranches have yet to obtain a title deed for their lands. Naibunga is a founder member of the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) (see Box 1) being one of fifteen conservancies that formed the umbrella organisation in 2004. Thus, the NRT has had a long relationship with Naibunga though for a period up to 2008 NRT withdrew its support due to local political conflicts.

Box 1: Northern Rangelands Trust The Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) is a technical, advisory and implementing organisation that has a strong track record in providing support to a number of communities across northern Kenya. In particular these services focus on providing support for the conservation, management and sustainable use of the natural resources; promoting and developing tourism and environmentally sustainable income-generating activities; and alleviating poverty by improving social services, providing employment and establishing community-based enterprises. NRT, in collaboration with Ol Pejeta Conservancy is implementing a pastoralism improvement programme that aims to reduce livestock densities through improved returns per head; improve rangeland and grazing management by and between communities; and to provide alternatives for livelihood investments such as rural banking schemes and linking livestock marketing to conservation (i.e. marketing livestock produced in a conservation compatible manner). The area of operation of the Trust encompasses over 3 million acres in northern Kenya. At times the NRT has been criticised for a rather forceful approach, pushing communities too hard to become members of the Trusts network so that they have not fully considered the implications of doing so including the costs of losing significant parts of their territory for conservation purposes. For more information on NRT see: www.nrt-kenya.org

In 2009 NRT began working with Naibunga again, finding funding for its staff, and capacity building through providing trainings for Conservancy Board members, the Manager, the rangers and for womens income-generation groups. It has also been involved in introducing new approaches to such as grazing practices (Holistic Management) see below. It has also assisted communities to obtain their formal land title deeds to their group lands. Naibuinga Conservancy is important to NRT and its work in northern Kenya as the area provides an important corridor for wildlife between private conservancies and ranches that are heavily fenced. Naibunga Counservancy has also worked with and received the support of World Vision Kenya, and neighbouring private ranches including Oljogi, Loisaba and Mpala. A team including a Manager and security staff manages the Conservancy (as detailed below). All decisions on strategies, approaches and activities taken by the Conservancy must get the approval of the Conservancy Board. The Board is made up of 18 members including the Chairman and a trustee from each group ranch. The Chairman and trustees are elected annually by the group ranch, and can be re-elected for a number of successive years. Each group ranch has its own committee. The Conservancy is registered as a Community Trust. Each group ranch makes monthly reports to the Board of the Conservancy. Financial and progress reports may also be made to partners such as LWF (Laikipia Wildlife Forum) or AWF (Africa Wildlife Foundation), as required depending on the assistance the organisation is providing. Board

meetings are held regularly and in times of special need, and an AGM is held annually with additional representatives from the group ranches.

Conservancy Management structure Group ranches

Conservancy board

Finance

Manager

Head of security

Rangers

Radio

Naibunga Conservancys objectives and trajectory The Conservancys Vision is: To become a unifying factor for pastoral communities and lead promoter of sustainable tourism in Laikipia District.

The Conservancys Mission is: To conserve the integrity of the Laikipia ecosystem and enhance the Maasai cultural heritage while promoting entrepreneurial culture among the community and other stakeholders, exploit natural resources and turn them into naturebased enterprise that can benefit diverse interest of the community and create cohesion. The main guiding objectives of the Conservancy are: Biodiversity conservation Income generation for livelihoods support and poverty alleviation Environmental management and conservation The specific objectives of the Naibunga Conservancyare: Strengthening security in the larger Naibunga; To help in the management of natural resources; To harmonise enterprises development; Fund raising for the development of the member community/group ranches; Marketing of Naibunga community initiatives; Capacity building/enhancement of group ranches.

What has been the experience of Naibunga Conservancy The Conservancy facilitates collaborative development of community conservation initiatives to enable the ranches to collectively manage ecosystems to improve livelihoods, biodiversity conservation and rangeland management (Lempaira personal communication 2011, and see below). Each ranch has designated its own conservation area the Conservancy links these. Together the nine ranches have set aside 43,000 acres out of their 243,000 acres of land, for conservation purposes establishing a significant contiguous area for the migration of wildlife. Being part of the Conservancy gives the communities a greater voice in decision-making processes in the District, including in decisions concerning land use and security. Establishing the Conservancy has provided opportunities for communities to be able to live with wildlife, benefit from them, and help manage and protect their resources from neighbouring land users and cattle rustlers. The ranches also benefit as migration of livestock is also facilitated, plus opportunities have grown for eco-tourism projects. The Conservancy assists with such projects and for example helps communities negotiate and draw up contracts with tour operators. Though the Conservancy can encourage conservation it cannot impose any sanctions on the group ranches if they do not participate. Land use planning/zoning Many of the group ranches have carried out zoning of their land into different uses, including setting aside an area for conservation (and in many cases tourism). A participatory planning exercise is facilitated, often by an outside NGO or organisation African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) has worked with a number of ranches in Naibunga

