This is the accepted version of the journal article: Mwamidi, Daniel Maghanjo; Nunow, Abdirizak Arale; Domínguez, Pablo. «Cus- tomary ecological conservation of Mwanda-Marungu Pastoral Commons in Taita Hills, south-west Kenya». African Journal of Range and Forage Science, Vol. 40, Issue 1 (February 2023), p. 94-106. DOI 10.2989/10220119.2022.2138972 This version is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/273120 under the terms of the license 1 Title: Customary Ecological Conservation of Mwanda-Marungu Pastoral commons in Taita 2 hills, South-west Kenya 3 By 4 ¹ Daniel Maghanjo Mwamidi 5 ²Abdirizak Arale Nunow 6 ³ Pablo Dominguez 7 8 1. The Laboratory for the Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems in a Globalized world 9 (LASEG), at The Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (ICTA), Autonomous 10 University of Barcelona, Spain. 11 2. Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, School of Arts and 12 Social Sciences, Moi University, Kenya 13 3. Laboratoire de Géographie de l'Environnement (GEODE), UMR-5602 CNRS Université 14 Toulouse 2, France ; and Social and Cultural Anthropology Department/Institut de Ciència i 15 Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain. 16 *Corresponding Author: dmmwamidi@gmail.com 17 18 19 Abstract 20 Rural commons in East-Africa have historically played key socio-economic and environmental 21 sustainability. Despite growing interest in this arena, there are still surprisingly few studies that 22 examine rural customary management of pastoral communities’ in East-Africa. This is striking 23 given that this region is an exemplary area for pastoralism and thus ideal for communal systems 24 such as commons. Deficient studies and political support in this area could be linked to still 25 widespread prejudice of branding pastoralism as perilous to environmental. We set to conduct a 26 study to examine and test pastoralists’ customary norms that underpin environmental 27 sustainability/unsustainabity of pastoral commons focusing on Mwanda-Marungu, in Taita hills, 28 Kenya where the first author originates and brought up as a pastoralist up to the age of 24. Through 29 ethnographic approaches and semi-open interviews to 193 respondents conducted in 2019-2021 30 during water/pasture stress dry months of July-October, we examined whether customary 31 governance of Mwanda-Marungu would offer sustainable model that conforms to the IUCN’s 32 Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs). Our study evidences that pastoral 33 communities in this area have been developing for generations, inventive measures that proves 34 good management and ecological protection that may be tied to the principals of OECMs that 35 contests misconception about pastoralism. 36 Key Words: Environmental sustainability, norms, Other Effective Area-Based Conservation 37 Measures, Conservation, Pastoralism. 38 39 Introduction 40 There has been an increasing interest among the scientists and stakeholders in natural resources 41 conservation and on the important roles in which rural communities play in the account of 42 environmental protection in rural landscapes from the last decade (Imanishimwe, 2018; UN, 2021). 43 In this connection, there has been accelerated discourse between environmental conservation, 44 sustainable livelihoods and abilities of indigenous institutions to maintain resilient social- 45 ecological systems through community-based management and their potential for local 46 development (Charles, 2021; Schley et al., 2022). 47 This increasing interest may also be attributed to growing realization that local communities may 48 provide sustainable solutions to environmental crises that the planet is involved in, because they 49 are mainly driven by social and cultural values which are well ascribed by majority of community 50 members (Anup, 2016; Roka, 2019, Turner et al., 2022). International environmental organizations 51 such as United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), United Nations Development Program 52 (UNDP), the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Indigenous Peoples and Local 53 Communities Conserved Areas Consortium (ICCAc) among many other organizations, are now 54 taking a lead position in promoting this dialogue and action (Dawson et al., 2021). 55 International Union for Conservation of nature (IUCN) is fostering a new biodiversity 56 conservation paradigm of “Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures – OECMs” which 57 among other systems, recognizes the role of local communities’ cultural values in environmental 58 conservation, increasing of livelihood opportunities whilst being important partners in helping to 59 fulfil the United Nation Environmental Program’s Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) 60 Aichi Target 11- which had aimed at attaining at least up to 17% of terrestrial landscapes 61 biodiversity conserved areas by 2020 (Jonas, 2018). 