Conservation from the inside‐out: Winning space and a place for wildlife in working landscapes

Abstract

Protected areas fall far short of securing the space needed to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem function at a global scale and in the face of climate change. The prospects of conserving biodiversity in working landscapes help buffer the insularization effects of protected areas and hold great potential for biodiversity conservation on a landscape scale but depend on finding adequate space and a meaningful place in the lives of rural land users. Using a case study in southern Kenya, we show that the conservation of large open landscapes, biodiversity and the coexistence between wildlife and livestock can be achieved indirectly by reinforcing pastoral practices that depend on open space, mobility, social networks and institutional arrangements governing common‐pool resources. Pastoral practices and wildlife both depend on large multiscale interactions within interlinked social and ecological systems, which are threatened by land fragmentation, alienation and degradation. We show that large open spaces can be maintained by using a conservation approach starting from within community aspirations that emphasize the links between livelihoods, productivity, efficiency and resilience in pastoral economies and the secondary benefits of wildlife enterprises. Scaling up from an ecosystem to multi‐scale approach benefits pastoral communities by building resilience and new economic opportunities. In the process, the expanded scale conserves regional biodiversity and large free‐ranging herbivore and carnivore populations underpinning ecosystem function and the nationally important tourism industry centered on the Kenya–Tanzania boundary. The ‘inside‐out’ approach to the conservation of wildlife and biodiversity is place‐based, draws on local knowledge and informal governance arrangements and avoids the stigma of wildlife conservation driven by outside agencies. The human‐centered approach reinforces land health and spatial connectivity and encourages multi‐level and distributed governance arrangements embedded in large regional and national jurisdictions.

Conserving Africa’s wildlife and wildlands through the COVID-19 crisis and beyond

“…Increasingly, conservation NGOs and private sector entities cooperate with governments to manage state-owned PAs through collaborative management partnerships (CMPs) 17 . In addition, conservation efforts on private and community lands have grown in recent years 18,19 , expanding wildlife habitat, buffering PAs, reducing edge-effects, improving ecosystem representation, securing seasonal migration areas, and meaningfully engaging and benefiting rural communities that live with wildlife [20][21][22] . In Namibia, community conservancies account for 170,000 km 2 , and in South Africa, game ranches cover 205,000 km 2 , both exceeding the land area encompassed by state PAs 19,23 .…”

“…In Namibia, community conservancies account for 170,000 km 2 , and in South Africa, game ranches cover 205,000 km 2 , both exceeding the land area encompassed by state PAs 19,23 . Community-based conservation (CBC) programmes have grown in the last 20 years, supporting millions of rural African livelihoods 22,24 . Despite impressive political commitment to conservation in Africa, the continent suffers severe and persistent funding shortages that hinder management effectiveness.…”

“…Outside PAs, promote policies that devolve resource and wildlife utilization rights to communities to support sustainable management and strengthen institutions that allow communities to optimize their economic opportunities 53 . (iv) Encourage conservation organizations to work with development specialists on visible support for core community livelihoods, such as livestock and crop production, thereby earning public backing and increasing resilience of local communities to shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic 22 . For example, if conservation organizations provide security or markets for livestock, local people would link those benefits to conservation; the 'herding for health' programme is testing this approach in northern Kenya and southern Africa 54 .…”

Incorporating social-ecological complexities into conservation policy

“…A lack of consensus could potentially lead to an increase in fencing (RS4) to claim resource ownership ( Løvschal et al, 2017 ). Restrictions on mobility by fencing dryland ecosystems can result in: a reduction in the size of the resource system (RS3); a mismatch between the ecological and the user-defined boundaries of the resource system (RS2; Western and Gichohi, 1993 ); limited access to spatial and temporal heterogeneity for people and wildlife (RS7, Western et al, 2020 ); lower productivity and carrying capacity for livestock and wildlife (RS5; Fynn et al, 2014 ). This conflicts with wildlife and other national policies that aim to maintain mobility (O1, O2, O3).…”

Abundant herds: Accumulation, herd management, and land-use patterns in a conservation area

“…The establishment of exclusive zones and corridors for wildlife or for cattle seems to run counter to the need for mobility and flexible land-use arrangements. Western et al (2020) advertise an 'insideout' approach which seeks to integrate biodiversity conservation and pastoral land use. The human-centred approach to ensure spatial connectivity is based on multi-level agreements and co-management efforts at all levels.…”