ABOUT MAASAI COMMUNITY
Land conservation and tourism handled in a legitimate manner ultimately benefit the Maasai community residents in areas where open space is still available in Kenya and in Tanzania. This is best accomplished through development of sustainable community based tourism enterprises (CBETEs) The Maasai of Kenya and Tanzania are one of the best-known pastoralist populations in the world, indeed Spear suggests “Everyone ‘knows’ the Maasai” (1993: 1).
The economic and social conditions of the Maasai have changed throughout their history in response to a myriad of factors operating over a variety of spatial and temporal scales. In recent decades the influence of nation states, monetization of the traditional economy, formal education, land tenure changes and demographic factors have all played a part in shaping the current socio-economic situation of Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania.
The Nature of Maasai Lifestyle

The Maasai are predominantly pastoralists in its various forms. The definition of pastoralism most current in the development literature is that of Swift (1988), which reads in its essentials:
‘Pastoral production systems are those in which 50% of gross household revenue (i.e. the total value of marketed production plus the estimated value of subsistence production consumed within the household) comes from livestock or livestock-related activities.’
This definition has the very important advantage of de-emphasizing nomadism. ‘Nomads’ – long used as a term for (some) pastoralists -- focused on a particular strategy, that of mobility, not the production and consumption system within which it is used. Some definitions of nomadism carried negative connotations of people moving for obscure psycho-cultural reasons, which needed to be overcome in the name of efficiency and civilization.
In this sense, the term ‘pastoralist’ has to be extended to individuals or households within groups holding such values who have been forced by destitution to depend on non-livestock livelihoods. But there are also wealthy households within such groups who have successfully diversified into trade, transport, agriculture or government employment in which their households depend on up to 49% of gross household revenue.
Swift points out that it must be emphasized that livestock, and social ties engendered by livestock, are fundamental to value systems, and that truly participatory development must respect this and not treat livestock solely as ‘natural capital’.
In its pure form, Maasai pastoralism optimally uses the dry land terrains that do not support continuous crop cultivation. It requires large tracks of lands that allow freedom of movements and provide sufficient pasture over the differing seasons and adequate water for both human and livestock consumption, usually obtained from rain and fragile ecosystems. The pastoralists prized this freedom of movement and were masters of their environment and predictable weather patterns.
However, most of these key factors for successful pastoralism have been drastically affected by both natural and man-caused factors. These factors include natural and man-made problems. Rapidly changing weather patterns and droughts in the natural world are causing severe problems. In the world of human interactions, colonialism, inappropriate land tenure policies for the pastoralism areas, inadequate government support for the pastoralism sector, and increasing animal and human population conflicts over the now limited resources are leading to a declining quality of life among the pastoralist community.

Pastoral Enterprises
The most common and simplest categorization of pastoralism is by the degree of movement from highly nomadic through transhumant to agro-pastoral systems. Pastoralists are by their nature flexible and opportunistic and can rapidly switch management systems as well as to operate multiple systems in one overall productive enterprise
The Maasai have over time gone through a continuum of several of these systems but currently their practices range between transhumance and simple ranching.
Nomadism
These are pastoralists who are livestock producers exclusively, who grow no crops and simply depend on the sale or exchange of animals and their products to obtain foodstuffs.

Transhumance
Transhumance is the regular movement of herds between fixed points to exploit seasonal availability of pastures and water.
In mountain regions, this is a vertical movement usually between established points on routes that are very ancient. Horizontal transhumance is more opportunistic, with movement between fixed sites developing over a few years but often disrupted by climatic, economic or political change. Transhumant pastoralists often have a permanent homestead and base at which the older members of the community remain throughout the year. Transhumance is often associated with the production of some crops, although primarily for herders’ own use rather than for the market.
Agro-pastoralism
Agro-pastoralists make greater investment in housing and other local infrastructure. If their herds become large, they often send them away with more nomadic pastoralists. Agro-pastoralism is often also the key to interaction between the sedentary and mobile communities.
Enclosed systems and ranching
Apart from the traditional pastoral systems described above, the fourth system of extensive livestock production may be described as enclosed systems or ranching, i.e. where the land is individually owned and usually fenced off. According to Strickon (1965) the United States is a good example of the gradual transition from common ownership systems prevalent in the nineteenth century to a fully enclosed system today.
Rivière (1972) describes these transitional systems for northern Brazil where communal tenure is giving way to ranching. As Ingold (1990) points out, ranching is an inevitable development in certain types of economies where urban demand for protein makes the lax supply systems of conventional pastoralism unacceptable, and input supply can support the higher throughputs that justify ranches

