Wildlife tourism - spreading the benefits

credit: Stuart Coupe, ITDG

Like many rural communities across Africa, the Maasai and Kamba people who live alongside Kenya's national parks are under pressure to change their traditional ways of life. The parks themselves are one source of the pressure, as traditional grazing lands have been sectioned off, and pastoralists forced to take their animals further afield. This in turn has taken its toll on the health and productivity of their herds. In contrast, wildlife depend on having freedom of movement, beyond the official boundaries of a park in what is called the dispersal zone. This has increased the strain on farming livelihoods, as herbivores destroy crops and compete with livestock for limited grazing, and predators inflict further losses on flocks and herds. Evidence suggests that the poorest lose the most. No wonder that many who live on the edges of national parks are unable to see any benefits from wildlife.

In Kenya, the government has acted to try to limit the losses and share some of the profits earned by the tourism sector. The Kenya Wildlife Service, responsible for tourism and wildlife conservation, is charged with spreading more of the benefits to local communities, and a scheme exists to compensate local people for loss of crops, livestock and for injuries. There have also been attempts to involve local communities in tourist activities. However, despite such attempts, research suggests that only 2% of the tourism industry's profits actually go to the local people, the bulk of this tiny percentage going to local leaders, and those with the capital and know-how to exploit the tourist market.

Achieving more equitable benefits

The problem of achieving a fairer distribution of tourism revenues has been at the heart of a project implemented by the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), and funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). Five years ago, staff from ITDG, East Africa began their work with two communities in southern Kenya. One group is Maasai, nomadic herders whose cattle traditionally graze the land in the area of Amboseli National Park. The other is Kamba, living at Kathekani on the edge of Tsavo East National Park, and subsisting on mixed arable and livestock farming. From initial research work, ITDG concluded that low intensity eco-tourism could be a viable and sustainable source of income for the two communities. They felt that this would involve more than simply establishing nature reserves and some kind of lodge accommodation: if the communities wanted to pursue the eco-tourism market, they would need to protect and enhance their natural resources through careful management of forests, farms and rangeland.

At first the communities were, understandably, not convinced; they had no experience of tourism and regarded it as other people's - mostly white people's - business. However, the ITDG staff were aware of community-run eco-tourism projects operating in other parts of Kenya, and invited the communities to discover how these were operating. A tour was planned with participants chosen from all sections of the community, including poorer families. They visited projects all over the country, not only lodges and game reserves, but enterprises like bee keeping, butterfly breeding and alternative farming systems, such as agroforestry gardens. These were activities, together with protected habitats and wildlife, that were capable of attracting visitors, and offering a diverse and sustainable source of income. More importantly, as well as seeing what could be done, the participants were able to question their hosts on details of how long it had taken to implement the schemes, how they were managed and how profits were divided. They then reported their findings to their communities and committees were established to decide how they should proceed.

The findings from the tour and from the subsequent discussions were used to develop a 'best practice' model. This sets out the functions of a number of different 'players' who are likely to be needed if an eco-tourism venture is to be long-lasting and beneficial for the local people. They include a donor, to fund the basic infrastructure, such as a visitors' lodge; a private investor, responsible for setting up and running the venture in conjunction with overseas tourism agencies; and the community itself, which regulates the private investor through an elected committee. Lastly the model includes a role for a non-government organisation, responsible for maintaining the process of negotiation between the other three parties, and ensuring that the interests of the whole community are not displaced by those of the wealthy. This relates, most importantly to the distribution of profits. It was estimated that a scheme averaging ten visitors at any one time could expect to earn around £30,000 profit in a good season, in addition to money earned through employment. Under the best practice model this income is not simply divided among the community, but is invested either in further project infrastructure, or in other community needs, such as health clinics or schools.

The project is still in progress. In the case of the Maasai, they are now in the process of negotiating a proposal with a private investor. They still need support however, with their negotiating committee, and ITDG is continuing to supply this. For the people of Kathekani, the situation is more complex, primarily because the kind of eco-tourism they are in a position to market, involving farming and livelihoods as well as parks and animals, has a much more limited track record. The research team is still working to establish how best to enable this community to benefit from their proximity to one of Kenya's highly prized, but sometimes locally resented, national parks.

Back to Menu