Conservancies: A Demonstrable Local-Level Action for the Sustainable Development Goals in an African Indigenous Frontier ^†

Abstract

This paper examines an approach to local-level community action for the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), amid the growing importance of context-specific implementations to accelerate progress. Land-use governance is critical for contributions to the SDGs, as it shapes a wide range of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Wildlife conservancies provide an innovative community-driven land-stewardship model that has proliferated across rangelands in various African countries as a sustainable development strategy. This study explores the potential contribution and capacity of conservancies, as a form of land-use governance, in advancing the SDGs at local levels. Using case studies from Kenya’s Maasai Mara, the research draws on qualitative primary data collected through in-depth interviews, a focus group discussion, observation, and document review, supplemented by secondary data obtained from a literature review. The data was analyzed thematically. The results show that conservancies address key socio-ecological challenges corresponding with multiple SDGs, particularly those related to poverty reduction, food security, climate action, and life on land. However, significant segments of local communities remain marginalized in decision making and benefit sharing, a situation rooted in pre-existing social hierarchies and weak governance institutions, raising concerns about social justice. Other major limitations are related to the conservancies’ over-reliance on tourism, and local people’s high dependence on natural resources. To resolve these limitations, the study recommends improving local governance via institutional strengthening, capacity building, gender empowerment, and stakeholder partnerships; diversifying income sources to reduce financial vulnerability; and adopting strategies to alleviate high dependence on natural resources in the long term.

1. Introduction

The United Nations 2030 Agenda outlines a comprehensive plan of actions built around 17 interlinked Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including eradicating poverty, protecting the environment, halting climate change, and promoting peace and prosperity to all people by the year 2030 [1]. Although some advancements have been made, substantial efforts are still required, with evidence that most developing countries are unlikely to meet the goals within the set timeframe due to their unique contextual challenges [2]. The Sustainable Development Report 2025 indicates that, on average, only 17% of SDGs targets are currently on track globally, while the remaining 83% show either minimal progress or regression [3]. Whereas the goals aim for global outcomes, the slow advancement of the SDGs calls for context-specific implementations that are responsive to distinct local needs, challenges, and capacities [4]. Satterthwaite [5,6], for instance, emphasizes the relevance of adopting a ‘local lens’ and developing indicators for local action in implementing the SDGs, arguing that interventions should be tailored to the specific development needs of each context rather than applied uniformly across different settings. As land is a fundamental and essential resource that underpins the economic, social, and environmental well-being of societies, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa [7,8], land-use governance is critical for context-specific, locally relevant implementation of the SDGs. On the other hand, while it is crucial for national and local governments to take charge of SDGs implementation at local levels [9,10,11], many local communities are proactively driving sustainable development efforts through their own grassroots action in land and resource use governance [12,13,14]. However, the ways in which participating communities practically contribute to the implementation of the global agendas remain insufficiently understood because the current interdisciplinary literature is dominated by macro-level and quantitative assessments, which obscure the nuanced, place-based dynamics of local collective action [15]. This paper therefore seeks to help address these theoretical and methodological gaps by empirically examining the operational challenges and opportunities faced by local communities engaged in land and resource use governance in pursuing the SDGs, in order to illuminate their lived experiences and agency.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, there has been a growing emergence of community-driven land stewardship models, where local communities are enabled to collectively manage land and natural resources based on local values and knowledge systems for local benefit, exemplifying innovative arrangements of land and resource-use governance, e.g., [16,17]. These models appeared in response to the need to manage environmental and natural resources to satisfy human welfare requirements while protecting natural resources and ecosystem services [18]. Broadly referred to as Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM), the models have developed adaptively across diverse socio-political and ecological contexts [19]. CBNRM regulates land access and use, involves decision-making institutions, integrates multiple objectives, and localizes governance authority. There is a renewed interest in CBNRM as a bottom-up approach for resolving interlinked sustainability challenges such as poverty, social inequalities, food security, biodiversity conservation, and impacts of climate change, as intended by the SDGs [13,20].