including Kijabe, Koija and Tiamamut. Three categories are usually proposed according to the activities that are allowed there: a) Core (preservation) zone; b) Buffer zone (low intensity, multiple use zone for grazing and conservation); an c) High intensity use zone (for all other activities including settlement). In delineating use zones, the community considers the current status of the following variables for their area: - seasonal waters and pasture use and distribution; wildlife distribution and densities; resource conflict hotspots; settlement patterns; and areas of exceptional resource values/tourism/culture etc. In Kijabe and Koija ranches, the community has set aside about 30% of their land for conservation as a core area (mapped in yellow on Figure 2.), 30% as dry season grazing area (buffer zone) and the rest as multiple use area. Tourist facilities are in the core area. A management programme is also produced involving three components: i) Zonation mapping; ii) Formalistion of grazing management in the grazing areas; and iii) Development of bylaws to ensure compliance. Each of these three group ranches has constituted a grazing committee that oversees compliance to the grazing zonation and seasonal plans. The grazing committee is backed by the bylaws enacted by the community as well as the authority and blessing of the Elders. Those who break the grazing bylaws are fined. When there is prolonged drought the income derived from tourism is used to lease grazing rights for the livestock of the group ranch members within the neighbouring private ranches.

Koije Group Ranch Koije Group Ranch covers an area of 7,554 hectares (18,700 acres). It borders Loisaba and Mpala private ranches to the west and other Naibunga group ranches to the east and south. It was established in 1976 and registered with the Ministry of Lands, with an initial membership of 148 people. Today the group ranch has over 200 households with more than 1200 people. A manager for the ranch has been employed. Neighbouring ranches were also formed at this time by the government: in general, those who lived in a certain area were registered under that group ranch. However some households chose to move before registration took place in order to be part of a group ranch with more resources. Today, very few residents migrate and lives outside the Koija group ranch even during the dry season when many pastoralists migrate for water and pasture. The community organises itself along the traditional neighbourhood system. This is a form of decentralisation of power where a leader, with assistance from a committee, managers a number of households in each neighbourhood. These leaders are in turn accountable to the elected group ranch committee (Sumba et al 2007). Koija Group Ranchs plan is to have all people settle in the area near to the border with Musul Ranch and divide the grazing area into three blocks i.e. Block A Loreto area, Block B Kijabe/Tura area, and Block C Ngabolo. The ranch has 200 households. It was calculated by AWF that the ranch is to be able to accommodate 591.3 TLU, which translates to around 3 per household. Members agreed to destock from the current levels to 10 LU per household (10 cattle or 50 sheep/goats and one donkey) even though it took

households to a level well below the economic herd size to sustain a family of 6 people.1 Alternative income-generation was proposed. A fine of KShs1,000 was to be paid by the first offenders who do had not reduced livestock numbers by the required number after April 2007. The offender would be expelled from the ranch if he continued to refuse to reduce livestock numbers. A three year grazing plan was developed so that the reduced herd are to be in each of the blocks for a period of 4 months in rotation depending on the seasons. This would ensure different grazing in each of the blocks in a rainy season within the first two years. Each zonation programme within a ranch needs to be incorporated into the Conservancy management plans so that the Conservancy managers and community committees work in harmony (AU-IBAR 2008). Again a ruling was developed that stated that all who did not comply would be fined, and if they persisted would be taken to court. If the offender still refused to abide by the grazing rules then he/she would be expelled from the group ranch. Other rangeland management activities Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) has supported training in rangeland management and holistic management (HM) the supports grazing management systems (amongst other actions) as part of a larger social/ecological/development plan. For an explanation of HM see Appendix 1. This has been linked to the removal of invasive species such as Sansivieria spp and Acacia Meliffera. Water resource user associations (WRUAs) have been set up in some areas with assistance from the Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF). A government initiative, WRUAs are expected to oversee the management of community water sources, storage facilities and feeds, in the area. Financial support from the government is available for capacity building of the WRUAs. Eco-tourism ventures and other livelihood diversification and income opportunities Some of the group ranches have invested in the development of lodges and other tourism facilities and activities. These include: - The Olgaboli Women Bandas: This was the first Maasai women-only ecotourism project in Africa. In Il Matiok Ranch, 150 women came together, secured user rights for around 5,000 acres2 of communal land from the group ranch through a Memorandum of Understanding. Here they have established a conservation/eco-tourism area. The women have constructed six bandas and also run a Maasai cultural manyatta. The learning route will be staying here during our visit to Naibunga.

