Will conservation funding protect communities—or restrict their rights over land and natural resources?
Kenya has entered into a 10-year, US$160 million (approximately KSh20.8 billion) conservation programme known as Thamani Asili, involving the Government of Kenya, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Enduring Earth and philanthropic donors, including contributions associated with the Walton and Cargill families.
According to Reuters, the programme targets 17.3 million hectares across ecologically important landscapes. The funding combines US$80 million in philanthropic support with a matching US$80 million commitment from the Kenyan government. The initiative is intended to support conservation, improve the management of existing protected areas and strengthen community conservation efforts.
But there are important questions Kenyans should ask before celebrating the deal.
Who controls the land, and who makes the decisions?
The programme is linked to policy reforms under a financing model known as Project Finance for Permanence. That makes it essential for the government to explain precisely which policy changes are required, how they will be implemented and what they mean for communities living in the targeted landscapes.
Will communities retain control over their land? What protections will guarantee access to grazing areas, water sources, forests, sacred sites and livestock migration routes? Will pastoralists and other land-dependent communities have a meaningful say in decisions affecting their livelihoods?
These are not minor questions. They go to the heart of land rights, community consent and the relationship between conservation and economic development.
What does the 17.3 million hectares figure actually mean?
The programme’s stated coverage should not automatically be interpreted as 17.3 million hectares being transferred to foreign donors or placed under their direct ownership.
TNC says the initiative will support the establishment of new conserved areas, improve management of existing conservation areas and create conditions for communities to manage additional land. These are different categories of intervention, and the precise legal arrangements matter.
The public deserves a clear breakdown of the land involved, its ownership status, the applicable conservation restrictions and the authority responsible for making decisions in each area.
Who benefits from the KSh20.8 billion?
The government and its conservation partners say the initiative will support wildlife protection, community livelihoods, water security and economic opportunities. Those objectives are worth examining—but promises must be measured against enforceable safeguards and tangible results.
Kenyans should demand public disclosure of the funding conditions, the required policy reforms, the role of county governments and community conservancies, and the mechanisms for monitoring expenditure and resolving disputes.
Communities must not be treated merely as occupants of landscapes to be managed by others. Their land rights, livelihoods, cultural heritage and participation in decision-making must remain central to any conservation programme.
Conservation should not become a reason to sideline the people who have lived alongside and cared for these ecosystems for generations.
So, has Kenya been sold?
The published information does not establish that the country has sold 17.3 million hectares or handed foreign donors ownership of that land. But the scale of the programme and its link to policy reforms justify close public scrutiny.
Before celebrating the money, let us examine the conditions. Before expanding conservation areas, let us establish whose rights will be affected. And before committing future generations to long-term arrangements, let us ensure that communities have a voice, their rights are protected and the terms are transparent.
Kenya’s natural heritage must be protected. So must the rights of Kenyans.