In Kenya’s wildlife-rich rangelands, conservancies that are modelled along CBNRM provide a platform for local communities to collectively manage land for both environmental conservation and socio-economic development, integrating conservation goals with sustainable livelihoods and effective local governance. Conservancies are formed when landowners designate and manage land for nature conservation, tourism, and other compatible activities to diversify land use. The conservancies are registered formally as legal entities, such as Trusts or land-holding companies, co-owned by all participating landowners. Their managements are overseen by elected committees. Conservancy members create resource use rules designed to balance conservation priorities with livelihood needs. Typically, agricultural tillage activities are restricted or prohibited, resource extraction is limited, and livestock grazing is regulated to avail space for wildlife conservation. Economic benefits are distributed either through community Trusts or directly to individual members [21]. In addition to generating revenue and promoting wildlife conservation, conservancies are valued for their coordinated approach to managing ecosystem resources such as pasture and water [22,23]. Conservancies have also helped sustain traditional communal grazing systems in pastoralist regions, which are increasingly threatened by land privatization and changing land uses [24,25]. In general, conservancies have expanded wildlife habitats beyond formal protected areas, supporting Kenya’s conservation model of free-ranging wildlife [26]. As a result, conservancies are now strongly endorsed by both state and non-state actors as a viable land-use option and a critical pillar of wildlife conservation in Kenya [27,28]. Subsequently, they have multiplied, with current figures showing that there are 230 conservancies totaling 9.04 million hectares, which entail 16% of Kenya’s total land mass [26]. Given their rapid expansion and strategic importance, it is crucial to evaluate how well conservancies are achieving their ecological, social, and economic goals.

In light of increasing views that local action is critical to achieving the SDGs, this paper assesses the potential contribution and capacity of conservancies, as a form of land-use governance, in advancing the SDGs at local levels. Using case studies from Maasai Mara in Kenya, the study qualitatively explores how relevant SDGs are addressed by the conservancies, and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of leveraging conservancies to align their development objectives and outcomes with the SDGs. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The methodology section gives a description of the analytical framework, the case study site, and the methods applied to conduct the research. The results section presents the findings. The discussion section provides a critical analysis of the findings and their relevance to development. The last section presents the conclusions of the study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Analytical Framework

The 17 SDGs served as the basis of analysis for this study. Specifically, they were mapped against the objectives and outcomes of conservancies to identify which SDGs are relevant and how they are being addressed. The ‘Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’ framework (SWOT) was then applied as a diagnostic tool to examine the internal capabilities and external conditions influencing the capacity of the conservancies to align their objectives and outcomes with the SDGs. A SWOT analysis evaluates the internal strengths and weaknesses (such as resources and organizational capacity), as well as external opportunities and threats (including market, political, economic, and legal factors) in an organization’s environment, in order to formulate strategies accordingly [29,30]. For this study, each component of the SWOT Framework was deductively categorized into the three dimensions of sustainable development, i.e., environmental, social, and economic. A variation of the SWOT Matrix, referred to as the TOWS Matrix (threats, opportunities, weaknesses and strengths) was then deployed to identify potential strategies to exploit opportunities, mitigate threats, utilize existing strengths, and reduce weaknesses. The TOWS is operationalized on the basis of four different positions: (i) the WO (weaknesses-opportunities) strategy- overcoming weaknesses by exploiting opportunities; (ii) the SO (strengths-opportunities) strategy- using strengths to exploit opportunities; (iii) the ST (strengths-threats) strategy- using strengths to counteract threats; and (iv) the WT (weaknesses-threats) strategy- exploring strategies to minimize weaknesses and overcome threats [30]. Figure 1 illustrates the analytical framework.