As neighbouring nation states, Kenya and Tanzania have experiences that are similarly striking: a common climate, similar natural resource bases, rapidly growing populations of small subsistence farmers, common cultural groupings and historical British colonial rule. The differences are equally remarkable.
Until very recently, post-independence Kenya has pursued policies that emphasize economic growth over equity, agricultural growth over pastoralism, private sector development, receptivity to foreign private investment, preservation and extension of colonial institutions, and the maintenance of close ties with Britain. Tanzania, on the other hand, has been typified by socialism, self-reliance, a more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth, state intervention in and ownership of the economy, a reduction in reliance on agricultural exports, and forced villagisation (ujamaa) of the rural population (Barkan, 1994).
The national-level divergence in policies between socialism in Tanzania and capitalism in Kenya are highlighted within Maasailand. In Kenya, the impact of the Group Ranch programme has had profound implications for Maasai access to land. The Group Ranch concept was rooted in post-independence Kenya and is based on the premise that if livestock production could be raised, bringing it into the commercial sector, then any wealth generated could be ploughed back into development of semi-arid areas (Evangelou, 1985).
Changing land tenure in Kenya towards group ownership (from 1970) and then individual tracts since 1980 was clearly pointed out by the participating communities as key in the commercialization of pastoral production systems. This did not translate well the Maasai way o life.
Initially, the policy involved the registration of small 10 km areas of land to individual Maasai households. However, as Homewood points out “these were neither ecologically nor economically viable for livestock production” (Homewood 1995:338). The natural successor to the original plan was to parcel land into larger blocks to be held by community associations /co-operatives of herd owners. Recently, however, the group ranch system has been subject to subdivision of land in a move towards individual land ownership, in line with Kenyan government policies.
The result of this land subdivision is uneconomical land parcels for livestock production and sale of land by individual members of the Maasai community because of their increased poverty. To make matters worse, often the sellers have limited or no skills, experience, or training on how to invest the meager land proceeds in sustainable livelihood ventures. Thus, a good number of the community members have ended up losing their land and land rights to the more wealthy, skilled and economically powerful immigrant community.

My inspiration came from the words of Zeldin below
Once people see themselves as influencing one another, they cannot be merely victims: anyone, however modest, then becomes a person capable of making a difference, minute though it might be, to the shape of reality. New attitudes are not promulgated by law, but spread, almost like an infection, from one person to another. (Zeldin 1994, 466)

