Does Governance Influence Community Support in Conservation and Ecological Sustainability of Wildlife Conservancies? Lessons from Northern Kenya

Abstract

The Community-Based Conservation (CBC) approach views local people as interested parties who should actively participate in and control conservation efforts, which contrasts with the conventional 'fortress conservation' common in government-protected areas isolated from human disturbance. The transition from fortress conservation to CBC, however, has not been a smooth journey for many African countries, especially in the sub-Saharan Africa region. This is because, in some cases, local communities do not see themselves as part of the governance structure of these conservancies, which affects the long-term ecological sustainability of the conservancies. Using eight (8) conservancies in the arid and semi-arid counties of Isiolo and Samburu, Kenya, this study used exploratory research to gather data from 24 Focus Group Discussions (FDGs) and forty-eight (48) key informant interviews (KIIs) to assess the influence of communities’ involvement on ecological outcomes of the conservancies. Other secondary sources also supported the primary data sources. Our findings showed that the governance model does influence community support for conservancies, and the benefits that communities receive or expect from the conservancies also have a strong influence on their support for conservation. However, it was established that community conservancies have brought positive changes to the wildlife population trends and habitat health. The study recommends the development of the National Rangelands Resources Management Policy and institutional arrangements to strengthen and safeguard the future of wildlife conservation within those conservancies and to provide clarity on the roles of different stakeholders. The study also recommends further studies on the actual impact of governance on community perception, the value of existing investments in community benefits, and the long-term implications of climate change impacts on conservancy ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Globally, conservation has been considered as an overarching goal of natural resource management, where conservation is primarily seen as a socio-political process aimed at maintaining biological diversity as a public good to be kept for the future well-being of the planet [1]. From a sustainability context, with specific reference to SDG No. 15 on life on land, the sustainable development-centered approach to natural resource conservation ensures conservation in a larger landscape, including private or community lands where government protected areas may not be established or where the biota are migratory, traversing other lands outside government protected areas, as means for supporting conservation and long-term human development. This approach measures success by reversals in degradation trends and not by increasing incomes. Over the years, the global community has been struggling to reduce biodiversity loss and has already missed its target to reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss at global, regional, and national levels by 2010 [2]. Equally, none of the Aichi targets set later for 2011–2020 were fully met, and this is a cause for concern for the global community [3,4]. This loss is driven by complex, persistent, stronger, and intertwined underlying forces of society, economy, and culture. These include changes in land use, land degradation, and fragmentation as a result of agriculture, urbanization, climate change, and direct exploitation, including poaching and invasive species [5]. These drivers stem from a range of underlying indirect drivers that result from societal values and global behavior. These values and behaviors influence human consumption patterns and demands, population dynamics and trends, trade, technological innovations, and governance of natural resources.

During the colonial and post-colonial periods, nationalist and class-based conservation models dominated global natural resource conservation. These models assumed that all the disadvantaged people wanted was a better share of the wealth, and thus adopted the ‘bullets and fence’ approach in the protection of wildlife. The fences were meant to separate nature from threatening human activity [6]. Over time, many conservationists realized that top-down, fortress conservation was not working as expected, and some scholars claim it was fundamentally flawed [7]. In addition to failing to enhance conservation, it is argued that the model contributed to the deterioration of the livelihoods of the local people. Evidence shows that, even with the fence, the wildlife population continued the decline at an alarming rate globally [8], as demonstrated by massive losses, especially in Africa, including Western, Central, and Eastern Africa, between 1977 and 2016, where on average wildlife populations declined by 68%. The traditional fortress conservation model was partly blamed for this decline and ineffective conservation of biodiversity, as it excluded the local people from conservation. Instead, the model viewed local communities as the drivers of biodiversity degradation. However, indigenous community lands cover a significant portion of the terrestrial surface area of the globe, 38 million km², translating to 28% of Earth’s terrestrial surface, which can play an essential part in biodiversity conservation if the Global Biodiversity Framework Targets set for 2030 are to be achieved [9].