2.2. Study Site

Maasai Mara (Figure 2) is found within Narok County in Kenya, along the southwestern border with Tanzania, covering an area of approximately 6650 km² [31,32]. The ecosystem is primarily composed of semi-arid savannah grasslands, providing favourable conditions for both livestock husbandry and wildlife habitation. Maasai Mara’s rich diversity of megafauna makes it a renowned tourist destination [33]. An overwhelming majority of landowners in Maasai Mara are the indigenous Maasai [31,34]. Being predominantly pastoralists, the livelihoods and social and cultural norms of the Maasai are organized around livestock [23,35,36,37,38,39]. Ongoing land privatization (from communal ownership to individual titles) has driven practices such as land fragmentation, fencing, and conversion of land use, leading to constrained livestock and wildlife mobility, and undermining the sustainability of traditional rangeland management [40,41]. It is against this backdrop that the conservancies’ movement emerged in Maasai Mara to safeguard the ecological and cultural integrity of the landscape while enhancing community benefits [42]. Three conservancies, i.e., Olderkesi Conservancy, Mara North Conservancy, and Oloisukut Conservancy, were used as case studies for this research.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

The study drew on both primary and secondary sources of data. Primary data on conservancies’ objectives, processes, and outcomes were gathered through in-depth interviews, a focus group discussion, observation, and document review (conservancy management plans). Interview participants were selected through non-probabilistic sampling techniques (purposive sampling and random route sampling). A total of 74 conservancy members (mostly male heads of households) and 7 key informants (technical officers) were interviewed. A focus group discussion was held with twelve members of one community conservancy. Observation was carried out through on-site visits. The primary data corroborated evidence from secondary data collected through a literature review of published empirical studies (journal articles and book chapters) and grey literature (dissertations, institutional plans and reports) accessed through online searches. The data was analyzed thematically.

The reliability and validity of the data were enhanced through methodological triangulation and systematic data collection procedures [44]. The primary data was collected using standardized protocols to ensure consistency and dependability. Triangulation of multiple data sources helped cross-verify information and strengthen the credibility of findings. The use of purposive sampling ensured that interviewees possessed relevant knowledge and experience, thereby improving the contextual validity of the data. Furthermore, corroboration of primary data with secondary evidence reinforced both internal and external validity of the study.

3. Results

This study placed emphasis on the perceptions and experiences of conservancy members. The 74 conservancy members who participated in the interviews comprised 57 men (77%) and 17 women (23%), all of whom were of Maasai ethnicity (100%). The interviewees spanned a wide age range, with 19 individuals (26%) aged 18–35 years, 41 individuals (55%) aged 36–60 years, and 14 individuals (19%) aged over 60 years. In terms of educational attainment, 13 interviewees (18%) had no formal education, 32 interviewees (43%) had completed primary education, 21 interviewees (28%) had completed secondary education, and 8 interviewees (11%) had post-secondary education.

3.1. How Relevant SDGs Are Addressed by Conservancies

Conservancies are established by local communities primarily to conserve biodiversity and support livelihoods. While wildlife conservation and tourism remain central goals, conservancies aim at promoting the overall well-being of local communities through livelihoods enhancement, improved local governance, sustainable rangeland and pastoral grazing management, and investment in basic social amenities and infrastructure. In that regard, the management objectives of conservancies entail wildlife and habitat management, tourism development, livestock management, and social development. Many conservancies have formed community Trusts that raise and manage community development funds.