Why I Choose To Volunteer
I found that there is great need in the Maasai community for sustainable livelihood in the face of historical marginalization, increased poverty, and declining quality of life that puts the community at increasing risk and vulnerability to both natural and man-caused disasters. Of particular interest and hence the name of the trust are conservation of the living environment and its diverse resources and access to beneficial levels of education for members of the community and natural resources conservation.
Due to increased poverty, unsustainable pastoralism for lack of adequate policy support and effective markets for livestock products, the indigenous and minority Maasai community is highly vulnerable to disposing the only lasting asset they have-land, and losing their identity through assimilation by the more economically endowed immigrant communities who buy and settle on the land.
One of the main objectives for the trust is to protect the community’s high tourism and film production potential lands form being sold to non-indigenous people through establishment of sustainable ecotourism enterprises to supplement on their limited incomes from livestock production (pastoralism). I also hope to increase income generation and employment opportunities through the CBETEs as well as set up an education trust fund to be funded by a percentage of the CBETEs income and well wishers so as to increase access to education for the community’s children. This in turn gives them the capacity and skills needed to engage in various livelihood source initiatives and well paying employment opportunities.
In addition, I strong desire to promote and sustain influence for the respect for human rights, land rights, good and democratic governance, control of historical and culture sites for the betterment of the livelihood of the Maasai community living in; Maasai of Kenya. The following statements outline the purposes for which I intend to accomplish.
My Vision
I envision a socio-economically empowered Maasai community deriving its livelihood from conserving its living environment.
Mission.
To facilitate development of sustainable livelihood and increased access to higher education for the Maasai community through profitable Community based Eco-Tourism Enterprises (CBETEs), pastoralism and an Education Trust fund.
1. The Story of Two Maasai Families.
As the first step towards the CBETEs concept and core mission strategy, I approached two families whose parcels of land straddle the beautiful Olooruka and Olesakut (echoes) escarpment. The escarpment forms the eastern side of the walls of the Great Rift Valley cutting across Kenya from the north to the south. The site perfectly fits my vision of working with individual families who own land and bringing them together to them the sustainable benefits of preserving the natural ecosystem and wildlife habitats and establishing compatible income generating CBETEs. The two families exemplify the typical families in the mission target areas.
The two are the families of Moses Ole Matura and Sampuan Ole Mokole and other who were recruited by the two. The families moved here in the early and late 70s when the government adjudicated the entire Saikeri scheme to about 300 families then. Ole Matura’s family owns 800 acres on the western side of the Olooruka hills. Mr. Matura is married with three wives each with six children. His three adult sons are each married with 2, 4, 5 children. Today the Matura family has grown from 7 to 30 members in three decades. The entire pastoralist family depends on 150 head of cattle and 160 goats and sheep forming their only livelihood source of income apart from one adult son who is employed as a casual worker in Nairobi. Seven of Matura’s children have managed to go to neither college nor University due to his ability to conserve his land for better pasture hence good prices for his animals in the market making him able to access to quality education for his children.
On the other hand, Ole Mokole’s family owns 600 acres of land on the eastern side of the gouge. Sampuan is married with two wives and 12 children forming a family of 15. When he moved here in the early 70s, ole Mokole was just a young man aged 25 years. The family entirely depends on about 60 head of cattle and 120 goats and sheep for their livelihood. Though the children in the home have proved to be indeed bright at school with the eldest son currently attending Daystar University in Nairobi and another at Oloolaiser secondary school, maintaining them in school is the old man’s greatest challenge at the moment. Fortunately, the second born son attending secondary school managed to get a government bursary scholarship being a student. Peter Parsaloi who should be in his 3rd year of studies at Daystar has just barely finished his first year as he often has to content with long breaks from college to engage in some agricultural enterprises and look for well-wishers to support him with his college fees.
In both families, there is no telling of the future of the education of their children and they certainly have to content with a poorer life unless some livelihood sustainability strategies are introduced. This is due to the increased family membership without parallel increase in their livelihood sources. Increasing the Livestock population in both families is constrained by several key factors among them; inadequate pasture and water for pure pastoralism, stubborn livestock diseases, and increasingly recurrent droughts in the area and reducing land to livestock and human population ratios. The standard land carrying capacity of both families is limited to 5 acres per animal meaning that both are already at their full capacity. Furthermore, lack of viable livestock and livestock product markets means that is currently getting much less from sale of their livestock and livestock products than they could with high demand for pastoralism products.
Given the above scenario, it only means that the families will either have to look for and establish alternative livelihood means viable in the area so as to supplement pastoralism or remain increasingly poor and vulnerable to all kinds of natural and man-caused vagaries. The second alternative is for some members of the bigger families (adult sons and their families) to move and establish themselves elsewhere, adopt better livestock production methods and more productive breeds. The second option is only viable if the younger families have the resources and capacity to establish themselves elsewhere, acquire better breeds and associated rearing capacity and have increased access to livestock product markets. Unfortunately, this is not possible since they don’t possess other livelihood skills, capacities or financial resources to set up this option. Usually, access to tertiary and technical education and high paying jobs would provide such resources and capacity.
The viable options for the community is the establishment of profitable CBETEs highly suited in the area and similar areas with natural attractive phenomena and habitats, increased access to education beyond secondary education through bursary and scholarship support, increased livestock production capacity, rearing of more productive breeds suited in the arid and semi-arid (ASAL) environment and profitable livestock products markets.
2. My Philosophy.(Sustaining Community Lands)
I believe that among the community’s viable options for alternative sustainable livelihood is ecotourism enterprise development which will not be an entirely foreign concept to the community because of its strong historical, cultural and socio-economic attachment to land and its resources. Further, I believe that sustainable natural resource management and development, both in protected and non-protected areas, must accept community participation in all aspects of biodiversity conservation, utilization, benefits and development of the ecosystems carrying the biodiversity.
As a friend of the Ecotourism Kenya, Africa Conservation Center and Kenya Wildlife Service, the I have learnt substantial lessons and has had eye-opening experiences while doing a nationwide, Action –Aid sponsored tour of the best managed ecotourism and community based tourism enterprises in the country that i would like to replicate in most Maasai areas.
The CBTE concept is based on the precept that the current livelihood of the community based on pastoralism alone will not be sustainable for long in its current form and in the face of the host of both natural and anthropogenic factors against its continued practice. The concept involves the establishment of nature conservation areas that incorporate ecotourism enterprises offering a variety of products and services attractive to tourist visitors and holiday makers.
Such areas must be endowed with attractive natural scenery and phenomena such as escarpments, natural springs, forests, hills, lakes and mountains. They should also be natural habitats to a variety of wildlife, especially the endangered species.

