Tourist businesses and governments have a moral obligation to community wildlife conservancies

Awarding wildlife communities such as the pastoral Maasai 10% of Kenya's total tourism revenue would, therefore, not just be a step towards righting a historical injustice. It would enable them to benefit from eco-tourism, diversify livelihoods, adapt better to droughts and climate change, and improve the general welfare of the community.

Other than providing a direct financial dividend for landowners and protecting habitats and wildlife, well-managed community conservancies can build and improve local schools and health facilities, fund education bursaries, and incentivise landowners to dedicate their land to wildlife dispersal and migration.

The need for community incentives cannot be overemphasised. Each year, hundreds of Kenyans are injured or killed by wildlife, crops are destroyed, and their livestock is preyed upon by big cats. Between January and March this year, for instance, KWS recorded 40 human deaths and 70 serious injuries resulting from wildlife attacks. Overall, they responded to 3,857 wildlife-related crop destruction and livestock predation incidents. It is only just and fitting that people in such communities benefit from wildlife tourism.

Understandably, politicians and community leaders from wildlife areas have, for years, been demanding a share of tourism revenue from national parks within their jurisdictions and regions. While this demand is justified given community contribution to conservation, it would gravely curtail KWS' ability to provide critical services in areas where tourism is undeveloped.

According to the Auditor General, while KWS generated Sh8 billion, including government and donor grants, its total expenditure for 2023 was Sh9.7 billion, resulting in a Sh1.39 billion operating deficit. Contrary to local perception, KWS, like most state conservation agencies worldwide, is not a wealthy institution, and the costs of managing and protecting wildlife and people can be staggering.

Sharing 10% of total national tourism revenue with communities as opposed to splitting park fees with KWS is, therefore, a more viable and sustainable option. Further, it shifts the spotlight from the perceived 'wealth' of an inadequately resourced government institution safeguarding people and wildlife to businesses that earn from a resource they are not obliged to protect.