Conservancies have realized a range of economic, social, and ecological outcomes that continue to provide incentives for participation of local communities. The study found that while economic outcomes (material benefits) were the primary motivating factors, participation was also driven in part by intrinsic motivations and non-material outcomes rooted in cultural, social, and environmental values. Interviewees reported receiving a range of significant tangible benefits. These differed across conservancies but generally acted as strong motivators. These included direct cash payments (land lease fees), job opportunities, new business prospects, and alternative livelihood activities (income-generating projects such as beekeeping and handicrafts). Conservancy members also cited improvements to education and healthcare, provision of school bursaries, access to loans, development of physical infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, and water pans), enhanced security, livestock development projects, pasture management, and compensation for livestock losses to predation. Direct monetary payments to conservancy members were especially valued, as they helped meet basic household needs. In one of the case study conservancies, landowners reported being paid KES 400 (about USD 4) per hectare every month, with an average landholding of approximately 60 hectares per household. A female interviewee in one conservancy stated that during high-tourism seasons, she earned up to KES 35,000 (about USD 350) per month from the sale of handicrafts. Salaries for security rangers employed by one of the conservancies ranged from KES 12,000 to 30,000 (about USD 120 to 300). However, this study also found that while certain conservancies experienced challenges such as limited financial returns (attributed to over-reliance on tourism) and inequitable distribution of economic benefits (attributed to weak governance), this had not led to a discernible decline in membership because conservancies remain an important household income strategy. The analysis also identified several social benefits valued by local communities that provide incentives for participation, including strengthened social relations, participation in community affairs, reinforcement of cultural values, and the intrinsic value placed on wildlife. Notably, conservancies have strengthened social capital, serving as the frameworks through which the local communities now plan their development initiatives, mobilize resources, engage with external stakeholders, and implement activities. Conservancy members also acknowledged the regeneration of rangelands, which can be linked to the provision of ecosystem services and carbon sequestration functions.

Subsequently, due to their broad scope of objectives and observed outcomes, conservancies concurrently contribute to multiple SDGs, especially ending poverty (Goal 1), ending hunger (Goal 2), good health and well-being (Goal 3), quality education (Goal 4), reducing inequalities (Goal 10), combating climate change (Goal 13), promoting sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems (Goal 15), promoting peaceful and inclusive societies (Goal 16), and promoting partnerships (Goal 17) (

Table 1. Linking SDGs to the objectives and outcomes of conservancies.

SDGs	Examples of Corresponding Conservancy Goals and Outcomes
Goal 1: Ending poverty	Livelihood diversification and income supplementation; business enterprises development; employment; loan facilities; pastoral development; human–wildlife conflict compensation; trust funds for social protection
Goal 2: Ending hunger	Income for provision of food, livestock management, livestock market access, pasture management; compensation for livestock predation; income-generating activities such as honey production
Goal 3: Health and well-being	Investment in health facilities; provision of medicine and ambulance services.
Goal 4: Inclusive and equitable quality education	Investment in schools; provision of bursaries; employment of teachers; school-feeding programmes
Goal 5: Gender equality	Inclusion of women in conservancy committees; formation of women self-help groups; women income income-generating activities such as beadwork; bursaries for female children
Goal 6: Clean water	Water supply projects like water pans and boreholes, protection of natural water sources
Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy	Introduction of solar power, biogas projects, use of clean energy in tourist facilities
Goal 8: Inclusive and sustainable economic growth	Tourism enterprise development and employment opportunities
Goal 9: Resilient infrastructure	Infrastructure development such as roads, bridges, schools
Goal 10: Reduced inequalities	Financial flow from tourism and foreign aid; local participation in conservation decision making
Goal 11: Sustainable communities	Building social capital and cohesion; enhanced physical security; provision of social amenities and infrastructure; cultural preservation
Goal 12: Sustainable consumption and production	Controlled utilization of natural resources; low volume- high end tourism models; wildlife compatible livelihood activities such as rotational grazing and beekeeping; conservation education
Goal 13: Climate action	Restoration of grasslands and forests for carbon sequestration; climate change resilience building through livelihood diversification; participation in carbon markets; climate change awareness
Goal 15: Sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems	Ecotourism; rangelands and wildlife restoration and conservation; integration of ecosystem and biodiversity values in local land management plans; mobilization of financial resources for conservation; wildlife security measures
Goal 16: Strong institutions	Development of local institutions for participation in resource governance
Goal 17: Partnerships for the goals	Collaborations with the private sector, non-governmental organizations and government organisations from local to international levels; resource mobilization; capacity building

). Since the goals and targets are integrated and indivisible [1], interaction and inter-dependence occur among the goals addressed by the conservancies.