3. The Maasai Community’s Attachment to the Land.
The Maasai community is re-known for their attachment to the land and contribution to conservation and tourism the world over. Over 70% of all conservation areas in East Africa are former Maasai grazing lands. These include the 7th wonder of the world;- the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Narok and Trans-Mara districts of Kenya, the Amboseli and parts of the Tsavo National Reserves in Kajiado district, the Samburu National Reserve in Samburu district and the Serengeti in Tanzania’s Monduli district.
The community has strong attachment to land for religious, cultural and livelihood reasons. Across Maasai land, such sites as the Oldonyo lenkai (mountain of God) in Ewuaso, Magadi and near Lake Natron in Tanzania are considered holy grounds where the community often performs spiritual rites and ceremonies. Age-group ceremonies such as circumcision, the Eunoto (shaving of the Morans and graduation to elder hood) and fertility, rain-making prayers are always performed in secluded areas conserved for these purposes only. In these sites, one is not even allowed to pluck a single twig as the entire sites, plants and animals therein are considered sacred. The community entirely depends on grass pastures, natural springs, rivers and lakes for water used domestically and by their livestock. It traditionally developed well defined ecologically and weather pattern based migration (nomadism) routes and movement to effectively manage the wet and dry seasons between the low and highlands.
However, the community has been largely marginalized in the recent past where these huge national conservation areas curved out of their traditional grazing lands no longer benefit their livestock and only provide negligible assistance to the community’s development. The areas now mainly benefited central government and international conservation organizations and tourism entrepreneurs through gate fees and elaborate tourism enterprises. Currently, the community preserves both the wildlife and the government as its enemies since the former compete for the declining pasture and water resources with their increased livestock populations and the only provide less than 10% in general community infrastructure development in areas neighboring the conservation areas.
My mission is to reverse this scenario by advocating and volunteer to ask landowners to establish mini community-control conservation areas and facilitate them to establish tourism enterprises that are going to benefit them 100%
4. How I am Going To Replicate The Concept Of Land Conservation.
The CBTE Model
I will work with local communities involving between 2 to 25 families to establish mini conservation areas that integrate CBETEs with the objective of facilitating both conservation and income generation to provide the families with sustainable livelihoods from low impact tourism.
Each CBETEs site shall comprise of 1000- 5000 acres of conservation area, 1-2 low-cost campsite or Ecolodges and community interaction points (CIPs) to be managed in a participatory manner with community enterprise committees (CECs). Each CEC is expected to be of about 9 members and lead by a 3-member Technical Enterprise Advisory committee (TEAC) drawn from the CEC. Ultimately, the CBTE site area is expected to be fenced off and have two designated areas; livestock production and conservation. It shall also comprise; 1-2 entrance/exit gates, 1 beneficiary community school and linkage/partnership with 3-5 other CBTE sites located in 1-2 districts.
The CBTE products and services to be offered at the CBTE sites include; Campsites, African Home stays, Cottages, and Eco-lodges, Traditional Dishes, Cultural Songs and Dances, Story Telling, Nature Walks, Wildlife trecks & Safaris, rock and mountain climbing, Traditional artifacts & Crafts, conservation athletics and Museums. These products will be packaged in such a way that they form a variety of related and mixed packages that meet client’s needs and tastes.
The target beneficiaries include; families and community based organizations (CBOs) and their members, community schools, qualified primary and secondary school graduates joining secondary and tertiary institutions, and community members to be employed in the CBETEs,
The benefits shall include capacity building and skills for development and management of CBETEs, better quality of life as a result of increased income from the CBETES and land leasing agreements, additional school infrastructure and scholarships for bright students from destitute families, employment opportunities, ecotourism work experience. The landowners will benefit from capacity building activities and opportunities to develop policies and make decision that will shape a better future for the entire community.
Target geographical locations
Controlled conservation areas will initially be piloted in the Ngurman Escarpments Entasopia Village community of Lodokilani, Empaash Oloirienito Conservancy in the Ntashat Saikeri Village community of Keekonyokie South Location of Kajiado district before best practices are scaled up to benefit the entire Maasai community resident and Olkusarr conservancy Lontasati village community of Lodokilani through establishment of an effective and profitable and sustainable CBETEs network and district-based Education Trust Funds.

Our Community needs experts who are linked to resourced volunteerism in three major area:
Business Planning,Architecture and fund raising,

The three will help in the realization of campsites,ecologdes and land conservation