Need to check these figures as the documentation is conflicting. Check this figure.

Koija Star-beds Ecotourism project: Koija group ranch developed an upmarket ecotourism project on the banks of the Ewaso Ngiro River, with USAID seed money in 2001. Other actors involved include AWF and Loisaba Ranch represented by Oryx Ltd who has been leasing the lodge. This is arranged through a fixed lease, which provides an annual payment and a percentage of the volume of business, based on a bed-night levy scheme. Relatively good infrastructure in the area including a small plane airstrip means that is well placed to receive visitors. Between 2001 and 2006 the ecolodge generated US$ 77,131.20 for the community. The group ranch committee spent US$15,426.24 of the income for management costs and invested US$49,364 in community development projects that included water provision, education bursaries and a health clinic. The Koija Community Trust banked about US$12,341 in the community bank account. The community also earns from other tourism related incomes including cultural dancing for tourists at the cultural manyattas and sale of handicrafts. In 2006, 25 community members were employed at the ecolodge. The trickle down effect on livelihoods from these employment opportunities is unclear, though the Chairman of Koije Group Ranch seems happy with the arrangement when we spoke to him. Indeed he said: Before a Maasai man never had time to spend with his wife today he can due to the benefits of the lodge. More information on the development of this enterprise is given in Sumba et al 2007. Koije also leases out land for a camping concession. Kijabe Eco-lodge and Monpusi and Musul ranches have camping areas. Ilpolei Cultural Manyatta and Resource Centre, which sells cultural artifacts and handicrafts. Olentile Sanctuary Lodge where the land itself has been leased to the investor, who built the lodge.

Many of the lodges support school bursary funds and other community activities and infrastructure development, as well as paying the relevant ranch to lease the land or the lodge (as appropriate). However, maintaining good relations between the investors and the ranch communities is not always easy or achievable, and there has been mistrust and discontent in some cases (see Muthiani et al 2011). Further it is suggested that the impact of such initiatives on alleviating the poverty of the greater community (i.e. beyond the few who directly benefit through such as employment) is questionable often tourist numbers are small. In the majority of cases an adequately detailed cost/benefit analysis of the partnership has not been done. Women make handicrafts for sale to tourists and energy-saving jikos (cooking stoves). The harvesting and sale of sand is also carried out on some ranches. A programme/enterprise called Desert Edge (initiated by LWF) is assisting community members to develop businesses using non-timber forest products and such as aloe. Aloe is planted and used in soap production. Bee-keeping enterprises are being established, for example with a womens group in Kijabe. Training is given in business principles, and such as Fair Trade compliance and marketing. And the enterprise makes linkages

between the community (and their products), and buyers/traders including on international markets. World Vision has also been supporting the development of such enterprises with some communities. Communities are also able to access money for community and rural development through the Government of Kenyas Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF). The government has also set up the Livestock Marketing Council (at a federal level with structures to the local), which was established in order to oversee the uptake of livestock programmes promoted by the government, and to bargain for better animal prices and markets for the community. In the past it would be up to individual ranches to build tourism infrastructure and encourage investors, however today Naibunga Conservancy plays a much greater role in this. They work with Board members to make decisions about such developments, and try to ensure that each ranch has the opportunity to build up tourism ventures (so that not all tourism enterprises are situated in one ranch). The Conservancy through NRT and others, also plays a role in advertising and linking the ranches with potential investors, and assisting in the negotiating and drawing up of contracts with them. Security Twenty-one rangers (including three radio operators) have been employed by the Conservancy from the community, trained at Lewa Conservancy and at Manyani Kenya Wildlife Service training college. The rangers are funded by the NRT, who secured funding in April 2008 of US$30,379.00. Many of the rangers work on a voluntary basis as they want to get jobs elsewhere. Each group ranch also has its own set of rangers, who may or may not have been trained to same level as those from the Conservancy. These are expected to supervise the Conservancy rangers activities. The rangers are mainly situated at out-posts across the Conservancy and patrol the borders and other areas in order to curb poaching of such as elephant and to retrieve snares. Their presence has also provided greater security for the ranches livestock from cattle rustling, and stemmed negative environmental practices such as charcoal burning. The rangers walk on average thirty kilometres per day. Communication networks have also improved through the use of radios. As a result it is said that wildlife has increased for example giraffes that were rarely seen before, now frequent the group ranch areas. A peace and security committee handles disputes that arise, including over grazing and other conflicts with neighbouring communities.