This protracted critique of traditional fortress conservation led to the proliferation of the Community-Based Conservation (CBC) approach in the 1980s. The seeds of this alternative decentralized approach first emerged in the southern African countries of South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia. These countries adopted progressive wildlife management policies, which introduced devolved proprietorship towards wildlife resources aimed at inculcating economic incentives for conservation (ibid). This was stimulated by the fact that the foundations of the economies of most of these nations are based on natural resources, which not only provide a wide range of valuable natural products but also support people’s livelihoods. Therefore, this means that the local communities do have a greater interest in the sustainable utilization of their resources. The philosophy of this model is directly opposite to the fortress model because local people are viewed as interested parties who should actively participate and control conservation efforts. CBC seeks to involve local communities in decision-making on the management and utilization of natural resources [10] and offer local people control over their environments. In support of this model, some studies have shown that there is more biodiversity in places where local people share their land with wildlife, arguing that the local communities are aware of the intricacies of local ecological processes and practices. Even the most recent studies by Dawson et al. (2024) revealed that, if local communities are given more control in governance and management, it translates to significantly more positive ecological outcomes [11]. These local communities can effectively manage the resources through traditional mechanisms [12]. The CBC model thus gives survival assurance to wildlife outside formal government-protected areas and secures migratory routes from conversion into other incompatible land use [13] and envisions incorporating democratic governance, equity, sustainable management, and conservation ideals [14]. It is, however, essential to note that the transition from fortress conservation to CBC has not been a smooth journey for many African countries, especially in the sub-Saharan Africa region. This is because, alongside states and local actors in those countries, natural resources management and governance decisions are influenced by forces and actors beyond the boundaries of those states, with prominent influence coming from multilateral and bilateral development aid and donor agencies [15]. This influence is more prominent now than ever before with the entry of carbon markets.

Kenya relies heavily on natural resources to support its economy and people’s livelihoods, but until recently, when conservancies emerged in the 1990s, natural resources management and conservation in the country were based on state-centered approaches [16]. The conservancies emerged in response to the challenges of poaching, land degradation, human–wildlife conflict, and rising poverty around protected areas, and are based on the principle that, with necessary support and incentives, communities and landowners can be stewards of wildlife conservation (ibid). The CBC model has gained momentum in the last three decades, where, according to the African Wildlife Foundation, private protected areas in both marine and terrestrial habitats have increased several-fold since 1970 to cover about 3.06 million square kilometers [17]. According to Richard et.al. [18], the number of conservancies (community or privately-owned protected areas for conservation) in Africa has increased, with Kenya having over 140 conservancies, and Namibia having 16% of the entire country under community conservancies. Over time, the scope, complexity, and purpose of the conservancies have grown beyond just wildlife conservation and tourism to include land management, income generation and employment creation, peace building, conflict resolution and cohesion, and community-led development. However, the evolution of these conservancies was self-driven and outside any regulatory framework until 2013, when they obtained legal recognition through the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, 2013.

Many of these conservancies are in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) areas of Kenya, mainly in the southern and northern parts of the country. These regions have, in recent years, witnessed unprecedented growth in the number of community conservancies, with up to 27 community conservancies covering over 3 million hectares of land with a representation of more than 250,000 people [19,20]. The Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT), which supported the establishment of many of those community conservancies, stipulates that the conservancies are aimed at improving land management, biodiversity conservation, and the livelihoods of their constituents (ibid). Ideally, these conservancies aim to bring together people living and utilizing resources in a particular area under a well-structured corporate body, to enhance land and resource conservation and management, as well as improve their social well-being [21,22,23].

Despite the widespread acknowledgement of the importance of conservancies in biodiversity conservation and their positive contributions to socio-economic development globally, there is no proven model of governance arrangements to run these critical ecosystems. However, governance arrangements of the conservancies will determine if they achieve the objectives for which they were established. In northern Kenya, conservancies are mainly communal, with the majority being on unregistered community lands and only a few on group ranches registered under previous land tenure regimes. They were established, among other objectives, to improve communities’ welfare and enhance ecological sustainability. For those conservancies established on group ranches, the NRT, which is behind the establishment of these conservancies, supports the communities to establish companies that run the conservancies on their behalf [24], and governance representatives come from the leadership of the group ranches. This organizational structure of groups or companies is a proven idea, as Tu, C., et al. (2023) established in their experimental research that a high level of self-organization and cooperation leads to long-term resource sustainability [25]. However, in the case of conservancies on unregistered community lands, it is unclear how the directors or the owners of these private companies are chosen, and what their accountability and responsibility to the larger community are. It is also unclear how community representatives are selected in the vast unregistered community lands and how the current governance framework influences the outcomes of improving communities’ welfare and enhancing ecological sustainability. This study aims to evaluate the impact of this gap by examining the influence of governance arrangements in community wildlife conservancies and their consequences on socioeconomic and ecological sustainability. It is revealed that indeed there are inadequacies in the literature on pool resource governance because it fails to analyze the entire stretch of governance levels, including policy levels of the National Government, even though they affect the effectiveness of shared pool resource governance and conservation [26]. Accordingly, a study by Mbidzo, M., et al. (2021) on the analysis of conservancies and community forests in Namibia’s Zambezi region revealed that the efficacy and impact of community conservation vary with the national policies and institutional arrangements in place [27].

2. Materials and Methods

The study targeted the Rangelands of northern Kenya, specifically the counties of Isiolo and Samburu. The two counties are among the twenty-four counties classified as arid and semi-arid (ASAL) in Kenya. Globally, the ASAL areas account for more than forty percent of the surface of the earth and are inhabited by thirty-five percent of the global population [28]. In Kenya, approximately eighty (80%) percent of the total area of the country is classified as ASAL, which is habitat to a large percentage of the wildlife population in the country, both within and outside the protected areas. According to the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)—Kenya’s State of the Environment Report, over seventy percent of wildlife is found outside protected areas, mainly in the ASAL rangelands [29,30].

