Protected areas have long been regarded as essential tools for conserving biodiversity, often involving strict exclusion policies to prevent human activities like livestock grazing. However, new research challenges this conventional wisdom, particularly in the Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR), Kenya. A recent study by the University of Michigan reveals that cattle grazing within the reserve, at current levels, does not significantly impact most wild herbivores or degrade vegetation and soil conditions. Instead, it highlights a deeper socio-ecological issue – here pastoralist communities, historically marginalised and displaced, rely on the reserve for their survival. This finding urges conservationists to rethink rigid exclusion policies and consider more inclusive, sustainable management approaches. Christy Bragg unpacks the issues at play
Nature is under pressure – we are losing species and ecosystems at unsustainable rates. Conservationists have developed a toolbox of interventions, one of which is the ‘protected area’. Often, these protected areas are enclosed by fences. Sometimes, people and their associated activities are excluded from these areas. For example, livestock grazing is restricted in many protected areas and nature reserves across Africa, ostensibly to avoid irreparable harm to natural areas.
But is this always the best option? To put this into context, there is substantial research on the value of protected areas in conserving biodiversity, but there is also a growing number of studies supporting alternative approaches, including the use of OECMs (Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures) and biodiversity stewardship. Social scientists have described the importance of preserving “socio-ecological landscapes”. Socio-ecological landscapes are “dynamic mosaics of habitats and land uses” where the “harmonious interaction between people and nature maintains biodiversity while providing humans with the goods and services needed for their livelihoods, survival and well-being in a sustainable manner.” It is a concept imbued with change and people’s relationship with nature, and it holds space for how these intertwining histories have written their stories into the land.
Taking this one step further, there is growing global recognition that indigenous people have embodied protecting nature without resorting to western civilisation’s methods of conservation by isolation, separation and disconnection of nature and people. In the book, Braiding sweetgrass, Robin Kimmerer weaves a storyline about a very different concept of conservation. She proposes that nature evolved with humans, not despite humans. She hypothesises that we need to find our place within nature to truly value it.
When researchers from the University of Michigan undertook a study looking at how the Maasai’s cattle affected the wildlife of the Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR) in Kenya, their findings told a different story to the conventional narrative. It showed that the presence of livestock in the reserve did not have significant negative effects on wildlife presence or vegetation and soil conditions. Some interesting findings were that the occurrence of all herbivores, rather than cattle alone, better predicted the variations in resource conditions and showed stronger effects. They also discovered that, despite the concentration of livestock near the MMNR boundary, no species avoided the boundary, and the vegetation and soil conditions were comparable at the reserve’s edge and core. There has been considerable backlash to this study. To understand the heated response this study received, we need to understand the context.
The Maasai were a semi-nomadic, pastoralist people that arrived in Kenya and Tanzania in the 17th and 18th centuries and spent hundreds of years roaming across the savannahs with their cattle, which they considered to be a blessing from their deity. Cattle are an integral part of Maasai identity, livelihood and culture. And cattle need land. The “Mara” part of “Maasai Mara” means “spotted” – the Maasai way of describing the tree-dotted landscape of the savannah plains. In the early 1900s, a lot of these lands were claimed for British settlements, and in the 1940s to 1960s, more land was allocated to wildlife reserves, including the MMNR. As a result, many Maasai people have now been relegated to living on the edges of their land, and their pastoralist ways are being eroded.
Some portions of the MMNR were later returned to the Maasai community. However, land tenure reform in Kenya has had mixed results, and the subdivision and sale of land portions has resulted in a loss of congruency – in effect, the landscape becomes a mosaic of different land uses, separated by fences controlling access. Some of the Maasai people were able to pool their portions, encouraged by foreign interests, to form private conservancies. These conservancies provide income from tourism and allow managed access to livestock grazing, and this combination has yielded successful outcomes for those beneficiaries. But for those living in Talek, a tiny corner between the conservancies and the Maasai Mara, with no access to either, life has become the essence of the metaphor ‘caught between a rock and a hard place’. Talek is the site where the University of Michigan researchers decided to study how cattle interacted with wildlife and vegetation.
In their study, the researchers point out nuances within the relationship between wildlife and livestock. It is not simply a case of livestock displacing wildlife, or livestock equating to biodiversity loss. These nuances have been pointed out before in other research articles, and it has been concluded previously by Kimuyu et al. that “even if cattle tend to reduce wildlife use of the landscape, managing simultaneously for livestock production (at moderate levels) and biodiversity conservation is possible.”
