Since the beginning of the
conservation movement in the twentieth Century, humans have progressively been
moving toward the goal of protecting areas of biodiversity and wildlife
significance. In theory, this practice will lead to increased aesthetic and
recreational areas, potential research facilities, and protection of natural
resources for future generations. In some cases, this has proved possible.
However, when conservation projects conflict with local communities who have
lived off the land for generations, substantial arguments and moral rights come
into question. Who can determine whether the rights of indigenous peoples or the
conservation of biodiversity has precedence? This research project will examine
the emergence and influence of the early conservation movement, and dertermine
the effects of its implementation on a global scale. It will also address
whether the US National Park model can be applied successfully to a unique and
culturally distinct society. By focusing on the conflicts between Amboseli
National Park and the local Maasai community in Kenya, these issues will be
addressed.
The history of
national parks and protected areas began in the United States with the
establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. Two million acres of
northwestern Wyoming had been designated as preservation areas, although the
realization that the park was "not just a collection of natural curiosities but,
in fact, a wilderness preserve (Nash, 1982: 113)" came later for the U.S.
government. The intended goal was to prevent private acquisition and
exploitation of the park’s unique landscape.
Later the intention was to preserve the land from human impact. In 1916 the U.S. Congress expressed that the main purpose of national parks was "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein" in a way which would "leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations (Keller, 1998: 17)." This is representative of the changing attitudes from contempt for the wilderness to concern for the natural environment.
However, these American ideals concerning nature often portrayed humans separated from the natural environment. Rarely were the effects of human impact and development taken into account, and for a long time humans were seen as superior to nature. Biblical references to man’s "dominion over all living things" and frontier attitudes of conquering the landscape compounded this separation idea (Nash, 1982:24-31). The implications of such a line of thinking were evident in the early preservation projects. By isolating humans from the environment, natural wilderness could be preserved and maintained in its inherently wild, untouched state, although native peoples had been a part of natural ecosystems for hundreds of years. The major innovative component of national parks was the isolation of wilderness areas from human impact and development. This idea of strict preservation and pure protection had considerable influence on preservation practices and is still recognized as a preservation model.
Many of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century national parks established world-wide were "directly inspired" by the U.S. national park system, specifically Yellowstone. The emphasis for many of these parks included restrictions against people hunting, herding, farming, gathering, felling trees, and even collecting medicinal plants (Stevens, 1997: 30-31). The implementation of the national park system and the corresponding regulations and restrictions was successful in the United States because it was supported by the dominating social consensus of individuals. However, this idea of outlawing hunting and resource gathering is not universally shared or accepted. In fact, the early global conservation movement reflects the conflicting social attitudes and inequalities of resource allocation which have compounded such issues throughout conservation history (Western and Pearl, 1989:6).
This non-human impact idea caused major upsets to indigenous people living off the land, and many local communities were displaced in the process when the ‘American public-supported’ model was applied to different areas. There is irony behind the establishment of Yellowstone National Park as "the international symbol of uninhabited national parks based on strict nature protection" because actually it was the first example of an inhabited national park. Various Native American tribes lived, hunted and fished there during early years of its existence (Stevens, 1997: 28). Although it was not recognized at the time, the Yellowstone model of uninhabited, strict resource and wildlife preservation could not successfully be applied to indigenous homelands. This knowledge came too late, and in the meantime, indigenous peoples all over the world suffered in response to the establishment of protected areas and national parks.
Many conservation, preservation, and resource management projects disregard or fail to recognize the rights and contributions of indigenous peoples. Basic information about native communities and wildlife in and around wilderness areas is frequently lacking, and therefore the interconnectedness of the two entities is ignored (Agee and Johnson, 1988:3). This is not only dangerous and harmful for the local communities residing in the protected areas, but also troubling for the management and future maintenance of the park itself.