It is worth noting that community conservancies account for over eighty percent of all Kenyan conservancies. Northern Kenya is home to such conservancies since land ownership is still communal. According to the NRT, the larger northern Kenya region has the highest acreage of community conservancies, covering about 5,595,202 million hectares [31]. The northern Kenya counties of Isiolo and Samburu account for about eight percent of Kenya’s landmass and host twenty community conservancies, approximately seventeen percent (17%) of the total community conservancies in the country. Thus, the significance of these counties in the conservation of wild biodiversity in Kenya cannot be gainsaid. There are fifteen conservancies in Samburu (eleven supported by the NRT and four by the County Government of Samburu), while Isiolo County hosts five conservancies, all backed by the NRT. These two counties were therefore chosen due to their uniqueness in land tenure systems and concentration of community conservancies.

The study utilized an exploratory research design and employed a qualitative method of data gathering. The qualitative information was supported and strengthened by secondary data on the governance of community conservancies in the target counties. Data were collected on the demographic characteristics of the population, the influence of governance arrangements on the level of community support for conservancy programs, and institutional frameworks that support governance of the community conservancies. Moreover, information on the ecological characteristics of the conservancies and their socioeconomic benefits to the communities was also gathered. Data sources were both primary and secondary. The primary sources were Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) from selected members of the community and key informant interviews (KIIs) from selected persons involved in the governance of the conservancies. Data were collected from nine (9) conservancies of the 20 conservancies, from which nineteen (19) FGDs and seventeen (17) KIIs were conducted. The FGDs comprised leaders of the community conservancies, leaders in the community, point men in the conservancies, and other selected key persons in the community of study. The representation of the FGDs comprises sixty-two (62) women, twenty-nine (29) men, and twenty-three (23) youths, representing 54.39%, 25.44%, and 20.18%, respectively. The sampled representatives were also distributed over the two counties, with Isiolo County having 41.23% of the FGD members, while Samburu County had 58.77% of the FGD respondents.

Table 1. Distribution of FGDs and composition in the conservancies.

S/N	Name of Conservancy	County	Women	Men	Youth
1	NakupratGootu (Nakuprat)	Isiolo	7	6	0
2	NakupratGootu (Gootu)	Isiolo	7	0	6
3	Leparua	Isiolo	5	0	5
4	Nasuulu	Isiolo	5	0	6
5	Meibae	Samburu	5	0	0
6	Naluwon	Samburu	7	6	0
7	Ngilai	Samburu	5	5	0
8	Kalama	Samburu	6	5	0
9	Ltungai-Malaso	Samburu	9	7	0
10	Baragoi Conservation Area	Samburu	6	0	6
	Totals		62	29	23

shows a breakdown of the FGDs and their composition.

In addition to the FGDs, data were also collected from key informant interviews administered with conservancy managers, board members of the target conservancies, non-governmental staff, county government officials, National Government officials from the Ministry of Devolution and Coordination of National Government, and officials from other relevant National Government agencies like the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and NEMA, among others. Data from the FGDs and KIIs were gathered using semi-structured interview guides targeting the respective respondents. Secondary sources of data were literature reviews on peer-reviewed scholarly works, reports, and other relevant literature. From these sources, we collected data on governance arrangements of the community conservancies, the level of support for community members for conservancy programs, and the participation level of community members in community conservancies, as well as the application of the principles of good environmental governance in the operation of the conservancies.

The data gathered during the FGDs and KIIs were analyzed descriptively in line with the research questions. Data collected during the administration of the two primary data collection tools were carefully reviewed, cleaned, and segmented into themes. The segmentation was examined further and analyzed before coherent presentation according to the research objectives. The presentation of the data brought out the governance arrangements of the conservancies, the governance practices in operation within the conservancies, the application of the principles of good environmental governance, the level of participation of communities in conservancy activities, and the support they accord to those activities. Also spelt out were the community benefits and costs of conservation, as well as the ecological trends in the conservancies.

3. Results

The data on demographics show that more females (56%) participated in the FGDs, and most of the respondents (65%) had lived in the conservancy areas for over thirty years. This implies that the respondents had sufficient knowledge of the area and were able to respond from a position of knowledge and enough exposure to how community conservancies have evolved, and how they have been governed over time. Respondents of the age group of 30 years and above represented over 70% of the members, which is an indication that they are old enough to observe the evolution of conservancies over time, and thus would give an opinion based on their knowledge of how governance had affected the sustainability of community wildlife conservancies in the two counties. Similarly, about a quarter of the respondents in the FGDs were officials in the conservancies and had a good knowledge of the governance infrastructure of the conservancies. In addition, the mixture of officials and members of the conservancies provided a good blend that could give different and diverse views of how governance structures in the community conservancies have evolved and promoted sustainability. The summary of the demographic information is provided in

Table 2. Summary of characteristics of the group members.

