1. 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

2. 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

3. 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?

4. } } 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

5. 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

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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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…

12. 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

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