Participatory SWOT analysis of institutional arrangements in the conservancies Sarah Schomers Enabling Livestock Based Economies in Kenya to Adapt to Climate Change: A Review of PES from Wildlife Tourism as a Climate Change Adaptation Option ILRI, Nairobi, 15 February 2012

Who am I ? Working at the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany M.Sc. „International Economics and Business“ University of Groningen (Netherlands) PhD project embedded in CIVILand – a junior research group engaged in PES in the context of civil society initiatives in Germany, UK and USA Research focus: Economic Incentives to conserve ES (PES) Institutional economics with the focus on transaction cost economics

What is awaiting you? “SWOT Analysis” – what are we talking about? Identification major stakeholders present in conservancies Example of SWOT Analysis (preliminary) How will we work in this participatory session?

} } S W O T Strenghs Weaknesses Opportunity Threats S W O T S W O T Analysis Strenghs Weaknesses } relate mostly to present advantages and disadvantages of conservancies Opportunity Threats } relate mostly to future possibilities to be exploited, - potential future pitfalls that need to be taken care of

Identification of major stakeholders present in conservancies Within Conservancies diverse Stakeholders 1. Pastoralists 2. Tourism Operators 3. Political Level 4. Conservation (Ecology) sometimes conflicting, sometimes supplementing – interest are present Therefore we will do different SWOT analyses: Each from the perspective of the respective stakeholder

Pastoralists Tourism Operators Political Level Conservation Strength Weaknesses Opportu-nities Threats Political Level Conservation

Pastoralists Tourism Operators Political Level Conservation Strength Weaknesses Opportu-nities Threats Political Level Conservation

Pastoralists Strength Income  income diversification, amount of income, stability of income, security and predictability of income Access to financial institutions Monetary trickle-down effects to broader community and people not owning land within conservancies Remuneration beyond pure cash payments: - guiding school - community projects Pastoralist have voice, i.e. Board of Trustees Stops further fragmentation of land and keeps rangeland together and open

Non-land owners being worse off Power imbalance Pastoralists Weaknesses Weaknesses disappointment among Pastoralists: did not expect to have that little land for grazing for any other use too little active inclusion of Pastoralist (shareholder of tourism enterprises?) Non-land owners being worse off Power imbalance

Pastoralists Opportunities incorporating Pastoralists as shareholders  also helps to directly link aim to increase wildlife with own income Pastoralists could potentially benefit from emerging markets due to increased tourism: beef production, handicrafts, honey … improvement, augmentation and diversification of income from land use changes and conservancies: VER, CDM, REDD, Habitat Banking, bundling of diverse ES that can be sold in future (potentially) emerging ES markets

Pastoralists Threats reliance on donor funding damage that increased wildlife causes (predation)  in particular to non-members being more disadvantaged as no payments for increased wildlife in first place inflation, decreasing future land lease payments (if increase in inflation exceeds that of payments climate change fluctuations: drought and lost access to land governance structures need to be flexible enough to adapt to short term climate fluctuations, such as droughts…

Example of SWOT Analysis Conservancies across Kenya differ - land tenure - payment scheme  Impact on respective S-W-O-T? Example of SWOT Analysis Field Research August 2011 Focus on Mara Conservancies Preliminary and not complete! CCA

How will we work in this session? Group formation Break out session in 4 groups 1h Lunch Plenary session to discuss group findings 90min