Rethinking entrenched narratives about protected areas and human wellbeing in the Global South.

Attempts to link human development and biodiversity conservation goals remain a constant feature of policy and practice related to protected areas (PAs). Underlying these approaches are narratives that simplify assumptions, shaping how interventions are designed and implemented. We examine evidence for five key narratives: 1) conservation is pro-poor; 2) poverty reduction benefits conservation; 3) compensation neutralises costs of conservation; 4) local participation is good for conservation; 5) secure tenure rights for local communities support effective conservation. Through a mixed-method synthesis combining a review of 100 peer-reviewed papers and 25 expert interviews, we examined if and how each narrative is supported or countered by the evidence. The first three narratives are particularly problematic. PAs can reduce material poverty, but exclusion brings substantial local costs to wellbeing, often felt by the poorest. Poverty reduction will not inevitably deliver on conservation goals and trade-offs are common. Compensation (for damage due to human wildlife conflict, or for opportunity costs), is rarely sufficient or commensurate with costs to wellbeing and experienced injustices. There is more support for narratives 4 and 5 on participation and secure tenure rights, highlighting the importance of redistributing power towards Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in successful conservation. In light of the proposed expansion of PAs under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, we outline implications of our review for the enhancement and implementation of global targets in order to proactively integrate social equity into conservation and the accountability of conservation actors.

Trade-offs for climate-resilient pastoral livelihoods in wildlife conservancies in the Mara ecosystem, Kenya.

Pastoralists in the wildlife-rich East African rangelands use diversification into conservation and tourism as a strategy to supplement livestock-based livelihoods and to spread risk. Tourism incomes are an important alternative source during drought, when livestock incomes decline. However, tourism may also reduce access to rangeland resources, and an abundant wildlife may destroy crops and injure, kill or transmit disease to livestock or people. This paper investigates the ability of wildlife conservancies in the Mara, Kenya, to act as an alternative for pastoralists that mitigates risks and maintains resilience in a changing climate. It analyses data to examine how conservancies contribute to and integrate with pastoral livelihoods, and to understand how pastoralists are managing their livestock herds in response to conservancies. It finds conservancy payments can provide an important, reliable, all-year-round source of income and prevent households from selling their animals during stress and for cash needs. Conservancies also retain grass banks during the dry season and provide opportunities for pastoralists to access good-quality forage. However, they reduce access to large areas of former grazing land and impose restrictions on livestock mobility. This affects the ability of pastoralists to remain flexible and able to access seasonally variable resources. Conflicts between grazing and conservancies may also heighten during drought times. Furthermore, income from land leases is not more than the contribution of livestock, meaning conservancy land leases create trade-offs for livestock-based livelihoods. Also, income is based on land ownership, which has inequity implications: women and other marginalised groups are left out.

Maasai perception of the impact and incidence of malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) in southern Kenya.

We investigated the perceived impact of malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) to pastoralists in Isinya Division, a wildlife dispersal area of Nairobi National Park, and used a range of participatory epidemiology methodologies. We compared the relative importance, incidence and impact of MCF compared to other locally defined important diseases with a total of 158 respondents in 11 group meetings and 21 household meetings in July 2004. Direct losses due to disease were investigated through lowered prices as a result of the emergency sale of disease-infected animals. Overall, Maasai in Isinya Division perceived east coast fever (ECF) to be the most important cattle disease and to have the highest incidence. Anthrax was considered to have the largest impact. In areas within or adjacent to the wildebeest calving zone, MCF was perceived to be the most important cattle disease and also to have the largest impact. Outside the calving zone, MCF was considered the fourth-most important disease with the fourth largest impact, and these were areas where wildebeest were less common. MCF was also the fourth-most common disease, and across the Division incidence was estimated at 5% in calves and 10% in adults. However, MCF incidence varied greatly throughout the study area, from 3% to 12%, and the highest incidence risks were found in areas where wildebeest came to calve. The percent drop in sale price per animal infected with MCF was estimated at 50% for MCF for the year 2003-2004. Forced avoidance movements away from wildebeest calves were reported to decrease livestock production due to loss of access to prime grazing sites. As suggested by pastoralists in this study, the development of compensation schemes or incentives from wildlife would reduce the conflict between livestock keeping and wildlife conservation.