Nevertheless, this study also found that pre-existing social structures and relations were a hindrance to inclusive participation. Membership in conservancies is tied to land ownership, which traditionally lies with male heads of households, effectively excluding many women from decision making and access to benefits. In instances of private land ownership, conservancy land lease agreements are generally signed by men, who are the registered title holders, who thereafter receive monetary payments directly into their personal bank accounts and are invited to attend conservancy meetings. For instance, the majority of female interviewees stated that they had never attended the conservancy’s Annual General Meetings (AGMs). Although there were efforts to integrate women into conservancy management committees, patriarchal cultural norms that subordinate women are still dominant. Moreover, internal disparities in wealth and social status have created power imbalances that shape access to, and control over, conservancy resources, resulting in elite capture. Groups of privileged individuals, including large landowners, former group ranch officials, and political figures, exercise disproportionate influence over conservancy decision making and benefit sharing, exacerbated by weak institutions of governance. There were sentiments across the three case study conservancies that opportunities such as committee memberships, jobs, school-fee bursaries, and other direct benefits were dominated by particular families. In some cases, democratic elections of conservancy officials intended to ensure representation were not conducted as required, and AGMs meant to serve as the primary instrument for accountability were not held regularly. Where AGMs were held, the meetings were not very productive as the agendas were tightly controlled by conservancy leadership. Financial issues were reportedly not disclosed or discussed during those sessions. Lack of inclusivity, transparency, and accountability created suspicions and mistrust, leading to forms of contestation among conservancy members, such as defying resource use regulations and boycotting meetings. Consequently, conservancies end up falling short of some ecological and socio-economic expectations.

3.2. SWOT Analysis

On the basis of contextual factors, processes, and outcomes of conservancies, a SWOT analysis identified internal strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats that are inherent in leveraging conservancies in Maasai Mara to align their objectives and outcomes with the SDGs. The factors were listed, reviewed, and organized into meaningful groups, yielding 30 items including 5 strengths, 10 weaknesses, 6 opportunities, and 9 threats across environmental, social, and economic themes (

Table 2. SWOT analysis of Maasai Mara conservancies in addressing the SDGs.

Strengths	Weaknesses
Environmental       • Natural resources endowment (wildlife and land) Social       • Strong community cohesion and social capital       • Supportive cultural values and strong informal institutions Economic       • Land ownership (natural capital) and secure property rights (land tenure)       • Established tourism enterprise	Environmental       • Seasonal variability of livelihood resources (pasture/water for livestock)- pressure on environmental resources Social       • Power imbalances (elite capture)       • Gender marginalization       • Low youth representation       • Weak governance institutions Economic       • Resource overdependence       • Overreliance on tourism       • Inadequate economic returns       • Inequitable benefit access       • Low capacity- inadequate resources for the delivery of functions
Opportunities	Threats
Environmental       • Ecological conservation programmes Social       • Partnerships (tourism entrepreneurs, NGOs, and government)       • Governance and institutional strengthening Economic       • Nature-based enterprises       • Growing global carbon markets and payments for ecosystem services       • Access to financial capital/funding	Environmental       • Wildlife decline       • Environmental degradation       • Climate change impacts (e.g., droughts) Social       • External interests (e.g., private investors, NGOs)       • Population expansion Economic       • Tourism industry vulnerability       • Shifts in land ownership and uses       • Lack of government funding/support       • Donor withdrawal (e.g., cancellation of funding by USAID)

).

3.3. TOWS Analysis

The TOWS Matrix, which is a modified version of the traditional SWOT framework, was applied to develop strategies aimed at transforming the existing conditions into the desired situations. The TOWS applies four logical combinations: SO strategies, which leverage internal strengths to take advantage of external opportunities; WO strategies, which focus on overcoming internal weaknesses or building new strengths to exploit external opportunities; ST strategies, which utilize internal strengths to counter external threats; and WT strategies, which aim to minimize internal weaknesses to avoid external threats. The resulting strategies are outlined in

Table 3. Leveraging conservancies to align with the SDGs.