This ignorant approach of conservationists arose in part because of extensive European colonization. The European colonial concept of equality meant transforming other societies to follow the European ideal. ‘Traditions’, as viewed by colonialists, were equated with a "mindless acceptance of old practices" and encouraged the use of ‘inefficient techniques’(Baker, 1984: 55). The early conservation projects, which colonialists developed as game reserves, required that the least technologically adaptable African societies make room for such sanctuaries (Yeager and Miller, 1986:14). This negative attitude toward indigenous cultures and their customs carried over into the conservation approach since projects were carried out by foreigners who knew little about the situation, much like colonial activity. This attitude further led to the traditional concept of natural ecosystem management that includes preserving a pristine area, untouched by humans, that is maintained in its original, undisturbed state. This traditional approach does not consider the human ecological issues which arise between human communities and their respective environments, especially their physical surroundings (Agee and Johnson, 1988:16). This can have devastating effects on the native societies surrounding protected areas.
Communities next to protected areas bear the costs of the land separation and rarely see any profit gain from it. Therefore, local communities see preservation projects as unfair obstacles that restrict their abilities to earn a living. In addition, the population, health, and unsustainable land use issues which prioritize their lives cause illegal encroachment of preservation laws (Wells and Brandon, 1992: 2). Similarly Western and Pearl note that third world governments are focused on the more prevalent issues of welfare and the quality of life (1989:18).
The effects of establishing a protected area can be severe and long-term for some indigenous peoples, as seen in the plight of Native Americans in the U.S. "In practice wildlife conservation policy and programmes have often had a negative impact on the livelihood of the majority of people living in or near a conservation area or park (UNEP, 1988:1)." Some of these consequences include displacement or relocation of local peoples and their livestock, overpopulation, prohibited access to resources and/or hunting grounds, impoverishment, cultural destruction, accelerated health problems, and even starvation (UNEP, 1988:1; Stevens, 1997:2; McNeely and Miller, 1984:11)
When the impacts of these issues are combined with prevailing population and agricultural expansion trends, with existing high mortality rates and increased disease cases, and with unsustainable land use and increasing pollution problems, the effects of creating protected and isolated areas can be detrimental. This is especially true when you consider that in many parts of the world, the best and sometimes last remaining areas of rich wilderness and biological diversity being sought after to protect are often found within the homelands of indigenous peoples; mostly in underdeveloped countries (Stevens, 1997:1). This increases the conflicts between park management who wish to keep the protected area free from human impact, and the needy local communities which require use of the land for survival.
Another problem is the association between conservation projects and a top-down approach. Traditional conservation is often instigated by outsiders of foreigners to the country. Because these conservationists lack local ties, they instead target ‘policy-makers’ with whom they attempt to gain support. They hope that this support will then change the actions of the local community, instead of the conservationists working with and negotiating corresponding needs and concerns. This approach reinforces existing conflicts and divisions between local communities and the government (Ghimire and Pimbert 1997: 109). Also, the tendency of environmental issues to be treated as global issues has increased the interventions of state and international organizations. This merely emphasizes the top-down approach, which results from the monetary support coming from the rich, developed Northern countries and being applied to the diversified and troubled third-world South (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997: 124-125).
In light of these conflicting issues and
priorities, Amboseli National Park exemplifies the problems associated with
indigenous communities and wilderness preserves. The history of the park
reflects the traditional management approach which excludes the concerns of
indigenous peoples. By examining the Amboseli ecosystem and its related
ecological issues, then the historical traditions of the Maasai, the background
of the Amboseli conservation movement will show the basis of
conflict.
Ambolsei
Background
The Amboseli
ecosystem is typical of the open savanna grassland habitats of Eastern Africa.
However, the geographic presence of Mount Kilimanjaro creates varying ecosystems
within the Amboseli area. The Amboseli
basin which is fed by springs, provides a permanent source of water durning the
dry season, while the river systems north of the basin form a seasonal
floodplane which is used by migratory animals during the rainy seasons (McNeely
and Miller, 1984:94). These bodies of water encourage and sustain the migratory
patterns of the Amboseli wildlife and the Maasai livestock.
Although the Amboseli region has a low wildlife biomass and diversity due to seasonal precipitation patterns, it supports a greater variety of animals than the neighboring Tsavo national parks, which are fifty times as large. Various unique animals live in the area including elephants, lion, cheetah, giraffes, zebras, buffalo, rhino, wildebeest, gerenuks, impalas, gazelles, hyenas, baboons, bats and about 425 different birds (Western and Wright, 1994:14,20).