Variable	Sub-Variable	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Female	64	56
	Male	50	44
Age	20–35 years	40	35
	36–50 years	41	36
	51+ years	33	29
Years lived in the area.	Below 10	11	7
	11–30 years	33	28
	Over 30 years	70	65
Role in the conservancy	Member	86	75
	Official	28	25

.

3.1. Community Support and Governance of Wildlife Conservancies

The influence of community support was assessed by examining the extent and level of community participation in conservancy programs and activities, as well as any hindrances to effective community participation in conservancy governance and programs. To assess the extent of community participation in conservancy programs and activities, five indicators were evaluated: (i) the number of community members participating in conservancy programs and activities; (ii) the proportion of men and women involved in programs and decision making; (iii) the type of governance activities, e.g., elections, security and peace-building processes that the communities participated in; (iv) involvement of community members in governing positions; and (v) effects of county government support on communities’ participation.

From our analyses, at least 89.5% of the groups indicated that community members participated in conservancy programs and activities. Those groups that reported stronger participation highlighted areas of involvement, such as the promotion of peace, where different communities within the conservancy contribute rangers to protect the conservancy. For example, in Nakuprat-Gootu, the two communities of Borana and Turkana contributed rangers for conservancy protection. The rangers ensured that no livestock thefts occurred within their conservancy and that people lived peacefully. Communities also supported governance efforts by participating in the election of members onto management committees or as trustees and in planning meetings of conservancies. They received reports and information and helped in priority setting for the conservancies. It should, however, be noted that men played a bigger role in participation and supporting conservation efforts than women. Comparatively, it was also pointed out that women's involvement in Samburu County was lower than in Isiolo County, and that they were less involved in management and key decision-making within the conservancy.

The strong support that the communities gave to the conservancies was due to the benefits that the community members felt from engaging in community conservancies. These benefits included scholarships for local learners (from primary to university), water projects in the area for livestock and household use, support for the sick and mothers through transport services to hospitals, and security interventions, especially in response to livestock thefts. It was observed that most of the conservancy rangers provided security support to the community by following up on stolen livestock, offering transport services for the locals, along with stakeholders like KWS, and ensuring wildlife was not in any way harmed.

However, the communities reported some barriers to effective participation in conservancies’ activities. Lack of resources was cited as a key impediment in assembling the community members spread across several villages in the extensive conservancy areas extending hundreds of square kilometers, but also for organizing forums. This was compounded by illiteracy, which, according to 32% of the groups, hindered those unable to read and understand printed information on conservancy from contributing meaningfully to discussions on governance of their conservancies. Illiteracy was more prevalent among women members, which denied them the confidence to question the governance of the conservancies. Community members also observed a lack of transparency on governance issues and a lack of information-sharing platforms as another deterrent to fruitful community participation in wildlife conservation. About 68% of the FGD members cited a lack of transparency in handling governance issues as a key challenge. In comparison, another 37% cited inadequate information-sharing platforms as the cause of ineffective and less meaningful community participation.

According to the data collected from both the interviews and the FGDs, there was unanimity that there was a strong relationship between community support for conservancy programs and governance. Men and women in both counties felt that there was a strong relationship between the nature of governance of the conservancies and community support, and hence influence on the ensuing long-term sustainability of the conservancies. Furthermore, the members reported that there was a strong relationship between community members’ participation in conservation activities and good governance of the conservancies in the two counties. It was, however, evident that communities’ support for conservancies is strongly driven by the benefits that the communities receive or anticipate receiving from the conservancies directly or indirectly, mainly because there are experiences of such realized benefits already in most of the conservancies. This can be explained by the county-established conservancies, whose members strongly support the conservancies but have not yet received direct benefits.

3.2. Ecological Health and Socioeconomic Benefits to the Communities

Ecological characteristics as well as socioeconomic benefits were analyzed from the responses given by the key informant interviews and the FGDs. Ecological benefits included changes and trends in wildlife populations, habitat health, and incidences of poaching. Further, the study sought to establish ecological benefits accrued from the community conservancies for the local communities, and the trends of these benefits. Similarly, the study sought to identify the costs associated with the conservancies for the communities.

