Local management group
In forming a conservancy, landowners came together and combined their land. Since land was subdivided to individual ownership, land needed to be re-consolidated to form a spatially contiguous conservancy area. Although not typical of collective action to regulate commons resources under a common property management system (Ostrom 1990), conservancy
110
in a landowner owned Landholding Company, and this provides some basis for collective action within the landowner group. Each landholding group is coordinated by a landowner committee, which is responsible for mobilising the wider group of conservancy landowners for meetings, or specific action where required.
Typical of commons institutions, there are rules which govern how members are able to access and use resources within the conservancy, and how access is limited to outsiders (Ostrom 1990). The extent of collective action by this group is examined further in the following sections by looking at the extent of self-governance by the members themselves, compared to the level of direction from above.
Meetings
Conservancy meetings are the main way of bringing together conservancy landowners, often along with conservancy managers and tourism investors, to discuss conservancy related issues. Meetings are a way of informing members on conservancy matters and a forum in which conservancy managers and land committees are able to bring up issues to discuss with
conservancy members. Meetings are also the main forum through which all members can directly contribute to conservancy management and decision-making. Meetings are thus an important method of communication between the different groups involved in conservancies, and for sharing information, coordinating activities and making decisions. Conservancy meetings thus hold the key potential for collective action.
Meetings inviting all conservancy members to attend, such as annual general meetings (AGMs), were often one of the few opportunities to bring together all conservancy members. These meetings were generally only held yearly due to the large numbers of dispersed members and practical difficulties of bringing people together (KII 17, 20). This seemed more of an issue for the larger conservancies, in both size and the number of members, compared to the smaller
conservancies (KII 20, 30). This was reflected in some reports of meeting attendance by
conservancy members where members of smaller conservancies, such as the OOC and Motorogi, tended to report attending more meetings (e.g. CI32 19, 29) than members of large conservancies, such as Naboisho and MNC (e.g. CI 8, 9). Meeting were also organised on an ad hoc basis, as the need arose and to discuss more urgent issues, inviting all those who could attend. Landowner
32
111
committee meetings were held much more often, usually occurring every one to three months (KII 18, 20, 21, 27).
During the meetings I attended in the Mara, a variety of different issues were discussed regarding the conservancy. Meetings usually started with a number of set topics to discuss as per the agenda, but usually wandered off this as members raised any issues of concern. Meetings were a place to discuss potentially contentious issues and try to mediate and resolve any conflicts. Meetings were usually led by the land committee, and mostly by the Chairman of the land
committee. Those leading the meetings usually tried to reach consensus on issues on the agenda, although this was not always the case. Members wishing to talk and raise a point were given the opportunity to stand up and speak. If a decision was not reached on a particular issue, the meeting was ended for further discussion another time. As well as the land committee, usually the conservancy managers, but less often a tourism operator was present, depending on the agenda of the meeting. At the larger all-member meetings, food, usually roasted meat, and soft drinks were always offered.
In interviews, some conservancy members talked about inadequate communication between themselves and conservancies, and a lack of meetings and information. This seemed especially related to meetings in raising awareness about a conservancy before it was set up. This seemed to be most in the case of Naboisho Conservancy, which was the newest conservancy starting out the year that I was in the field. Many members of Naboisho reported only having attended the meeting organised for signing up to the conservancy with some claiming they were not fully informed about the conservancy before signing-up (CI 9, 19, 23, 26). Although there were some locality meetings in areas in and around the conservancy, it was recognised there was not sufficient time for people to get to know and understand the conservancy and lease concept at first hand very well (KII 20, 21).
Very few women attended conservancy meetings. The few women I did meet at meetings were conservancy members who had inherited land from their husbands. Although wives of members were reportedly invited to attend meetings, very few attended. In the community interviews, no woman reported having attended a conservancy meeting (CI 12, 15, 16, 24, 25). Women often commented that they knew very little about conservancies since they were not members and did not attend conservancy meetings. Rather, women got information about the conservancy from their husbands who would attend meetings. The lack of women attending meetings is also
112
highlighted in the quotes earlier, where women commented they know little about conservancies because they are not included in them. Since men hold title to land, as conservancy landowners they attend conservancy meetings, whereas women do not. Women thus tend to be largely uniformed about conservancies, and as shown in section 4.1 quite negative towards them. Community members, who are not conservancy members, also did not report attending conservancy meetings.
