A REVIEW OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISMS FOR BENEFITS-SHARING FROM WILDLIFE: THE CASE STUDY OF MAASAI MARA NATIONAL RESERVE

Abstract

The initial exclusion oflocal communities in benefit sharing from the wildlife industry has resulted to heightened tension and exacerbated prevailing human wildlife conflict. A situation which gave impetus to the concept of Wildlife benefits sharing with the community. The community because of the sacrifices it has made over the use of its land for animal production have begun to question the need to coexist with Wildlife within its land due to dismissal benefits they receive. The laws and policies that were used during and even after independence regarding conservation have less regards to the local community and has led to resentment and a perception real or imaginary of exploitation of the local community. Consequently, managing wildlife coexistent with host community continues as a challenge leading to rampant poaching in the recent past. The study aimed at assessing the arrangement within the law that gives community adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve entitlement to benefit from Wildlife, examining the available benefits and the mechanisms to access benefits to communities adjacent to the Reserve. The study data was obtained from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data was collected from key informer interviews and focused group discussions. The key informers were reached through questionnaires and targeted County Government officials, and investor in the industry, while the Focus group was carried on community members. Additional primary data came from the Kenya Constitution and statutes touching on Wildlife. Secondary data were obtained from written literature in books, which were analyzed to deduce information relevance on the law and mechanisms for benefits sharing from wildlife to community which host wildlife. The Data collected showed that community perceives the term benefits differently from what is stipulated in law. For them, they think that benefits refer to compensation for losses they suffer as a result of wildlife attacks. They are not aware that the law entitles them to benefit sharing from wildlife. Despite this kind of perception, implementation of payment of compensation is a challenge as well as it takes a long time for the government to compensate them or they are never compensated at all, thus they revert to killing of the wildlife that has attacked their livestock. The available benefits are channeled through the Governor office which makes benefits distribution inaccessible and highly control by the Governor Office and prone to political interference. The Overreaching recommendation is that County laws should be amended to provide for County and others stakeholders to provide benefits to communities as well as developing mechanisms that allow communities to participate in benefits sharing' arrangement.