Conservation Talking to the Conservancy management, they stress it is vital to involve local communities in conservation using an ecosystem approach, whereby the development of each conservation area is considered as part of a larger network while each area retains its independent management. This is a novel approach and is said to be vital to ensuring the long term conservation of wildlife in this part of the country resulting in the protection of the large area of land allowing for the continued migration of wildlife through their natural range. The community rangers also carry out monitoring of vegetation and wildlife. A common problem in the management of protected areas in Africa including Kenya is that many are managed without the benefit of any scientifically based principles as no data on wildlife and habitat is collected, and where it is collected it is not rigorously and systematically analysed. The community rangers in Naibunga allow this to be carried out, having been trained in observations, measurements, filling of data sheets and use of monitoring equipment such as GPS and maps. Trained, literate rangers are paired with non-trained and sometimes illiterate rangers so they can work in pairs (for more information on this see the Policy Brief by AU/IBAR, 2008 on the reading list). The rangers are expected to work with the group ranch members and managers in order to carry out monitoring. The Conservancy management suggests that taking such an approach has led to the rehabilitation and renovation of stalled projects, capacity building for the community through exposure tours, and increased interaction with other stakeholders. As a result of the conservation work, attitudes towards wildlife have improved and the children of the community can view wildlife locally without having to travel far to see them. Conservation has supported education and medical care, improved access to water, preservation of medicinal plants, improved grazing management plans, income generating activities through womens empowerment, and greater awareness of the importance of conservation. However, conservation can also restrict access to grazing areas and can lead to the destruction of water sources by wildlife. All the legal requirements of Kenyas Wildlife and Management Act, CAP 376 (2009) must be fulfilled and the conservancies are expected to work with the Kenya Wildlife Service to ensure compliance. Land use development in the proposed development zones must be compatible with conservation. Strict adherence to the relevant existing laws and policies needs to be ensured. This must be carried out with often, minimum funds so it can be difficult to ensure enforcement. This can also lead to greater conflict as the neighbouring communities invade the conservation areas; to increased predation of livestock, without compensation; and to

greater livestock disease incidence when livestock is in contact with wildlife. Strengths, good practices and lessons learned The case study has shown that despite a negative history, Maasai ranch owners are working with the system to better develop livelihoods and secure rights to resources. The Conservancy provides one model and structure for doing so. Despite its challenges (see below) the majority of the community appear happy with the Conservancys approach, activities and support. Wildlife can be beneficial to livelihoods, and through conservation community members can also benefit from their rich culture: for example by developing businesses in handicrafts. Wildlife has also helped to diversify livelihoods. It is said that particular successes have been seen in the improvement in vegetation and the more harmonious coexistence between wildlife and humans. Wildlife numbers have increased, there is higher potential for honey production as a result of the vegetation improvement, and tourism developments are increasing. Education of children has improved through the availability of bursaries. However, the exact degree of these changes on the whole community, and how it compares with the costs faced by community members due to lost grazing, livestock and access to other resources. The enterprises undertaken by the different group ranches has demonstrated that the conservation logic or link between enterprise/development and conservation must be clearly articulated and understood by all involved if it is to be successful. It must also gain the support of all the community, as spoilers and offenders can damage the resource to the detriment of others (e.g. by grazing in the designated conservation area). It would seem that more assessment of how this link has been developed and supported across communities, should be carried out. In a situation of land-grabbing and increasing privatisation of land and other resources, the group ranches are trying to strengthen their security to their own resources, including the wildlife that moves in and out of their lands. The actions of the Conservancy such as assisting communities to secure land titles and protect resources from outsiders helps to achieve this, but overall, further contributes to the political fragmentation of the rangeland (if not physical) and ultimately the breakdown of traditional communal customary practices. As it has been shown, this can increase the vulnerability of both those within the ranch system and those outside, who in the past may have used ranch lands through customary agreements for grazing at different times of the year. The way forward: challenges and opportunities The proponents of Naibunga Conservancy Trust believe that the size of the Conservancy coupled with the outstanding scenery are indicators of the high potential the Conservancy holds in terms of conservation and tourism development. However there are a number of challenges:

1. Developing the linkages between conservation and development, can be highly challenging and the failure of integrated conservation and development projects and the like, around the world are testimony to this. This is due to a number of reasons including a lack of secure rights to land, failure to realise sufficient benefits that are equitably distributed to all community members, and poor governance structures. Naibunga Conservancy is trying to address these issues, with assistance from a large and sometimes it is argued, heavy-handed, organisation - NRT. It remains to be seen how this situation continues to develop and whether the goals of conservation and development will indeed by realised. 2. Despite a facilitating policy environment for the establishment of Conservancies and protection of resources in group ranches, supporting policy for wildlife-based investments could be improved. This includes creating policies on ownership and control by communities over wildlife and reviewing policies for compensation of human and livestock loss by wildlife. Further, some would argue that Kenya should change its policy over shooting of wildlife, allowing either for regulated sport hunting or for community consumption. 3. There are a significant number of donors and organisations working with the different group ranches and sometimes it is difficult to coordinate efforts, avoid duplication, ensure most efficient and effective expenditure of funds, and maintain good relations between all actors including the group ranches themselves. In the last year or two, the Conservancy has played a greater role in coordinating potential donors and working through the Conservancy Board to guide donors to appropriate projects and communities. Despite the number of donors, more funds are required by the Conservancy to carry out all the activities being requested of them for example the rangers require uniforms, GPS, battery charging equipment, and some mode of transport such as bicycles. The rangers are not armed so face difficulties when trying to control poachers. 4. Financial benefits from the lodges and other tourism activities remain low this is partly explained by low occupancy rates. In Koija for example in 2006, the community had 1200 registered members who were entitled to benefit from the lodge in 2012 this had increased to around 1400 (over 200 households with average 7 per household). By 2006 the return to the community had been US$64 per person or US$12.8 per person per year. In comparison to the poverty line of KShs 1,239 (US$16.50) per month at that time, the benefits to livelihoods were not substantial. The report in 2006 suggested that this may explain why the community decided to invest in community projects, which had more chance of benefiting everyone. The low benefit can also explain why many community members view conservation as having a negative impact on livestock keeping and livelihoods, as such an approach comes with a high cost through the loss of grazing areas. In 2011, it would appear that the benefits have increased and as well as community projects, members are provided with an amount of cash.

5. The benefits from the Conservancy are not equally spread throughout all group ranches . If this is not properly managed and kept open and accountable there is the danger that resentment and conflict can grow. In addition, the majority of the benefits from the Conservancy have been directed to the overall group ranch and/or those individuals who are most actively involved in such as tourism. Questions can be raised about what financial contribution the Conservancy is making to the lives of the larger communities living on the group ranches who are now seeing their grazing areas being more strictly controlled as a result of Conservancy interventions. Allowing more wildlife onto ones land can also result in destruction of trees by elephants and/or injury or death of livestock (and indeed people) from such as elephants and lions. The Conservancy management suggests that further benefits could come if there was greater compensation for wildlife attacks and damage, more efforts to reduce livestock mortality, and greater emphasis on grazing management plans. Benefits could also come from reducing human/wildlife/livestock conflict by increasing water sources. Furthermore, the community could benefit from increased income from tourists, through sustained wildlife conservation, employment of rangers, and through motivation of school leavers to train in tourism. 6. Coordination between the group ranches is challenging as the area is vast and a number of different actors with different priorities are involved. This has improved in recent years with the employment of a manager, and the establishment of regular reporting and meetings. There is also conflict between the ranches being on one hand, part of a collective group Conservancy and on the other hand, an individual unit that is under pressure to prioritise the needs of its members.

7. Communities are challenged by drought, such as between 1997-2000 (when many ranches lost 70% or more of their livestock) and 2009 where large numbers of livestock also died. In a situation of few choices and alternatives, community members may turn to such as the making of charcoal in order to get an income. At these times too, there is likely to be greater encroachment into the Conservancy area by neighbouring pastoralist groups looking for water/grazing. Cattle rustling may also take place. Though tourism may offer an alternative income-generating activity, this too can be challenging and open to general fluctuations in tourists, their preferences and trends. It is suggested that the government could also improve the situation by allowing livestock into government reserves during prolonged dry periods. Despite these challenges the Conservancy is set to expand its activities. A number of other tourism ventures are being discussed, and those that exist are planning to expand their activities. The Conservancy will also focus on providing further technical assistance to rehabilitate degraded lands and improve grazing practices with the establishment of zoning and strong grazing management committees across the Conservancy. Communication networks will be further improved, scout patrols