3.2.1. Ecological Health of the Conservancies

Across the community and group conservancies in both counties, it was reported that wildlife populations of elephants, giraffes, and ostriches had increased over time after conservation efforts were concentrated in the community areas. The incidences of poaching had also significantly reduced as communities embraced the conservancy idea and received benefits from wildlife conservation. The NRT reported that the improved security had enabled the reintroduction of the black rhino. These endangered species had been locally extinct in the area, the wild natural habitat in the Sera of Kalama Conservancy. According to the NRT, this was made possible by the community support and appreciation. This was corroborated by data from the National Wildlife Census Report of 2021, which estimated the country’s elephant population to be 36,169, an increase from 32,214 in 2014. This represents an increase of 12% in the population [32]. Further, the 2017 census of elephants in the Laikipia–Samburu–Marsabit ecosystems established that the elephant population rose from 6454 in 2012 to 7347 animals, an increase of 14% in five years [33]. Figure 1 below shows the elephant population trend between 1990 and 2017. It is worth noting that the Laikipia–Samburu–Marsabit ecosystems host the second largest population of elephants in Kenya after the Tsavo ecosystem and are home to the largest population of elephants outside government-protected areas. The trend indicates that the elephant population began to decline between 2012 and 2014, coinciding with an increase in ivory poaching. Mukeka et al. affirmed that 2012 was the year with the highest poaching levels in Kenya so far [34]. However, the population started regeneration after 2014, and this increase in population is attributable to the reduction in poaching owing to more government effort in curbing the menace and increased protection within the community areas. This is according to the NRT’s Status of Wildlife Report, 2005–2019 [35]. The report states that, after 2014, when conservancies were initiated, the number of illegally killed elephants reduced significantly, owing to the protection from conservancy rangers, as shown in Figure 2. More significantly, during the 2012 census, it was established that elephants were mainly concentrated in the government-protected areas and private ranches in Laikipia since the elephants sought refuge there due to intense poaching in northern Kenya in the late 1970s. However, the trend has since changed, and elephants are now freely found in community areas enabled by the establishment of conservancies [36]. Elephants are now being sighted in conservancy areas more due to improved safety in community conservancies, as shown in Figure 3 (ibid). The increase in population was also true for some other big game animals like buffalo and reticulated giraffes across the Laikipia–Samburu–Marsabit ecosystems. For instance, the buffalo population rose from 4069 to 4499 during the five years from 2012 to 2017, which translates to about a 10% increase and an annual growth rate of 2%. The giraffe population marked a significantly higher growth, with an increase in population from 2839 to 4223 animals during the five years (ibid), translating to a 10% annual growth rate.

Similarly, trends from CITES’s Monitoring of Illegally Killed Elephants (MIKE) show that there was an overall reduction in the proportion of killed elephants (PIKE), that is, poached elephants, as shown in Figure 2. The proportion rose from 20% in 2009 to 57% in 2010, and to a high of 77%, showing the peak of poaching activities in 2012. With the increase in community conservancies, the proportions reduced to 43% in 2014, and further to 20% in 2022, hence showing the positive contribution of community conservancies to biodiversity conservation.

Regarding habitat health, it was established that there were positive changes across conservancies in both counties based on the responses from the FGDs. The key indicator was increased vegetation cover, which was accompanied by increased wildlife numbers. Analysis of trends in land cover changes between 1990 and 2018 equally corroborates the observations of the groups that vegetation cover has been increasing over the years, as shown in Figure 4. The analysis reveals that vegetation cover (forested areas) increased from 57,273 hectares in 1990 to 114,537 hectares in 2018 in the areas covered by the sampled conservancies, as shown in Figure 5 below. This represents an increase of 57,264 ha, translating to a 4% rise annually, which is a cumulative 99.9% increase in vegetation cover over the period, while grassland and other land uses declined. This trend may be attributed to the conservation and protection efforts by conservancies and their partners. Figure 5 further depicts the linear relationship of the land cover classes, which reveals that the vegetation and grassland classes have an almost comparable shape but are an inversion of each other. This implies that there is a high correlation between these two classes.

3.2.2. Socioeconomic Benefits of Conservancies

The ecological benefits accruing to the communities include increased livestock feed (pasture from acacia pods and grasslands); increased ecosystem services such as honey production from the conservancy areas; and planned settlement and utilization of rangeland resources. The groups reported an increase in livestock feeds due to improved acacia pod production, resulting from the conservation of acacia trees and increased pasture availability. As a result, livestock had more fodder from an increased number of acacia tree species. The pods are commonly used as fodder during dry seasons or prolonged drought. It was also reported that conservancies provided an opportunity for the locals to plan where to settle and control grazing through the grazing plans and control, unlike before. The grazing plans and control led to increased pasture availability, especially during extreme dry periods. This was considered a great benefit as it was mentioned by 95% of the groups interviewed across the two counties.

The communities also reported that they benefited from increased honey production as a result of increased rangeland vegetation cover. There were more acacia trees and other trees, which provided safe havens for bees, and hence the availability of more wild and domestic honey. Other benefits from the conservancies cited included logistical support for members to travel to the markets, hospitals, and other places. Members also noted the planning of development projects that benefited the communities. This planning and controlled grazing help in the proper utilization of rangelands. Fourteen FGDs reported that the ecological and other benefits of conservation showed an increasing trend. The remaining FGDs felt that there were no significant changes to the benefits that they received. The reported benefits included bursaries for students, provision of transport by conservancy vehicles, provision of school and health facilities, and other support given by the conservancy persons/organizations.