There is a spectrum of complex interactions between livestock foraging and vegetation responses. Livestock grazing can facilitate benefits for other species and can also result in competition. Much of the reaction is driven by the grazing intensity and whether it is during the wet or dry season. There are indeed both harmful and positive effects of cattle grazing. But, contrary to the assumption that cattle grazing would deplete vegetation and degrade the ecosystem, the study found that the landscape was not negatively affected – if anything, it benefited from the presence of livestock. The researchers’ detailed monthly vegetation analysis revealed that forage quality, including protein and fibre content, remained stable in areas where cattle had grazed. In fact, some grasses rebounded with greater nutritional value after being trimmed by livestock, a process similar to the natural grazing patterns of wild herbivores. This finding challenges the long-standing belief that cattle overgraze and damage protected areas, suggesting instead that moderate grazing may help maintain a healthy mosaic of vegetation types that support diverse wildlife.
However, it cannot be overlooked that the presence of any species has an impact on their surroundings. For example, elephant foraging has positive and negative consequences for vegetation and other species. Cattle have been interacting with wildlife in Africa for thousands of years, and it is not a matter of a recent introduction of cattle. How, then, does one define what “good” or “bad” responses are in an ecosystem? And is the problem exaggerated by those trying to entrench the status quo?
Moreover, in the study, wildlife showed no significant avoidance of cattle-grazed areas, reinforcing the idea that livestock presence does not inherently disrupt the ecosystem. Dung sample analyses revealed that herbivores such as wildebeest, zebra, and gazelle continued to frequent areas where cattle had been, with no evidence of displacement. Even buffalo, the only species showing a weak negative association, were not entirely deterred. These results counter the dominant conservation narrative that livestock and wildlife cannot coexist, indicating that under current grazing levels, the Maasai’s pastoral practices do not threaten the reserve’s wildlife populations. This finding opens the door to rethinking conservation strategies, particularly in regions where indigenous herders have been historically marginalised in the name of wildlife protection.
Some ecologists argue that the study’s limited scope may not fully capture the nuanced relationship between cattle and wildlife in the Maasai Mara. While some species adapt to shared grazing, larger herbivores like elephants and buffalo tend to avoid areas with heavy livestock presence. This aligns with broader concerns about overgrazing in parts of the region. But one thing is for sure: shifting conservation policies and land-use practices are shaping wildlife movement and ecosystem health.
Some previous scientific studies investigating the effect of livestock in protected areas have been too broad in scale (expansive aerial surveys) or categorical (such as simplifying comparisons to no livestock versus high livestock densities) to provide overarching insight. Some have been based on correlation only, or have not integrated the fine-scale, multi-species effects. And what about other, non-scientific confounding factors? For example, parties managing protected areas may be prioritising meeting tourists’ expectations of visiting a pure wilderness area, resulting in a policy of no cattle in sight. This then raises questions of ethics. When we start evaluating decisions based on ethics, what changes?
This scenario has been repeated many times across Africa and other continents, and there have been fiery discussions about how to support these communities on the periphery that are often considered as being “responsible” for human-wildlife conflict. For example, opponents might point to the degradation of the lands of Talek as an example of mismanagement. But the problem is not high density of cattle per se – it is the context and history that has led to the current overgrazing. Talek faces a double burden – it supports resident pastoralists’ livestock, conservancy pastoralists’ livestock (when not in the conservancies) and even wildlife grazing. It is also not connected to other opportunities for rotational grazing. The community are not wealthy enough to move their homes. They are squeezed in the middle, and no matter where they go, they are likely to be trespassing some boundaries. They are fined or arrested if they get caught grazing cattle in the park. If they break the lease of the conservancies by grazing cattle there without obtaining approval, then they lose the leasing income. If one person in the community breaks the lease, there is a risk that all other members of the community will have to forfeit their lease income. This generates a lot of mistrust and tension between the conservancies, the park and the community.
When viewpoints become rigid, opportunities to maximise benefits are overlooked, and the disempowered often lose disproportionately.