One of the most important aspects of the Amboseli ecosystem, in regards to the local Maasai community, is the seasonal migrations of the African ungulates. These migrants are randomly spread over the 8,000 square kilometers of the area. Their patterns are determined by rainfall which forces concentration of animals around the watering holes during dry seasons. This can cause size limitations to these populations and problems for the local herders (Western and Wright, 1994:20).
The Maasai lifestyle and subsistence is
historically based on pastoralism. Dependent on their herds of cattle, sheep,
and goats for milk, meat, and trade, the Maasai followed the same migratory
patterns as area wildlife. Although the wildlife were a potential threat to
their livestock and lifestyle, the Maasai tolerated them because the animals
were utilized as ‘second cattle’ during droughts and times of depleted livestock
(Western and Wright, 1994:22).
The evolution of Amboseli national park was gradual. First it was designated Amboseli Game Reserve in 1906. During this period the Maasai were permitted use of the reserved area, making Amboseli one of the few multiple-use systems set up in Africa at the time (Wells and Brandon, 1992). The goal of the reserve was to protect wildlife from being depleted through hunting, and the Maasai were granted full land rights (McNeely and Miller 1984:94). During the Amboseli National Reserve era Kenya’s Game Policy Committee officially held a policy which would not "interfere with indigenous people or stand in the way of legitimate human development (Stevens, 1997: 46)." This maintained the traditional balance between the Maasai and wildlife, until the national park model was introduced.
In 1945 the National Park Ordinance in Africa called for a drastic change in conservation policy from "protection through legal hunting to preservation through land protection (Western and Wright, 1994:15)." Although the Maasai strongly opposed the policy, a traditional conservation approach was implemented nonetheless. McNeely and Miller describe the situation:
The reasons for conserving wildlife were thought by the colonial governments of the day to be justifiable-the preservation of "our" natural heritage, aesthetic appeal, scientific and educational values, the preservation of a diverse array of earth’s creatures, and the economic potential of the parks-but the effect was to deprive nomads of the lands they had been guaranteed under earlier agreements. Instead, the land was devoted toe wildlife under alien control (1984:94).
Conflict Between Ambolsei National Park and Local Maasai
The objectives and priorities of the government were incongruous with the needs of the Maasai; as expected, conflicts ensued between the conservationists and the Maasai. Despite the protests from the local Maasai community, the Amboseli National Reserve was established in 1947 in the hope that it would soon become a national park similar to those sprouting up throughout Africa at the time. Although the Maasai were allowed to remain in the reserve, they viewed the policy as a seizure of their land (Western and Wright, 1994:17). The hostility of the Maasai began to increase because of the physical and moral imposition caused by the reservation.
Although the Maasai did not approve it,
the Amboseli National Reservation was declared a national park in 1971 by
presidential decree because the Council was too weak to take leadership. Then it
was established officially in 1974 which sparked protests and initiated Maasai
anger (Stevens, 1997:46). During this time, the Maasai were experiencing
detrimental changes in their ecosystem and traditional lifestyle.
A case study by the United Nations
Environment Programme details some of these issues. Human lives and property,
crops, and livestock were damaged by game, in addition to the spread of diseases
which had devastating effects on the local Maasai population. The Maasai were
also having trouble getting their compensation from the park, yet bans on
hunting and wildlife cropping created an overpopulation of wildlife. This
overpopulation was degrading land through overgrazing and soil erosion. Apart
from these issues, major concerns of the Maasai were their lacking ranch land
and park-usability privileges (UNEP, 1988:73).
Tourism was having a similarly degrading
effect on the Maasai culture. Exploitation of local tour guides, illegal
photographs, the introduction of dangerous drugs, and other cultural violations
led to the "destruction of traditional values and respect" amongst the Maasai
community (UNEP, 1988:73). Most of the tourism revenues were not locally
focused, and instead were sent out of the area (73).
Because of these issues, the Maasai began
pressuring community representitives to find resolutions for the future.
A conservation plan was developed to
designate 600 square kilometers as Maasai park. This meant that the park would
have the legal status of a national park, but would be controlled by the Maasai
community, however the plan was rejected. Meanwhile, conflicts and hostility
between the Maasai and the park grew.