3.2.3. Costs in Managing the Conservancy

Reports from the FGDs indicated that 15.8% of the FGD members reported no costs incurred in managing the conservancy. This is likely due to the perception that the community makes little contribution to conserving wildlife in the area. However, other members reported that they incurred costs deriving from grazing control and loss of grazing land (73.7%), predation and destruction of farms (84.2%), loss of human lives due to wildlife attacks (15.8%), and loss of income from charcoal burning and logging (21%). The members reported that they did not lose their land as much as they had forgone their grazing lands, especially in the core areas, to allow the wildlife to use those areas, which they considered a cost. Similarly, 21% of the groups felt that they had lost opportunities for income by choosing to have wildlife conservancies. The income opportunities lost included charcoal burning, poaching (which is illegal), and collecting firewood for commercial purposes. However, members felt that the loss of income was marginal compared to the gains and hence opted to conserve wildlife instead. Loss of livestock due to predation and loss of human life from animal attacks was another key cost area for the communities. As examples, the communities highlighted loss of lives caused by elephants, predation by leopards and crocodiles, and destruction of farm produce by elephants and zebras. It is reported that these cases and costs have increased due to the increase in wildlife populations. In the Ltungai-Malaso Conservation area, the group approximated predation losses for the 317 households at about 15 goats/sheep per month, with an estimated worth of KES 900,000 per year. Likewise, in the Baragaoi Conservation area, the predation losses for the 500 households were approximated to be twenty goats/sheep and one cow every month, worth KES 1.7 million per year. Over time, it was observed that the costs were increasing, though slowly and at a tolerable pace. This would mean that reducing the costs of operation and improving the benefits to the communities would encourage them to continue embracing conservation.

4. Discussion

The findings from this study are similar to those of other studies previously undertaken by scholars. For instance, Miller and Robbie noted that community conservations are common in Scotland, England, and Scandinavian countries, in the same way as in the area of study, i.e., Isiolo and Samburu Counties. Kipkeu et al. stated that ecological limitations of the ecosystem call for the involvement of local communities in the conservation and management of wildlife in an inclusive manner [37]. The findings by Armitage, D. et al. further found that governments needed to engage communities in conserving local environments, the same findings observed in this study, where the participants were in unanimous agreement that governance does influence community support for conservation [38]. Other scholars like Nilson, focusing on the preservation of endangered Sumatran orangutans in Indonesia, found that communities appreciated the benefits and the values they received from biodiversity conservation [39]. Similarly, in this study, community members also appreciated both socioeconomic and sociocultural benefits accrued from conserving biodiversity and wildlife.

Regarding the aspects of governance, Sommerville et al. concluded that giving the community a mandate to control and manage community conservancies significantly improved the conservation of the community and national biodiversity [40]. Even in the most recent studies by Dawson et al. (2024) [11], it was revealed that, once indigenous people and local communities have more say in governance and control of the resources, there are more positive ecological outcomes. The conclusion in this study indeed suggests that, for the global community to make progress towards the Global Biodiversity Framework Targets, there is a need to elevate the role of these communities to take the lead in conservation governance [11]. Similarly, this study’s findings indicate that the more members involved in the conservancies' governance and programs, the stronger the sense of ownership among community members. These findings are also similar to those by Andrianandrasana [41] in Madagascar regarding community-based conservation and Milupi et al. [42] on community-based natural resource management cases from 21 countries including Fiji, Alaska (USA), China, Namibia, Malaysia, Mexico and Papua New Guinea, where the study established that the governance of the community conservancies and the distribution of the benefits across all the members drove the intrinsic desire for communities to conserve wildlife in community conservancies, similarly to the findings from a meta-analysis by Milupi et al. [42] in St. Lucia, Nepal, Kenya, Honduras and India.

However, it should also be noted that governance is not the only factor that influences community support for the conservancies. The benefits that communities receive or expect to receive from the conservancies do have a strong influence on their support for the conservancies. This was a reflection from other studies like Sommerville et al. [40], Andrianandrasana [41], Milupi et al. [42], Yufanyi [43], Mbolo [44], and Titus [45]. Moreover, the finding that there is weak community involvement in the governance of some conservancies, and especially the newly established ones, points to a global trend where people slowly adopt community-based conservancies when they start realizing the benefits therein. For instance, the study by Titus [45] shows that the communities slowly adopted community-based approaches for natural resource management in India and Nepal, and community-led approaches were later fully embraced. Mbolo shared similar results through a meta-analysis of findings in Cameroon, Nigeria, and Morocco. Our study in the Isiolo and Samburu conservancies revealed that community support was primarily driven by the expectation of benefiting from the conservancies, similar to communities in well-established conservancies supported by various donors. These results could also be corroborated from the findings by Wekesa [46] on community participation in forest management in Kimothon Forest in Trans Nzoia.