62 Concretely, the definition of OECMs is a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, 63 which is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes 64 for the in situ conservation of biodiversity with associated ecosystem functions and services and 65 where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values (CBD 66 Decision 14/8). According to IUCN/WCPA (2022), an OECM should meet the following: a site 67 where management is addressing the threats; a site where management has the capacity to address 68 threats and there is a realistic probability that severe damage to the biodiversity value of the site 69 will be avoided; a site where legal means or other effective means (such as customary laws or 70 binding agreements with landowners) to address threats are in place; a site where sustainable 71 traditional or low-impact management of natural resources is consistent with the conservation of 72 important biodiversity values; a site with no current or future severe threats identified. 73 Moreover, Aichi’s Target 11 may have very probably not been fully met because there may be 74 other important stakeholders, especially rural communities, whose contributions are still very far 75 from being fully tapped. Their contribution can have great value because these commons’ 76 livelihoods are derived directly from ecosystems, so the commoners are the first interested actors 77 in keeping their functionality and thus, their non-participation could have profound ecological 78 calamities (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2019). In addition, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development 79 Goals (SGDs) especially targets 1 [subsection-(i)-targets to eliminate extreme poverty; and 80 subsection-(v)-targeting to build environmental resilience and shocks] and target 13 [subsection 81 (i) -which targets to build climate change adaptation and resilience] may be attained if all 82 indigenous people and local communities are effectively included as important stakeholders in 83 nature conservation and on which in Eastern Africa and many other parts of the continent directly 84 concern pastoralism. 85 Despite the emergent focus on the link between local communities and empirically proved 86 environmental protection and contributors to sustainable development (Dominguez & Hammi, 87 2009; Alves-Pinto, 2021), there are still few studies that have systematically examined the roles of 88 customary management of pastoral commons of East Africa (Renom et al 2020). In fact, 89 divergently, there has been growing resentment among scholars, governments and other 90 conservation agencies that have persistently linked pastoralism to environmental degradation 91 (Amwata, 2015; Basimba et al., 2016; Kratli & Toulmin, 2021; Ntumva, 2022). 92 This is striking given that East Africa region is an exemplary area for pastoralism covering over 93 43% of the horn of Africa and directly supports over 20 million people in this region (Amwata et 94 al., 2015; Nyariki & Amwata 2019). For instance, over 80% of Kenya’s landmass which is 95 classified as arid and semi-arid lands and which are particularly fragile ecosystems, are at the same 96 time mostly wisely and sustainably shared among pastoral communities, which at the same time 97 host over 90% of wildlife (GoK, 2010; FAO, 2018;). 98 In fact, pastoralism as a means of livelihoods and mostly co-evolved through centuries and 99 millennia with local ecosystems, supports over 200 million households worldwide and is classified 100 as one of a potential sustainable system that if properly managed, will continue being an important 101 path that may lead to socio-economic and ecological development and has been evinced for 102 millenniums (Robertshaw, 2021; Bollig and Schulte, 1999; Behnke, 2008). It is so much so that it 103 directly links to global initiatives dominating international agendas (e.g. on 15 March 2022, the 104 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York unanimously declared 2026 the 105 International Year of Rangelands & Pastoralists (IYRP): https://iyrp.info/ ). Focus on East African 106 pastoral commons could therefore be on top or at parity with other rural livelihoods shaping 107 landscape considering that this pastoralism alone contributes directly up to 30% of Kenya’s GDP 108 exclusive of other indirect and unaccounted benefits (GoK, 2010) and that commons are a 109 paradigmatic management of pastoralism. 110 Communal landscapes are well known to support innumerable ecosystem services such as in-situ 111 biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, soil and water retention, sustainable livelihoods, 112 wildlife buffer zones and many other. Therefore, pastoral commons being such a system also ought 113 to deserve scholarly attention in bid to strengthen these pastoral communities and therefore these 114 ecosystems, especially in a fragile arid and semi-arid region like East Africa (Bikila et al., 2016; 115 Little, 1996). In fact, Niamir-Fuller, (2022) describes pastoralism as proven a nature-based 116 solution that can help achieve many of our global development goals. Traditional pastoral 117 communities are most often custodians of cultural environmental conservation models that most 118 have been tried over and over through centuries of ever-evolving in-depth local knowledge and 119 thus in many cases are very interesting systems in terms of offering sustainable conservation 120 models of natural resources tested and consolidated through time. 121 Deficient studies in this area could be linked to prejudice/fallacy among scholars and policy 122 makers that views pastoralism as perilous and regressive to environmental sustainability (IRIN, 123 2013; Shanahan,2013; Basimba el at., 2016). For instance, CBD (2010) noted that most press 124 articles published covers pastoralism in bad light of droughts and conflicts and thus painting a 125 depraved depiction of pastoralism being a conflict fermenting type of livelihood and thus not 126 befitting to offer environmental management solutions. 