Soon after the initial rejection, the
central government forced the plan onthe community through the traditional
top-down approach; although the Maasai had already voted against it (McNeely and
Miller, 1984:95-96). Retaliation followed the establishment of the park; the
Maasai killed large numbers of wild animals to exhibit their disapproval.
Finally, negotiations were made and a compromised reached. The Maasai agreed to
stop grazing their animals if boundaries were lessened, which they negotiated
down to 488 square kilometers. Compensation fees for loss of grazing
opportunities and development assistance on the surrounding ranchlands were also
stipulations of the treaty. However, many of the promised stipulations were
either met inadequately or not at all. Therefore, the Maasai returned to
herding, now ‘illegally’ in the national park (Stevens, 1997:46).
Because the original plan was not properly implemented the conflicting issues resurfaced. For example, the new water source the Maasai had been promised by the development assistance stipulation was not working. Therefore, new expanded plans were mandated by the World Bank in exchange for funding for a functional water pipeline (McNeely and Miller, 1984:96). The implementation of expanded plans would incorporate the promised benefits uniformly, especially to the local Maasai community. These expanded plans required:
that in return for continued access to the entire ecosystem, Amboseli’s wildlife could contribute economically to the landowners through a grazing compensation fee, through hunting and cropping on their land, and by accommodating tourist campsites, and possible lodges. Non-monetary benefits could also be obtained through employment, and social amenities such as a school and a hospital, which would service park staff (McNeely and Miller, 1984:96).
This expanded plan showed that the intended park benefits would provide the Maasai with an income 85 percent higher than that which livestock could bring (94). Once the community had gained an understanding of the new benefits, the Maasai exhibited an attitude of greater acceptance toward the park.
New legislation, major planning and investment policies were required to see the new plan through. Soon Amboseli became a model which would provide the foundation for wildlife and tourism development. Eventually a national plan was developed to promote wildlife training, planning, education, management, and tourism components (McNeely and Miller, 1984:96). The innovation of this community-based plan, which incorporated the economic and social issues of the local population, symbolized an important step in changing the face of future conservation approaches.
Amboseli National Park Outcomes
The successes of the expanded plan have made Amboseli National Park "one of the most cited examples of protected areas returning benefits to local communities (Wells and Brandon, 1992:70)." The plan has shown that Maasai ranchers can benefit economically from the park which has become a source of secure employment, revenue, and social services for the local indigenous community. For example, the first $30,000 fee which compensated the Maasai for tolerating wildlife was used to build a community school. A wildlife committee made up of ranchers has been formed, and a tourist camp has been installed to create additional revenue (McNeely and Miller, 1984:97).
Additionally, the number of wildlife in the Amboseli ecosystem has increased significantly. Elephant and rhino numbers are rising because of reduced poaching. Zebra and wildebeest populations have also increased because of less competition with domestic stock. Wildlife populations are also exhibiting more natural distribution patterns. These changes could potentially allow for further tourist revenues through hunting trips, if the hunting ban is lifted from the park. (McNeely and Miller, 1984:97). These changes in the community are largely due to the community-based conservation approach undertook by the park.
However, not all of the outcomes have been successful. The ‘water scheme’ has again "proved defective in design and deficient in cost-effectiveness (McNeely and Miller, 1984:97)" which sometimes forces the Maasai into the park for water. The standards of road design and building are lacking, while visitor management also falls short of the communities’ needs. Perhaps the largest drawback remains in the "continued reluctance by central government to include the Maasai as fully as they might in the benefits of Amboseli (97)." These issues represent the imperfections and limitations of the Amboseli model.
Although significant changes have been made in the conservation approach of the Kenya central government towards the Maasai community, the early attitudes which were exhibited during the initial establishment of the Amboseli National Park continue throughout the world today.
