Negative Outcomes of the Program

Table 4.19: Positive Outcomes of the Program since its Inception

Positive outcomes of the program Frequency Percentage

Restocking of lost livestock 64 51

Reduced killing of predators 30 24

Reduced conflicts/improved relations 16 13

predation reduced due to improved husbandry 8 7

Non-response 1 1

TOTAL 125 100

Findings in Table 4.19 indicates that as a result of the predator consolation scheme, there is recovery of lost source of livelihood in terms restocking of livestock predated upon 51 percent (n=64), this is further explained as

enabling livestock farmers to restock by using the paid amount to buy an equivalent stock or use the fee to offset the costs incurred as a result of predation hence sustained socio-economic livelihoods of the farmers. In terms of support structure and platform for operation, the consolation schemes have been successful. Most offices are in place and equipped though with few needs. The awareness of the scheme, its rules and regulations is impressive and this has enabled it to succeed very well in terms of operations. Systems of verification process have been put in place and these ensured that fraud was kept to a minimum thus making good use of the little funds available for the project except for a few reported cases of false claims as indicated in the research findings.

The consolation scheme has been successful in achieving most of its objectives. For example under the objective of easing economic burden to the farmer as a result of livestock depredation, the payments are soothing for farmers. Most of the farmers appreciated the scheme because of the cash benefits accrued from it. One gets some cash that could be used to cater for some domestic needs unlike there before when consolation was not there. The local people have begun to realize the importance of wildlife conservation as a result of the scheme. The scheme has encouraged the farmers to embark on proper livestock husbandry hence reduced predation cases and human- predator conflict.

Studies have shown that incessant conflict between human and predators can easily damage local people support for conservation (Mishra, 1997). This

statement agrees with past experiences between the Amboseli park managers and the local people, where the Maasai living in the group ranches neighbouring the park have been pushing for degazettment of the park, as they strongly believed that the costs associated with living with wildlife outweighs any benefits they receive in return. On the other hand, conservationists adamantly are against handing over the park to the Maasai to manage because they believe they have no expertise.

Reduced killing of predators 24 percent (n=30), before the establishment of the Olgulului predator consolation scheme, the rate of killing of predators by the locals in retaliation was high as stated by Ogada et al, 2003 where pastoralists are responsible for killing an average of 40 lions per year. This is also informed by the Olgulului predator consolation scheme that started as an intervention strategy to massive killing of lions due to livestock predation has proved to be a good tool in conservation of wild predators and improving socio-economic benefits of the farmers.

Since the inception of the scheme the relationship between the community and wildlife has improved resulting to reduced conflicts as indicated by 13 percent (n=16) of the respondents in the study, this is explained further by the fact that theirs is a sustained dialogue between wildlife managers, farmers and sponsors and that payment is done as promised by the sponsors has seen the relationship improved. It also extends its benefits to entire wildlife conservation in the areas where people live peacefully with wildlife.

The other positive component of the Olgulului Consolation Scheme as highlighted by the respondents is the reduced livestock predation due to improved livestock husbandry as sited by 7 percent (n=8).

These findings generally agree with those of Muruthi (2005) which found out that the predator consolation schemes are designed to increase tolerance levels, improve social-economic livelihood of the affected communities as well as prevent retaliatory action such as killing the responsible predators hence conservation of wild predators.

Pearson’s Product moment correlation analysis was computed to determine the relationship between compensation amounts paid for predation cases in the region and outcomes of the consolation scheme. Table 4.20 presents the results of the Pearson’s Product moment correlation analysis computed to determine the relationship between the compensation amounts paid for predation cases in the region and positive outcomes of the consolation scheme. Table 4.20: Relationship between compensation amounts and positive

outcomes of the scheme

Variable Positive outcomes of the

Scheme Compensation Amounts Pearson Correlation 0.477** N 125 Sig. (2-tailed) .001

The Pearson’s Product Moment Correlation results described in Table 4.20 indicates that the compensation amounts paid for predation cases showed strong and significant positive relationship with positive outcomes of the consolation scheme in the region, showing a coefficient of r = 0.477, P<.01. This implies that compensation amounts paid for predation cases in the region can determine levels of satisfaction as per the respondent’s views on positive or negative outcomes of the consolation scheme. Absence of the payments would imply negatives outcomes of the scheme and therefore not sustainable in enhancing predator conservation in the region. This implied that despite the fact that the local community felt underpaid for loss of their livestock most probably in relation to existing market rates, they appreciated the role played by the scheme in restocking their herds to sustain the livelihoods as a pastoralist community and the fact that the government do not compensate for the loss of property and absence of payment would trigger resentfulness and retaliation hence conflict.

4.4.2 Negative Outcomes of the Program

Besides seeking information on the positive outcomes of the program since its inception, information on the negative outcomes of the program was also sought. The results are shown in Table 4.21.

Table 4.21: Negative Outcomes of the Program since its Inception

Negative outcomes of the program Frequency Percentage

Payment not based on market value 70 56

underpayment and unpaid claims 30 25

Delayed response 20 14

False claims 5 5

TOTAL 125 100

Analysis in Table 4.21 indicates that the main negative outcome of the Olgulului predator consolation scheme is the amount paid per stock is not equivalent to the market value of the stock in question and that accounts for 56 percent (n=70) of the respondents interviewed, 25 percent ( n=30) of the respondents are not comfortable with conditional payment was another factor that contributed to the negative outcome, for one to qualify for full payment he/she must have a good boma, no predator should be killed in the reporting period and the evidence of the stock carcass must be preserved for verification, if any of the condition is not met then the claimant gets half / underpaid or no payment at all.

A lot of delayed response by the verification officers results to apathy and mistrust making it hard to prove predation cases and may result to rejection or underpayment as stated by 20 percent (n=14) of the respondents. False claims as stated by 4 percent of the respondents indicated that some livestock farmers made false claims which sometime affected the integrity of the farmers and the verifying officers and the scheme resulted to paying much more than the

budgeted claims. This implies that payment not being based on market value was the most significant factor influencing negative outcomes of the consolation scheme in the ecosystem.