The study’s finding that community conservancies have brought positive changes in the wildlife population trends, habitat health, and rangelands utilization planning is not an isolated one, either. These findings corroborate the findings by Tarimo & Olotu, M [47] that increased community participation in conservation improved wildlife security and population and habitat health. In contrast, decreased community involvement affected these factors negatively in Tanzania’s Rungwa Game Reserve. Similarly, the findings of the study by Godfrey [39,48] regarding community-based conservation in the Laikipia, Maasai Mara, and Amboseli communities in Kenya revealed improved conservation of wildlife due to increased community participation and positive benefits to the community from tourism activities. Similarly, the findings relate to the observations and conclusions made by Schnegg and Kiaka [49] on community-based resource governance and environmental justice in Namibia, focusing on the elephant population. This was equally a cross-cutting theme, as found by Corbett and Jones [50] regarding CBNRM in Namibia; Schnegg and Kiaka [49]; and Stolton and Dudley [51], as depicted from different case studies across Africa.

It therefore means that, with increased conservation efforts as adopted by the communities through the conservancies, the wildlife population is steadily growing. This finding was also corroborated by secondary data, where the National Wildlife Census Report of 2021 estimated that the country’s elephant population increased by 12% [32]. Moreover, the 2017 population survey, which depicted the same trend of an increase in the elephant population in the Laikipia–Samburu–Marsabit ecosystems, supported this finding. Moreover, another pointer is the NRT’s Status of Wildlife Report, 2005–2019, which revealed a significant reduction in the number of illegally killed elephants after the establishment of the conservancies, owing to the protection from conservancy rangers. These findings were similar to those of Schnegg and Kiaka [49] regarding the elephant numbers in Namibia, and Godfrey [48], Kieti et al. [52], and Wishitemi et al. [53] in Kenya. It could therefore be concluded that residents in the two counties may have embraced conservancy models and adopted wildlife as part of their land use, possibly owing to the benefits they gain from the conservancies.

Bennett, N. J., et al. (2019) did establish that community support for conservation is directly related to perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness, and that the social effects of conservation are a precursor to increased support for conservation [54]. These findings suggest that employing good governance processes and managing social impacts may be more important than ecological effectiveness for maintaining local support for conservation.

Similarly, the reported emergence of negative consequences of the increased wildlife population, especially that of elephants, is corroborated by the conclusions of Andrianandrasana [42] in Indonesia and Kimario et al. [55] in Tanzania. Moreover, Lee, P., and Graham, M. [56] demonstrate that indeed an increased elephant population does change habitat structure and composition. Their study revealed that changes in elephant densities resulting from reduced poaching or improved conservation efforts may trigger cascading community effects. These are neglected but significant consequences of (negative or positive) human impacts on elephant numbers, especially in restricted areas such as reserves and national parks. Similarly, Schnegg and Kiaka [49] found that the increasing elephant numbers were associated with the destruction of communal water points in Namibia. However, the generally positive changes in habitat health cited in the study were similar to the findings by Kimario et al. [55], Bambo [57], and Mwakaje et al. [58] in Tanzania. In summary, the observed changes in habitat health were characterized by improved vegetation cover as a result of rangeland utilization plans through the grazing rules, as well as controls on charcoal burning and tree harvesting within the conservancies. These findings were similar to those on enhanced forest cover by Wekesa [46], Godfrey [48], and Franks [59]. This was also corroborated by an analysis of trends in land cover changes around the conservancies in Isiolo and Samburu Counties covering the period 1990 to 2018 that revealed that vegetation cover increased by 99.9%, which may be attributable to the conservation and protection efforts by conservancies and their partners. The ecological benefits are viewed as one of the factors that motivate the community members in supporting the conservancies and cohabiting with the wildlife.

Regarding the findings on the cost of conservation borne by the communities, it was established that this is also a widespread element. For instance, Igoe, J. [60] revealed in an article on measuring the costs and benefits of conservation to local communities in the Journal of Ecological Anthropology that local communities bear significant costs in avoiding the use of natural resources and in losing income from livestock and crops. Moreover, Kegamba et al. [61] asserted that human–wildlife conflict is generally inevitable around conservation areas unless adequate compensation is given for losses or stronger partnerships are developed to prevent the losses from happening in the first place. They advocate for adequate, timely, and less bureaucratic compensation that covers a broader range of species, aiming to mitigate losses and sustain conservation. Positively, in the study area, the communities indicated that they were willing to bear these costs, even as they increase marginally. Similarly, the groups suggested timely and adequate compensation for the loss of lives, livestock, and crops as a way to mitigate these costs. Other similar studies that propose mitigation of the costs incurred by the community members include, for instance, those by Wekesa [46], Schnegg and Kiaka [49], Wishitemi et al. [53], and Kieti et al. [52].