Conservationists speak for nature. However, conservation does not take place in a vacuum – it exists in a context, and, as such, there is a clear case here for inviting an ethical assessment. Biodiversity conservation ethics addresses “what should be conserved, how, and why, guiding actions and decisions over values and their potential conflict.” It necessitates engaging with multiple values and following a set of moral principles to guide conservation actions and decision-making. However, Cortés-Capano et al. argue that western positions have “directed conservation strategies by defining the space of legitimate arguments, overlooking solutions that do not fit neatly the chosen approaches [sic]”. Ignoring diverse ethical positions leads to injustices and reduces the potential of conserving biodiversity.
When people lose access to their land, they are not only losing their homes but they have also been displaced from their pursuit of a livelihood (gathering firewood, hunting, grazing etc.). They also experience a feeling of symbolic obliteration from the landscape – their removal from its history, memory, and representation. When people protest, they are protesting the loss of power and control over their environment and the commodification of wildlife into things which tourists can purchase but that locals cannot afford. Communities around Kruger National Park, for example, say that rhinos receive more attention and better protection than people.
So, what would an ethical review of the current impasse look like? In The handbook of conservation and sustainability ethics, it is proposed that the path forward should be determined based on the following principles:
- reducing inappropriate actions and recognising where there are no clear solutions;
- identifying the most important gaps in scientific knowledge;
- inspiring humility among stakeholders; and
- generating common ground and transcendent perspectives.
The University of Michigan study provides a compelling case for reconsidering conservation policies in the Maasai Mara and beyond. Rather than supporting strict livestock exclusion, the findings suggest that a more nuanced, context-aware approach could benefit both wildlife and pastoralist communities. With no significant negative impact on biodiversity or habitat conditions, the presence of cattle in MMNR underscores the importance of integrating socio-ecological realities into conservation planning. By acknowledging historical land use, ethical considerations, and local livelihoods, conservationists can work toward solutions that balance ecological integrity with social justice, fostering a more inclusive and sustainable future for both people and wildlife.
What the researchers address in their study on the impacts of livestock encroachment is the need for a new era of conservation – one that encompasses social and environmental justice and focuses on innovative approaches whilst creating common ground. Is there a common ground in this situation? Perhaps it is time to find out.
References
- Brockington, D. & Igoe, J. (2006) Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conservation and Society 4 (3): pp. 424–70. JSTOR, .
- Cortés, G.C., Hausmann, A.H., Minin, E.D., & Kortetmäki, T. (2022). Ethics in biodiversity conservation: The meaning and importance of pluralism. Biological Conservation 275: 109759.
- Herrik, A. L., Mogensen, N., Svenning, J.-C., & Buitenwerf, R. (2023). Rotational grazing with cattle-free zones supports the coexistence of cattle and wild herbivores in African rangelands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 60, 2154–2166.
- IPBEs (2011). Glossary definitions. “Socio-ecological landscape”. Retrieved November 2024.12.03.
- Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass. First edition. Minneapolis, Minnesota, Milkweed Editions.
- Kirigia, K. & Riamit, K. (2018). Land injustices in Kenya’s wildlife conservancies. Global ejournal, University of California, Series Tourism & Development in Africa: 11 (50). Retrieved November 2024.
- Mukpo, A. (2024). Can cattle and wildlife co-exist in the Maasai Mara? A controversial study says yes. Mongabay 5 November 2024. Retrieved November 2024.
- Roving Reporters (2024). From panic to partnerships: New thinking on people and poaching. (2024). Daily Maverick June 2024. Retrieved in November 2024.
- Xu,W. & Butt, B. (2024). Rethinking livestock encroachment at a protected area boundary. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121 (38) e2403655121.
Further reading
- Maasai, maize and mammoths – human-elephant conflict in the Amboseli ecosystem: Averting crop-raiding elephants in the Amboseli ecosystem is a constant battle. Josh Clay reports on how rangers prevent human-elephant conflict
- The emotions of human-wildlife conflict: Emotions and cultural significance attached to wild carnivores strongly influence mitigation strategies, according to research.
- Human-wildlife conflict is one of the biggest causes of reduction in wildlife populations across Africa. We unpack various solutions for human-wildlife conflict in East Africa.
- Elephants & cattle – restoring soil nutrient levels: Research shows that elephants can assist farmers by restoring soil nutrient levels when cattle have depleted those nutrients.
To comment on this story: Login (or sign up) to our app here - it's a troll-free safe place 🙂.