TOWS Strategy	Proposed Action
WO (overcoming weakness using opportunities)	Diversify revenue streams by incorporating other forms of payment for ecosystem services (PESs) and nature based enterprises. Enhance governance through institutional strengthening, capacity building, gender empowerment, and environmental education Partner with government and NGOs to develop a sustainable financing mechanism (e.g., conservation trust fund)
SO (using strengths to exploit opportunities)	Harness rangeland resources to enter carbon markets and other PES Develop nature-based enterprises through eco-certification and niche marketing of natural products like honey, resins, and medicinal plants
ST (using strengths to counter threats)	Community mobilization (e.g., through environmental education to accentuate community’s existing environmental and cultural values) to promote collective action in environmental conservation
WT (minimizing weaknesses and avoiding threats)	Explore strategies to reduce resource dependence, e.g., superior livestock breeds and alternative livelihood activities

.

4. Discussion

This study explored the actual and potential contributions of conservancies to the SDGs. The findings show that conservancies offer an integrated approach to addressing a range of cross-cutting social-ecological challenges, such as poverty, wildlife declines, environmental degradation, weak local governance, and climate change, consistent with the holistic vision of the SDGs. Conservancy land-lease payments are a vital source of livelihoods for participating households that enable the provision of basic needs, helping to alleviate poverty and open up other welfare opportunities. Comparable evidence has been reported by Osano et al. [45], who found that households involved in conservancies had higher average cash incomes compared with non-members, and Bedelian and Ogutu [23], who found that conservancy payments contributed 14% of total annual incomes for participating households. According to official reports, over 16,530 landowners in Maasai Mara received income from lease payments, totaling over KES 1.125 billion (about USD 7.5 million) annually [46]. This is in addition to the creation of meaningful employment opportunities. For example, in 2019, conservancy rangers in Maasai Mara collectively received approximately USD 46,000 in salaries [31]. Given that the supplementary income is particularly useful during droughts when livestock productivity falls, conservancies can also be viewed as a climate change adaptation strategy that supports risk reduction and local resilience (droughts are becoming more severe in Maasai Mara, attributed to climate change) [23,47]. In addition to tourism revenue, conservancies attract substantial donor investment for community development, with significant socio-economic impacts. Tyrrell et al. [48], for instance, observed that philanthropists have raised close to USD 500,000 for community development projects in one conservancy in Maasai Mara since 2018. Funded community development initiatives such as livestock management projects and capacity building for women and youth in business enterprises have further expanded livelihood options. Furthermore, conservancies have evolved into multifunctional institutions that enable local communities to take charge of their own development affairs, further strengthening social capital and community empowerment. Additionally, by protecting and restoring natural habitats, conservancies help maintain the functionality, biodiversity, and resilience of local ecosystems, with wider landscape implications. For perspective, a study in the Laikipia region in Kenya showed that conservation zones within community ranches had greater herbaceous diversity, species richness, and abundance of grasses compared with areas not designated for conservation [49]. A 2021 wildlife census revealed that over 83% of wildlife in Maasai Mara were located within conservancies, although the numbers fluctuate seasonally [50]. Through the conservancies’ model, land under environmental conservation in Maasai Mara expanded from approximately 110,479 hectares in 2014 to approximately 178,668 hectares in 2023 [46]. Moreover, some conservancies have begun engaging in carbon markets through grassland restoration initiatives, thereby contributing to global climate action [51]. The multidimensional contribution of conservancies aligns with the indivisibility principle of the SDGs, where progress in one domain catalyzes outcomes in others [12].