Women’s groups
Recognising that women were largely uninformed about and left out of conservancies (Courtney 2009; KII 23), the OOC and Naboisho Conservancy started a community outreach programme with women. In 2010, two female outreach officers were employed by the OOC Trust and set up eight women’s groups throughout Koyiaki. These groups meet weekly to raise awareness of
conservancies, but also to discuss issues related to the environment and community development more generally.
The women’s groups discuss topics such as micro-finance, alternative sources of energy, education, health and family planning. Each group has developed a micro-savings programme, where each woman contributes to a (merry-go-round) system of small loans and to a savings group in Narok. Many of the groups are set up in areas where there is no nearby cultural manyatta where women have the opportunity to sell beads or other crafts, or earn some income from cultural singing or dancing (CI 24). In line with the conservancies’ encouragement for sustainable energy sources, women have been introduced to the use of biogas, mixed hay and dung briquettes, and solar power as alternatives to charcoal and firewood. The programme also has a strong capacity-building component. The OOC and Naboisho Conservancy sent a group of Maasai women to India for six months to train to become solar lighting engineers. They have also sent women (as well as youth, elders, and committee members) to Nairobi for training in civic environmental education. They fund bursaries for girls (and boys) for school or higher education. They also help fund girls to train at the Koyiaki Guide School, where school leavers from the local area (and beyond) can train to be safari guides through a one-year recognised guiding course. Many of these guides are then able to get work as guides in lodges in the Mara.
These groups are very active, and an example of conservancies encouraging collective action by women. The groups continue to meet even in the absence of the conservancy outreach officers, implying some motivation and self-drive. The groups attempt to give women more voice, skills,
113
knowledge, and advocacy around the importance of girls’ education. The two outreach officers also visit schools in the local area, and discuss topics related to wildlife, the environment, and education. The women’s groups and activities were well received by women spoken to in interviews and at the women’s group meetings.
Do conservancies bring social cohesion or conflict?
The presence on the ground of meetings and women’s groups indicates that the conservancies are bringing people in the community together. Naboisho Conservancy is even named after the word ‘togetherness’ in Maa, as it’s seen a place where the community comes and acts together. However, to explore how community members perceived the conservancies’ role in bringing the community together or not, I asked conservancy members and non-members whether and how they thought conservancies had brought community cohesion or community conflict.
There were mixed responses. Some people thought that conservancies had brought the
community together, by physically creating a reason for people to come together, to discuss and agree on issues, and by having a shared project which together they faced the positive or negative effects from:
‘It has brought us together in two ways. First, during the community meetings, anybody you have never seen before you will get to see in person and you will get to know one another. Secondly, this business we are involved in is bringing togetherness, as we now have a reason to come together with many other people and be together. So far, it has not brought any conflicts, we are still together, because this is the kind of business that we have had to agree upon together.’
Senior elder, member of Motorogi Conservancy, community interview 29
‘If there’s a problem, we all have a problem, and if it’s an advantage, it’s an advantage to the whole community, not just a few people, but for all, and if it’s a disadvantage, the conservancy brings a
disadvantage for the whole community, so we will be in one side in everything….If I feel pain if my livestock graze in the prohibited place and pay KES 10,000, then someone else must also feel because he may also graze there.’
Elder, member of MNC, community interview 20
Another important point was that through the formation of conservancies, landowners now had a shared place which they owned, and were proud of, and this brought them together:
‘One thing with Naboisho is that people have come to be together and even if they are paid more or less money, they have their own place which belongs to them to be proud of, and I think that is togetherness.’
One senior elder, non-conservancy member, community interview 22
However, others saw the conservancy as bringing conflicts within the community, due to the restrictions on livestock grazing and the movement of settlements. As these women put it:
114
‘It has completely brought conflicts because if for example you are living on someone else’s land and he sells it (to the conservancy), you will be moved, at any time. And likewise, if there is someone else living on someone else’s land, he will also be moved in the same way.’
Group of women, husbands are non-members, community interview 24
‘For example, this conservancy we are close to - is it not a problem when the livestock cross its border and are caught? And that brings a conflict because you will then be fined.’
Group of women, husbands are members, community interview 25
These conflicts are related to the conservancy livestock grazing and settlement restrictions, which are looked at in greater detail in chapter 7. The comments suggest that there is increasing conflict amongst people over access to land for settlement and grazing. Also, the fact that conservancy payments only benefit certain people in Koyiaki and not the whole community, mean that the conservancy will generate inherent conflicts which only magnify this. Beyond the payment, conservancies include more people within their Trust activities and outreach projects, and provide indirect benefits to the wider community through community projects. These benefits, along with conservancy generated employment, are discussed further in chapter 5.