127 In addition, many studies may have used weak study tools in interrogating the relationship between 128 pastoralism and environmental protection by not using pastoralists’ lenses or analysing more in- 129 depth their communal governance bodies. Consequently, these studies may not reflect a true 130 picture especially considering that pastoralism is a way of life which is deeply embedded in culture 131 of the practicing communities. Therefore, it would be ideal for future studies to interrogate this 132 subject of pastoralism and environmental protection by understanding socio-cultural organizations 133 within pastoral landscapes and how local pastoralist relate to their landscapes on day-to-day basis. 134 This will help us to understand how pastoralists’ actions and motives may contribute to 135 sustainability or unsustainability of these systems (Jobbins et al., 2021). This will be possible if 136 study approaches will directly involve the real ‘practitioners’ of pastoralism in having sovereignty 137 of reporting what they do on day-to-day basis, their motives and aspirations behind each action 138 they undertake, and how they interact with their environment and their goals. 139 The first author being brought up and practiced pastoralism for his first 24 years of life as a Taita 140 hills community member in South East Kenya, vividly understands customary norms for his local 141 community as being fairly ‘environmentally friendly’ contrary to popular perception in urban 142 areas, as being not. The communities there still enjoy ecosystem services such as water, herbal 143 medicines, wild fruits and vegetables, pasture for their livestock and they still co-exist with wildlife 144 in their territory- which may be attribute to relatively sound customary management of these 145 pastoral commons and landscapes administered by Elders amid global climate change challenges 146 and market forces as described in the results section. 147 In such context, we then set out to conduct an ethnographic study to examine and demonstrate 148 pastoralists’ customary values that underpin cases of environmental sustainability or 149 unsustainability in management of pastoral commons focusing on agro-pastoralists of Taita 150 community in Mwanda-Marungu, Taita hills. We aim at giving an opportunity to pastoralists to 151 share to global audience about their practices, beliefs, traditions, taboos and local values attached 152 to the management of natural resources in their communal land because what this work shows is 153 that they are the custodian of such sustainable practices. Through this study, we hope to raise 154 awareness and change the global outlook about pastoralism and bring appreciation towards their 155 environmental conservation efforts and capacities. 156 157 Furthermore, this interest was also driven by the zeal from the first author’s fellow herders to counter 158 constant pressures from environmental activists and leaders that they abandon pastoralism in favor of 159 subsistence farming of growing crops as it is perceived by these predominant actors in the region that 160 pastoralism is an ‘outdated’ livelihood activity and injurious to the environment. We perceive this as ill- 161 informed because Mwanda-Marungu receives low rainfall (650mm per annum) where it is difficult to 162 practice other rain-dependent agricultural actives, while pastoralism has proofed through the generations 163 to be the most suitable option at the same time as co-creating the present landscapes that want to be 164 conserved. To not go even far with the proofs of this, nearby settlements that abandoned the traditional 165 pastoral commons in favor of more intensive farming, proved to provide important immediate benefits 166 but rapidly failed to prevail when the first important droughts appeared (Nyariki, 2019), while the 167 traditional and “less” productive commons continued sustainably existing like for generations before. In 168 addition, locals would wish to air their voices to international community and conservation agencies to 169 help them protect their landscapes and ways of life, and one way of doing so is through demonstrating 170 that the Taita community pastoralists have ‘home grown’ capacity and that their pastoral commons are a 171 valuable tool in the protection of environment. In such context the present paper was launched. 172 173 Methodology 174 Study Area 175 The Taita community- are a Bantu speaking group who migrated from Central Africa from 1000 176 BC to 1700 AD and occupying Kenya’s south at the East African mountains of Taita hills which 177 borders Tanzania and are surrounded by Tsavo East and West National Parks (Bravman, 1987). 178 The Taita population is currently estimated to be over 360,000 according to the population census 179 conducted in 2019 (GoK, 2022). Research based on oral sources suggests that Taita community is 180 made up of clans/lineage called Vuchuku- each having their territorial land where livestock keeping 181 is done in community-based ranches, and family/kinship livestock owned grazing bands called 182 (Maranu) which are mainly situated in areas surrounding Tsavo West National Park at the lower 183 ecological zones between the altitudes of 750m-1200M above the sea level (Mkangi, 1983). 