Ol Lentille Conservancy part 5: the future is global

We now have a community with diversified livelihoods, less dependent on livestock, which are so vulnerable to the massive problem of climate change. The land is improving, lessening the impact of climate change, the potential for abundant grazing is around the corner; and there is the prospect of carbon income.

So how does the community perceive these changes? In the (in)famous words of Bill Clinton (no not those words ;)):

This community has so far sacrificed 20,000 acres of their land for conservation. They could have used the grazing, or they could have rented it out. They could have put 2000 cattle onto that land for 6 months of the year. And they could have had an income from it of $30,000 per year. Instead, total economic input from all sources generated by the Project has averaged $400,000 a year for the past 5 years.

In itself this is a community development challenge: a large and sudden increase in income and wealth is something most people do not deal with very well. Look at lottery winners- no different here! The temptation for a corrupt elite to pocket the dosh is huge. So here, much (though not all) of the income goes into infrastructure projects like new and improved schools, additional clinic nurses, a mobile clinic. Decisions on what projects to undertake are taken jointly by community members (teachers, elders, ranch officials, ranch members etc) and Regenesis directors and staff.

Nkiloriti Nursery School in 2006

Inside new classroom number 2 at Nkiloriti, 2010

Under the agreement with Regenesis the approximately $50,000 a year which is free cash, deposited into the ranch bank account, has to be used “transparently and equitably for the benefit of the entire community”, and is audited. AWF has supported the setting up of a village microfinance bank, and community leaders including women (traditionally marginalized in this society) are getting financial and business training and advice.

Women of Lentille community, with visiting teacher from UK

This blog was supposed to be about our conservation strategy. For those disappointed that there are not lots of wildlife stories, I apologise. But conservation is not about wildlife. It is about people. (Though we do still get extremely excited when we spot the endangered African Wild Dog hunting in front of the lodge, and happily watch elephants ‘playing’ at destroying things for hours)

African Wild Dog in Sinyai lagha, Ol Lentille Conservancy

The biggest question of all though, is can conservation pay? The answer is yes. However, if the world wants to conserve the wildlife and ways of life of East Africa, it is the world which will have to pay. Rural East Africans can successfully be in the business of selling to a world market so-called “ecosystem services”, but the international community and its Earth Summits and the plethora of well-meaning but for 50 years wholly ineffective NGOs will have to wake up.

The Tanzanian government (the same one that wants to drive a highway through the Serengeti National Park), wants to put a soda factory on Lake Natron. Soda is an essential commodity chemical crucial to the lives of all who live in the “Western” world, manufactured in ugly and habitat-destroying factories. Lake Natron is at the heart of a vital ecosystem, and one of the world’s most stunningly beautiful places. Conservationists want to stop the soda factory. It’s my view that in that case the world community must pay Tanzania for the income lost. Don’t make Africa pay for your lifestyle!