intensified and a programme of improving community awareness of the benefits of conservation carried out. Fundraising will be carried out to fund the activities. It would seem that the greater community do continue to support the Conservancy venture, though there may be disagreement, resentment and dissent amongst some members. Support has increased recently with the employment of Beatrice Lampeira as Manager of the Conservancy. Beatrice comes from Koija Group Ranch and was a beneficiary of the school bursary programme. The community is confident that she will represent their views and interests. References: AU/IBAR (2008) Zoning for Sustainable Resource Use at the Livestock Wildlife Environment Interface. Nairobi: AU/IBAR, UNEP, IUCN, AWF, ACC and GoK. Internet: http://landportal.info/resource/undp-gef/zoning-sustainable-resource-uselivestock-wildlife-environment-interface AU/IBAR (2008) Community Scouts Based Monitoring Programme for Wildlife in Conservancies. Nairobi: AU/IBAR, UNEP, IUCN, AWF, ACC and GoK. Internet: http://landportal.info/resource/journal-article/conservation-outside-parks-attitudes-localcommunities-laikipia-kenya Letai, J. (2011) Land Deals in Kenya: The Genesis of Land Deals in Kenya and its Implication on Pastoral Livelihoods A Case Study of Laikipia District. Unpublished report for Oxfam GB, Nairobi. Internet: http://landportal.info/resource/laikipia/landdeals-kenya-genesis-land-deals-kenya-and-its-implication-pastoral-livelihoods Mutiani, E, J. Njoka, P. Kinyua and G. Gitau (2011), Partnership challenges of community wildlife sanctuaries in Laikipia County, Kenya. Paper presented at the end of the KASAL program conference at KARI HQ, 9-12th August, Nairobi. Internet: http://landportal.info/resource/research-paper/partnership-challenges-communitywildlife-sanctuaries-laikipia-country-kenya Sumba, D. et al (2007) The Koija Starbeds Ecolodge: A Case Study of a Conservation Enterprise in Kenya. AWF Working Paper. Nairobi: AWF. Internet: http://landportal.info/resource/common-property/koija-starbeds-ecolodge-case-studyconservation-enterprise-kenya

Appendix 1: Holistic Management Holistic Management (HM) manages resources (people, land and money) in wholes, as one indivisible unit. It reaches decisions through a holistic process approach using knowledge blocks learning (setting aside the dominant mechanical systems approach to decision making). Complexities of such an approach are taken into account and dealt with. Decisions made are tested to ensure that they are economically, socially and environmentally sound. Four key insights originally conceived by Allan Savory of Holistic Management International (www.holisticmanagement.org) to address the need to reverse biodiversity loss and consequent desertification, provide the basis for the holistic management process: 1. The holistic perspective is essential in management. 2. Environments may be classified on a continuum from non-brittle to very brittle according to annual humidity distribution and how quickly dead vegetation breaks down. 3. In brittle environments (normally arid and semi-arid), relatively high numbers of large, concentrated and moving herding animals (wildlife or livestock) are vital to maintaining the health of the land. 4. In any environment, overgrazing and damage from trampling bears little relationship to the number of animals, but rather to the amount of time plants and soils are exposed to them. Those living on the land play a central role in the planning of the management required. To do this, three steps are followed: 1) A determination of the quality of life they seek to have; 2) Identification of the forms of production required from the land to sustain that quality of life including food, products, profit and aesthetics; and 3) A description and mapping of the landscape for the future in terms of the fundamental processes that define an ecosystem biological succession, mineral and water cycles and energy flow. This forms the basis of a management plan utilizing a range of tools (range influences including the resting of pastures, fire, animal impact, wildlife, grazing and man) and the establishment of a monitoring plan that will provide earliest possible warning that the work is off course. Planned grazing will often form an intricate part of a holistically managed environment. This will include taking into account plant abundance, diversity and land cover; infiltration, capture and retention of rainfall; controlled plant exposure to grazing; hoof action of animals; effective dung and urine use; and improved livestock quality and productivity and sustained livelihoods. Land will be rested and used according to these factors. Further, low stress animal handling is promoted. For more information see: Savory, A. (1999) Holistic Management, A New Framework for Decision Making. Washington DC: Island Press.