"People should also look after the people": relational values of wildlife and collectively titled land in Ilkisongo Maasai group ranches in Southern Kenya

Abstract

Categorically distinct instrumental values and non-instrumental "cultural" values of "nature" are central to ecosystem services assessments and many wildlife conservation interventions alike. However, this approach to understanding the value of nature is at odds with social scientific understandings that see value as produced through social-ecological relations and processes. With a case study of Ilkisongo Maasai land users living in group ranches surrounding Amboseli National Park in southern Kenya, we apply a relational values approach to highlight the processes of valuation that shape how different people within Maasai society come to have different shared values of wildlife and collectively titled land. First, we detail how wildlife conservation efforts in Amboseli have affected social relations through uneven conservation decision-making processes and unequal distribution of benefits from conservation. Second, we detail how conservation practices have directly influenced changing relationships between people and wildlife. Neglect of elders' common stances on how relations "ought" to be maintained (both human-human and human-nonhuman relations), and many Maasai residents' views of the "ownership" of wildlife by a minority have both fueled resentment. We show that an ironic, unintended outcome is that conservation projects, which are intended to increase the "value" of wildlife for local people as a way to foster "coexistence" of people and wildlife on collectively titled lands, are instead contributing to an increased desire by some Maasai for wildlife to be spatially separated from people and livestock. Simultaneously, current conservation projects do not build upon practices that in Maasai views, enabled historical sharing of land with wildlife. Inequality and lack of participation have been highlighted as key limitations of many community-based conservation and human-wildlife conflict mitigation initiatives. We instead focus on how wildlife conservation interventions have contributed to changing human-human and human-nonhuman relations and have in turn impacted long-term Maasai perceptions of wildlife. We argue that an expanded consideration of relational values that emphasizes the inseparability of culture and nature, but also includes a central consideration of power dynamics, might overcome some limitations of previous valuation approaches.

Challenges to understanding and managing cultural ecosystem services in the global South

“…In French Polynesia, degradation of coral reefs on the island of Moorea due to overfishing, pollution, and climate change has led to the realization that instrumental approaches to this ecosystem have undervalued other intrinsic and relational values such as identity and subsistence needs (Hunter and Lauer 2021). In Kenya, Unks et al (2021) show that the focus of conservation projects around Amboseli National Park has been to supply financial benefits to nearby Maasai communities, but this has had the unintended effect of increasing inequalities and exclusions, as well as changing communities' relationships with animals, which has led to more demand for a strict separation of wildlife and people. The authors argue that taking a relational values approach would have improved pluralistic understanding of CES and the complexities of natureculture interactions, rather than the instrumental values approach of conservation nongovernmental organizations.…”

“…As an alternate approach, understanding how CES values shape the perceived importance of and preferences for urban green space and its management could improve both urban ecosystem benefits as well as increase participation of local residents (Sultana and Selim 2021). Further, where CES are not given attention by authorities, outcomes can include alienation of communities from nearby landscapes that have provided both material resources and spiritual, cultural, and social capital, as has happened to the Yanadi community in southern India (Paul and Jones 2021) and Maasai ranches around Amboseli National Park in Kenya (Unks et al 2021).…”

Why pastoralists grow tomatoes: Maasai livelihood dynamics in Amboseli, southern Kenya

“…Table 2 is a chronology of locally important historical events harvested from the history-focused interviews. Trends show that changes in access to natural resources essential to pastoralism were the main drivers of production system transformation, and that these were specifically spurred by wildlife conservation policies (Unks et al, 2021). The creation of Amboseli National Park in 1974 is primarily what deprived herders of key access to water and pasture during the dry season.…”

“…Transhumant pastoralism in southern Kenya has been strongly affected by 20th century wildlife conservation policies (Unks et al 2021). The creation of Amboseli and Chyulu national parks in 1974 and 1983, respectively, has amputated the eastern and western extremities of the Amboseli wildlife dispersion and livestock transhumance corridors, with the Kisongo Maasai thus falling victim to (i) loss of access to water (Amboseli) and pasture (Chyulu), but also to (ii) unfair compensation for herd predation in a context of intensified human-wildlife conflict within shrinking rangeland territory (e.g., raids from elephants on crops).…”

“…The creation of group ranches has further constrained the extent of grazing areas and reduced the flexibility of Maasai pastoralism, which was a key dimension of its adaptive capacity. Resentment over policies to protect biodiversity, therefore, has reached a high tidermark (Unks et al 2021). 'Fortress' conservation attitudes initially pointed the finger at herding practices and large herd sizes, thereby perpetuating the colonial trope about the Maasai livestock economy being inefficient and motivated by a taste for prestige rather by a sound sense of ecosystem management (Homewood and Rodgers, 1984).…”