Unfortunately, MMNR and surrounding areas face a
number of threats to human livelihoods and wildlife
populations.
Human-Wildlife
Conflict
Some human land uses in Maasailand are
incompatible with wildlife survival, while increasing wildlife
density also threatens pastoral and cultivation
lifestyles.
Elephants, in particular, threaten cultivation.
Large elephant populations raise concerns about crop trampling
(Walpole et al. 2003:52) and damage to homesteads, while other
grazing animals may eat the crops intentionally. To prevent these
problems, private cultivators may fence their land, limiting
wildlife range. Other methods have been tried to simultaneously
reduce crop destruction and wildlife declines, though most have not
yet caught on in the region (id).
Pastoralism also faces threats from migratory
wildlife, with the Koyake Maasai community “refer[s] to the
annual wildebeest migration as their „yearly
famine‟” because the wildebeest outcompete cattle for
grass and introduce diseases to the domesticated animal population
(Lamprey and Reid 2004:1019). Of course, this competition works in
reverse as well, with cattle using forage that could instead be
retained for migrating zebras and wildebeest (id: 1018). As a
result, these animal populations are inherently at odds with each
other, forcing managers to search for
solutions.
Tourism is often considered to be a more benign
use of the land. However, the introduction of additional people can
have negative impacts on the ecosystem and may not always provide
benefits for local people.
Endangered Species and
Habitat
As mentioned earlier, a number of important
species face survival pressure in MMNR. In particular, some of the
most popular large mammals have experienced population declines
– beyond those expected from climate variation – in
recent years.
Due to the subdivision of group ranches, the
Maasai population has stretched further across the area. The
average homestead has declined in size from few communal bomas to
many smaller settlements (Lamprey and Reid 2004:1011). The
footprint of these additional structures covers more space,
interfering with wildlife migration patterns. Evidence suggests
that wildlife density “declines significantly” when the
density of structures rises (id: 1022). In addition to the
expanding human population, private fenced ranches limit wildlife
movement.
Tourist activities – including protected
areas – are usually seen as a less invasive use of land.
However, scholars have found evidence that tourist movements
– whether repeated use of hiking trails, or mechanized
transportation – may contribute to soil erosion and other
habitat changes (Krüger 2005:592).
Political
Instability
Poor management practices have compounded many of
the problems noted above. As noted earlier, Tanzanian policies
limiting cultivation have succeeded in reducing pressure on the
land. Kenya has not succeeded in emulating those institutional
designs (Homewood et al. 2001).
Furthermore, many Maasai have not benefited from
tourism revenues, leading them to have little stake in wildlife
conservation goals (Lamprey and Reid 2004:1024). Elite households
(ie, those who are not generally searching for livelihoods) tend to
control most of the income from tourist activities (Homewood et al.
2001:12548). These relatively wealthy families also control the
policy process in most parts of the region and they have incentives
to make policies most advantageous to their own continued incomes.
Unfortunately, “approaches…involving the sharing of
tourism revenues amongst pastoralists with communal land tenure,
have largely failed in the Mara (Lamprey and Reid
2004:1025).”
Due to the lack of trust between Maasai
communities and park authorities, and the history of external
influence on Maasai lands, ecotourism benefits are limited. In
addition, nationwide political instability occasionally reduces
tourism in the region (id).
In order to limit self-interested policy
decisions, the Trans-Mara County Council has granted management
control to the non-profit Mara Conservancy since 2000. The
Conservancy aims to reduce embezzlement by making revenue flows
more transparent. It has also shifted to more science-based
management of the Mara Triangle, with support from ecological
researchers (including some from MSU) and a recently developed ten
year Ecological Management Plan (see Exhibit 3). Although the Mara
Conservancy has received high marks for its management changes, the
Narok County Council and other surrounding areas have shown little
interest in adopting this approach.
