In a few of our recent articles, we have explored the relationship between tourism and conservation. Initially, we did so because of the widely-covered story of how Kenya’s Maasai Mara might be witnessing overcrowding with the return of tourism to the country.
The initial story (which you can access here) considered how the overcrowding is causing stress to some of the country’s iconic wildlife species. We, without arguing with this statement, decided to frame tourism and its affect on conservation in a broader debate. We did so in order that we might frame this new knowledge, of our iconic species’ stresses as impacted on by tour vehicles, within the bigger picture of tourism as it affects conservation.
That previous article, which you can access here, sought to draw attention to the continued precariousness of conservation in Africa. It was a reminder that, not thirty years ago, tourism was the carrot with which conservationists convinced local communities of the value of the wildlife as it lived, instead of as it died.
Have a read of that previous article if you want to understand how this attitudinal shift – from considering wildlife as a risk or an opportunity for sustenance or fast profits to considering them as a pull for tourism dollars – was promoted by conservationists. In this article, however, we’re going to take a closer look at the mechanics of this relationship: how exactly that attitude change works itself out in reality.
The importance of tourism to Kenya
Pre-pandemic, Kenya pulled in over 2 million tourists a year. According to the World Economic Forum, Kenya is the third-highest ranking country in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of travel and tourism competitiveness.
In a country that has as many informal industries – artisanal craftwork, informally-provided services, etc. – as Kenya does, it is very difficult to calculate the value of travel and tourism to the economy. It is, however, believed that, in 2018, tour and travel comprised 8.8% of the country’s GDP and generated some 157 billion kshs (just over 1 billion gbp).
The national parks are an obvious draw for these tourists. If you Google Kenya, it is likely that your fist image will be of the country’s iconic savannah grasslands.
Tourism is, of course, problematic. Sociological students of economics have pointed out that a country so dependent on tourism often prioritises tourism related services over those that benefit citizens. It can promote a tourist first, citizen second attitude. However, as tourism relates to conservation, it is undoubtedly important.
Maasai Mara as a case study on the relationship between conservation and tourism
The Maasai Mara offers a great example of the relationship between conservation and tourism. And, as it was the story of overcrowding in the reserve there that sparked this debate, it is a great case study to look into.
The Maasai Mara ecosystem is 4,500 square kilometres large and home to 25% of the country’s wildlife. However, 70% of that number live in the conservancies that surround the Mara national reserve.
The conservancy lands surrounding the Mara are typically owned by members of the Maasai tribe. The landowners rent the land to conservancy managers or tourism enterprises. These tour operators know that the value of the land they lease is in its untouched wilderness and that it allows for natural, organic modes to wildlife’s existence.
The lease payments, contingent on the fact that this land is left wild, are often the main source of income to local landowners. Leasing the land for conservancies is a stable and consistent source of income. Rather, it was pre-pandemic when Kenya attracted millions of tourists each year.
The land leasing is, we must remember, a business. With the loss of tourism and a lack of surety about the future, incomes and financial security are at stake in a country where local landowners have a long and storied relationship with famine and hardship.
The great fear is that the land will be put to other uses if leasing it to conservancies isn’t economically viable. Indeed, even pre-pandemic not all of the land in the Mara ecosystem was left to the wildlife. There are in fact many plots put to farming or building. What’s more, not every plot of land is taken on by leasing conservancy managers.
Landowners and tour operators don’t offer to lease every piece of land just for the sake of conservation. Similarly, landowners don’t necessarily leave the land untouched for conservationist ideals. There has to be an economic imperative behind it.