5. Conclusions

Currently, Kenya has only eight percent (8%) of its land area under formal conservation [3], which is less than half the country’s commitment under the Aichi Targets. Despite progress towards some targets, none have been achieved. Furthermore, the global community shifted the global target of land areas under conservation upwards in 2022. During the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to CBD in Montreal in December 2022, the global community committed to protecting at least thirty percent (30%) of Earth’s lands, oceans, coastal areas, and inland waters for biodiversity conservation by 2030 under the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework [62]. These land area targets can only be achieved through conservation outside the formal government-protected areas. Indeed, as Simkins, A. T., et al., 2024, asserts, it is impossible to ignore 38 million km² or 28% of Earth’s terrestrial surface to meet this goal [9]. Kenya provides an example and opportunity for biodiversity conservation. From just about four (4) conservancies in the 1990s to over 160 conservancies by 2019, covering about 11% of the country’s land areas [31], the government has made commendable progress in this area. This has not been without challenges, as community conservation areas are faced with numerous challenges that include range degradation due to human and livestock population pressures, settlement of nomadic pastoralists, land use change and fragmentation, insecurity in the conservancy areas, climate change, poor governance, and interference of local politics, among others. For conservation outside formal government-protected areas to succeed and thrive, communities must play their rightful role. Governments (both national and local) must appreciate the role of the communities and facilitate them through enabling and facilitative policies and legislations at both the national and county levels. Frank, P. (2021) [63], in a policy brief on the Global Biodiversity Framework, noted that there is a need for governance in community conservation areas to be not only inclusive but also equitable, respecting rights, involving locals in decision-making, transparent in management, and in sharing costs and benefits. The researcher emphasized that equity in governance is more influential than management in community conservation and that devolution of governance is one such way of promoting equitable governance [63]. In Kenya, apart from fostering inclusive and equitable governance, local county governments need to undertake aggressive education and awareness programs to help community members appreciate the significance of conservation. Additionally, they should highlight the crucial role of county governments in community conservation to maintain a positive community perception for conservation.

6. Recommendations

The recommendations for policy implementation touch on different stakeholders like the National Government, county governments, non-state actors, and the local community. The study recommends that the National Government develop a National Rangelands Resources Management Policy to safeguard the future of wildlife conservation within conservancies and ensure efficient resource utilization and management. The policy should provide for, among others: identification of all rangeland resources and provide for their effective management and sustainable utilization; and clarification on the roles to be played by different stakeholders in the management space of rangeland resources while strengthening customary rangeland resource management practices and rights through legislation where applicable.

It is also recommended that the National Government establish an institutional framework, a lean institution that coordinates the management and sustainable utilization of rangeland resources in the country. The institution is recommended to work with the county governments and Community Lands Management Committees established under the Community Land Management Act as grassroots structures to avoid duplication or create unnecessary bureaucracy. The institution aims to address the accountability gap exploited by NGOs. It may undertake functions to strengthen gender equality and equity, thereby enhancing the voice of women in conservancy governance and conservation, among other objectives. In addition, the National Government is recommended to facilitate the registration of unregistered community lands to protect the rights, interests, and investments of vulnerable communities.

The county governments are also recommended to support the community lands registration under the Community Lands Act, 2016, to secure land ownership in the conservancy areas as a way of building the confidence of the communities, enhancing property rights of the communities, and the potential for investment in conservancies or other land use options for poverty alleviation and wealth creation. However, owing to the high level of illiteracy, there is a risk of the land registration process being hijacked by the elite. Thus, there is a need for the county governments to strongly spearhead the registration process to safeguard community interests and to ensure existing communal resource exploitation strategies and arrangements are recognized and protected.

However, rangelands resource management and community development in those areas require a concerted effort and collaboration of all the stakeholders. The process of rangelands resource governance and management should be an iterative one based on strong dialogue between the stakeholders, allowing them to negotiate and decide on the most sustainable framework. As such, as an important stakeholder, this study recommends that the non-state actors educate the community on conservation issues, their role and rights in conservancy governance and management, support assessments and research to facilitate availability of data to enable informed decision-making in governance and management of the conservancies and rangelands resources, and support community land registration processes to secure land ownership, as well as undertake advocacy, especially on gender inclusivity, to enable participation of women in governance and management of the conservancies, and on development of appropriate policies and legislation that enhance community empowerment and sustainable management of the conservancies.

Lastly, the study recommends numerous further studies, especially on the actual impact on governance on community perception, total economic value of the conservancy rangelands resources for appreciation and to attract investments, existing value of conservancy investments in relations to community benefits and the costs they incur, as well as the long-term implication of climate change impacts on conservancy ecosystems and the possible mitigation intervention required.