Despite their apparent contribution to multiple SDGs, conservancies face several limitations, analyzed in this study using the SWOT framework. Three key concerns that raise pertinent questions over the sustainability of conservancies are highlighted. First, issues of equity and social justice persist, as significant segments of local communities remain marginalized in decision making and benefit sharing, a situation rooted in pre-existing social hierarchies and weak governance institutions. Women and the youth have been largely left out because of customary land ownership and gender roles that legitimize the domination of older males. Local elites, commonly wealthier landowners and politically connected individuals, subjugate conservancy decision making, creating perceptions that they benefit unduly at the expense of the majority. Second, conservancies are overly dependent on tourism revenues for their financial viability, which exposes them to capacity constraints, limited earnings and the impacts of tourism market volatility. For instance, the local communities lack the required financial resources, expertise, and market connectivity and must rely on partnerships with tourism entrepreneurs. Third, the local communities still rely heavily on livestock production for their livelihoods, which, owing to restricted access to conservancies and pressure on grazing areas in alternative areas, creates hard choices that encumber the cooperation of conservancy members.

Based on the TOWS Analysis, three key policy and practical recommendations requiring concerted efforts from development partners are proposed:

(i)

Strengthening local governance systems—Strengthening of conservancy governance can be usefully directed not only at improving their technical and administrative capacities, but also at embedding core principles of inclusivity, equity, transparency, and accountability within their institutional and operational frameworks. Efforts at empowering women by including them in conservancy management should be bolstered with initiatives that critically challenge social norms. Environmental education to reinforce existing cultural and environmental values in order to enhance collective action should be incorporated in conservancy capacity building. Development partners, especially the government, should also commit to providing sustained, long-term financial support to conservancies.

(ii)

Diversification of revenue streams—Conservancies need to broaden their income sources to enhance resilience and minimize risk and vulnerability. This may include promoting alternative payments for ecosystem services (e.g., carbon credits) and developing nature-based enterprises such as eco-certification and niche marketing of natural products like honey, resins, and medicinal plants.

(iii)

Reducing resource dependence—Conservancies need to pursue strategies to alleviate resource dependence in the long term, e.g., livestock destocking through the introduction of higher-quality breeds, in order to enhance the capacity of local communities to participate in conservation.

5. Conclusions

Conservancies play a significant role in addressing key socio-ecological challenges corresponding with multiple SDGs, particularly those related to poverty reduction, food security, climate action, and life on land. However, pre-existing social structures and inequalities continue to inhibit inclusive participation, raising concerns about social equity and justice. Other major limitations are related to the conservancies’ over-reliance on tourism, and local people’s high dependence on natural resources. To resolve these limitations towards better aligning conservancies with the SDGs, the study recommends improving local governance via institutional strengthening, capacity building, gender empowerment, and stakeholder partnerships; diversifying income sources to reduce financial vulnerability; and adopting strategies to reduce high dependence on natural resources in the long term.

Overall, the findings demonstrate how localized community-driven initiatives translate the global sustainability agenda by aligning it with local realities, values, and needs. Unlike most existing studies that focus on macro-level, quantitative, or policy-oriented analyses, this study adopts a qualitative, place-based approach that highlights the lived experiences and agency of communities actively engaging in sustainability practices on the ground. By empirically documenting these local processes, the study provides new insights into the operational realities of SDG implementation at the grassroots level, an area that remains largely underexplored in the global discourse. There are opportunities to learn from other local-level experiences and successes that can potentially strengthen SDG implementation more generally. By grounding global goals in local realities, such initiatives create tangible pathways for inclusive and context-sensitive implementation. However, realizing the full potential of such actions requires a deeper understanding of the cultural, social, institutional, and policy mechanisms that connect the local to the global. Future research should therefore continue to interrogate how local action can inform systemic transformation, ensuring that the SDGs not only reach communities at the grassroots but also grow from them. Many outcomes achieved at the community level, such as social cohesion or improved local governance, are difficult to measure using standard SDGs metrics. Future research could explore mixed-methods approaches that combine qualitative and quantitative data to capture the full spectrum of local sustainability outcomes. This would allow policymakers and development partners to more accurately value community contributions to sustainable development and allocate resources accordingly.