184 According to oral sources, Taita Community villages are governed by elected Elders with good 185 reputation, married, knowledgeable in matters of customary norms among other qualities, and are 186 elected and given mandate by community members to manage communal resources (called 187 Mitengo) such as communal pastoral grazing lands, forests, water resources, caves, shrines, 188 wildlife for a 5-year term. Elders also may delegate some administrative duties to Youths (aged 189 25-35) such as monitoring of commons’ resources, managing pasture, water and adherence of 190 norms in the community and also mandated to punishment to community members who contravene 191 norms of the community. 192 Some of the Taita community own areas such as caves, rocks, water springs and indigenous 193 forests- are believed to be sacred and are associated with their traditional religion and Fighi which 194 had been an essential tool of in situ conservation of biodiversity (Mwamidi, 2012). Besides, Fighi, 195 Taita community still protect areas of worship called Seso which are conserved strictly by Elders 196 from specific lineage and are highly respected by all community members. According to oral 197 sources, Seso are considered sacred places and are out of bounds to youths, women who are of 198 children-bearing age brackets or to ‘wicked’ persons. It is forbidden to cut any tree, and fallen logs 199 are left to decompose. Areas that have seso sites are: Mghange, Mulondo, Mghambonyi, 200 Wumingu, Iziri, Mwanda, Marungu, Murughua, Chawia, Rong’e and Mbololo. These seso were 201 initially established strategically along boundaries of pastoral commons so as to ‘protect’ pastoral 202 resources such as pasture, livestock, wildlife from external aggression such as cattle rustling and 203 other resource theft from neighboring communities. 204 Unfortunately, the areas where pastoralism is practiced (Mwatate, Kasighau, Maktau (Mwakitau), 205 Taveta, Kishushe, Wanjala, Mwanda-Marungu and Paranga) are situated in the mineral rich zone 206 of upper Proterozoi lower Paleozoic structural/metamorphic unit of the Mozambique Belt, which 207 extends along the east coast of Africa (Horkel et al., 1976). Some of the industrial minerals such 208 as iron ore, limestone; copper, manganese, marble, magnesite, asbestos, graphite, kaolin clay, mica 209 and building stones (Horkel et al., 1976; Alexander, et al., 1979). 210 There is growing concerns by local communities in Taita hills brought by about mining activities 211 in livestock rearing zones that supports over 179,864 cattle, 480,125 goats, 55,540 sheep, 671,174 212 poultry, 3,568 donkeys and 1,286 camels, and thus very important for local community’s 213 livelihoods (GoK, 2012, KNBS, 2016). According to Mghanga (2011), mineral mining may have 214 some long-term consequences to pastoralists’ livelihoods because of irreversible land degradation 215 since the proceeds of minerals goes to multi-national companies and does not benefit local 216 communities who bears the burden of land degradation. 217 In addition, Mwanda location where Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons are situated (study 218 area), borders Tsavo west national park on the north-west and Vuria montane forest that are 219 classified as Important Bird Area (IBA) with species of global importance which are endemic to 220 this region and pasturing dependent (Bennun & Njoroge, 1999). Therefore, this study is timely 221 because strengthening these pastoral commons will not only benefit the locals, but also myriad of 222 species of flora and fauna because Mwanda-Marungu commons act as migratory corridors for 223 wildlife crossing from Tsavo west national park to Tsavo East National park as wildlife move from 224 Bura region to Wanjala to Mtito Andei. Even though Mwanda-Marungu borders Tsavo west 225 National park near Mwakitau, and pastoral commons area are not under protected zone, but a 226 community land owned and managed by locals (see figure 1 and 2). 227 Data was collected in 3 villages (Maranu gha Mkamwasi, Itinyi and Marungu) located in Njawuli 228 sub-location Mwanda ward in Taita Taveta County. We selected these three villages because they 229 are restricted only to local members to graze- thus are not free access as it is a situation with 230 neighboring communal lands such as Wanjala, Kishushe, Kisima, Paranga, Sangenyi and 231 Mwakinyambu where herders from outside locale can graze freely without restrictions. 232 233 234 235 Figure 1: Mwanda Marungu pastoral commons found in Njawuli Sub-location, in Mwanda Location, Wundanyi 236 Constituency, Taita Taveta County, South West Kenya. The study area is located within Elevation: 1499 m 237 (highlands); and 900M (Low lands) Above Sea Level; Latitude -3.400335 S and Longitude 38.253707 E- ©Google 238 Maps. 239 240 Figure 2: The view of Mwanda Marungu pastoral commons (from the north-west) at Njawuli sublocation in Mwanda 241 location, Taita Taveta County. Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons are divided into 3 communal grazing zones: 242 Maranu gha Mkamwasi, Itinyi (upper zone at the highlands/escarpment and Marungu (lower plains). © Daniel 243 Mwamidi 244 245 Study Approach 246 Since our study was geared towards establishing pastoralists way of conserving pastoral 247 landscapes and environmental protection through their lenses, we had to adopt ethnographic 248 approaches which would empower respondents to give their views as much as possible. These 249 included, participant observation (which was ideal to unearth hidden and salient actions in relation 250 to environmental conservation)- data collected through free listing of pastoral activities the herders 251 and elders do on their day to day herding of livestock throughout the pastoral commons for a total 252 of 4 months, whilst interrogating the relevance of each action to the protection of the environment. 