By examining the faults of the traditional top-down, isolation approach to conservation through the case of the Maasai in Kenya, various general reform ideas emerge. First, it should be recognized that humans are inherently part of the natural ecosystem. Their actions and interactions with other organisms provide a connection and often a balance in ecosystem functioning. For example, many protected areas and conservation projects are established with the goal of maintaining biodiversity. Some ‘purist’ ecologists believe that any interference in ecosystems caused by humans leads to the depletion of species diversity. However, it has been shown that some forms of human interference can actually enhance biodiversity. Ghimire and Pimbert note how the biological diversity of the Serengeti grasslands are being partially maintained by the grazing and migration of Maasai cattle. The cattle prevent scrubs and woodland species from overgrowing, which allows for more grazing opportunities for other animals such as antelope (1997: 115). This is just one example of the intricate relationship between human activity and the natural environment in which it occurs.
Another idea to keep in mind regarding productive conservation projects is that "all management is a long-term experiment, and decisions are always made with less than complete information (Agee and Johnson, 1988:226)." Even if all interested parties actively cooperate and aggressively negotiate, there is always a possibility that some component, attitude, or issue will either be overlooked or unclear. A possible solution to this imperfection is to actively include indigenous peoples in the creation, planning, and promotion of ‘community-controlled’ strategies. This allows enhancement of community control of land, knowledge, and resources through self-development. In the case that outside help is required, which is common, the non-indigenous parties should facilitate, not dominate, the process. Also, keeping records of indigenous knowledge, biodiversity and wildlife information can provide benefits to the local community.
The major criticism of the top-down conservation approach has led to the idea of making conservation organizations accountable for indigenous peoples. The concerns and needs of the local community and their present social and economical situation must be understood and considered when initiating a conservation project (Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997: 125). The best method for incorporating the concerns and needs of the people involves maintaining communication and fostering open negotiation between the community and the project managers or policy-makers. This includes consideration of the varying objectives, goals, mandates and legal issues which require the sensitivity of all the interested parties (Agee and Johnson 1998: 226). This approach not only ensures better management procedures and increased local support, but also reflects the inherent moral rights of indigenous peoples. One major reform principle underlies all the specific and general reform ideas: involving the community.
The intricate relationship between humans and the natural environment creates various social, political, economical and moral issues. It has been shown that the traditional conservation approach does not address these interconnected issues and further fails to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. The case of the Maasai and the Amboseli National Park is merely one of many conservation projects which allows the encroachment of indigenous rights. The need for a community-based, local involvement approach to conservation is desperately needed. As the earth’s remaining natural resources continue to be depleted, the fate of indigenous peoples continues to remain in a fragile state. As humans we must work toward conservation goals which preserve the integrity and history of traditional indigenous cultures. Until these goals are achieved the rights of indigenous peoples will continue to be threatened.
Agee J. And Johnson, D. (ed.) (1988). Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Baker, R. (1984). "Protecting the environment against the poor: the historical roots of the soil degradation orthodoxy in the Third World". The Ecologist 14 )2): 53- 60
Ghimire, K. And Pimbert, M. (Ed.) (1997). Social Change and Conservation, London: Earthscan Publications Limited.
Keller, R. And Turek, M. (1998). American Indians and National Parks, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. "From Yosemite to Zuni."
McNeely, J. And Miller, K. (Ed.) (1984). National Parks, Conservation, and Development, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Nash, R. (1982). Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stevens, S. (ed.) (1997). Conservation Through Cultural Survival, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
UNEP (1988). People, Parks and Wildlife: Guidelines for Public Participation in Wildlife Conservation, Nairobi:UNEP Publishing.
Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (1992). People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank
Western, D. and Pearl, M. (Ed.) (1989). Conservation for the Twenty-first Century, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Western, D. and Wright, M. (Ed.) (1994). Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Yeager, R. And Miller, N. (1986). Wildlife, Wild Death: Land Use and Survival in Eastern Africa, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Links
1.Amboseli National Park
http://www.busprod.com/twog/Africa/amboseli.html
2. General Maasai information
http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/people/Maasai.html
3. Adrian Arbib: human rights and environment photographer exhibition (including the Maasai)
http://www.arbib.org/front.html
4. People and Culture of Kenya: Maasai
http://www.ietravel.com/destafrkenyaculhis.html#maas
5. "The Future of Maasai People and Wildlife" by Meitamei Olol-Dapash
http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/dec97/maasai.html
6. The Maasai Tribe