253 After participant observation, we employed semi-structures interviews- through purposive 254 sampling involving elders and herders as main respondents since they are most knowledgeable in 255 the subject of pastoralism/herding and are the main custodians of cultural norms. In addition, they 256 are the ones who actively participate in administration of day-to-day norms in relation to 257 management of pastoral commons. Therefore, we interrogated respondents about: ways in which 258 Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons are governed, how rules are decided and implemented; 259 pastoral commons’ physical/geographic boundaries that defines the area of jurisdiction; the 260 norms, taboos and/or values attached to wildlife found in Mwanda-Marungu within pastoral 261 commons; and customary values that promotes co-existence of livestock-wildlife within Mwanda- 262 Marungu pastoral commons. 263 For the purposes of examining the resilience of community regulations and their implementation, 264 we conducted our study during all agro-pastoral seasons, in order to also have a good overall vision 265 of the system from 2019 to 2021. Nevertheless, fieldwork was particularly intense on water/pasture 266 stress dry months of July and October of 2019 to 2021, which as observed in situ and as confirmed 267 also by Benjaminsen el al., (2012), is the period where customary rules become most apparent due 268 to the increased scarcity of the given finite pastoral resources. However, data was also collected 269 during wet seasons of long rains March-June of 2019 to 2021. In fact, it is the results for the dry 270 seasons where competition for resources become higher and the customary rules go under greater 271 pressure, that we can best demonstrate through this study the good governance of these pastoral 272 commons by locals even during the most unconducive weather conditions. 273 With 193 respondents (Elders and Herders) to a semi-structured interview and FGDs, we 274 examined whether customary management systems of Mwanda-Marungu pastoralists are in 275 tandem/conforms to the IUCN’s OECMs conservation paradigm. 276 We used a site-level tool for identifying if an area and its administration regimes may be considered 277 as OECMs for 2020 – [now revised as (IUCN/WCPA, 2022)] and qualitatively examined: a) 278 geographically delineated boundaries which is not a protected area; 2) sustained governance 279 authority and management regime (in this case customary governance); 3) important biodiversity 280 values; 4) promotes in-situ biodiversity conservation. In the following section of results, we give 281 descriptive account of pastoralists’ customary management regimes with associated indicators that 282 qualifies them to be considered as potential OECMs and thus highlighting the importance of these 283 commons as a tool of environmental protection. 284 We first obtained Free, Prior and Informed Consent from each village and individual participating 285 in this study, as well as the agreement from the relevant Government and regional administration. 286 In addition, we did not coerce locals to give information or avail ‘tokens’ to solicit favors from them- 287 which is in unison with legislation and ethics. 288 Data verification was done through series of fifteen-sessions of focus group discussions (FGD) 289 consisting of between 5 and 8 respondents per session (see table 1). In FGD, the panel would 290 discuss data collected through participant observation and semi-structure interviews so as to ‘refine 291 data to more accurate facts’, and secondary data was also utilization. Data analysis was done 292 through organizing data in themes (descriptive concepts). 293 294 295 Men Women Age Total < 31 31–50 > 50 Semi-structured 87 21 27 60 21 108 interviews Focus group 60 25 25 35 25 85 discussions (15) 193 296 Table 1: Table indicating characteristics of 193 respondents (n=108 for semi-structure interviews and n=85 297 for focus group discussion). 298 299 RESULTS 300 In this section, we will present results based on four criteria of OECMs as we have outlined in 301 methodology which qualifies pastoralists’ responses- whether their customary norms on 302 management of their pastoral commons does qualify to be worthy to be considered as an ideal 303 environmental protection approach. 304 a) Evidently geographically delineated boundaries (which is not a protected area) 305 306 i) Geographic boundaries 307 Question: Does Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons have physical/geographic boundaries 308 that defines the area of jurisdiction? 309 Ninety-eight percent (98%) of respondents reported to know exact boundaries of their villages and 310 grazing lands, with 2% could not because they were married to this region and thus could not have 311 known the exact boundaries of their locality. A seventy-six years old elder reported that “We 312 normally show boundaries to all our children so as to ensure all of us in the village understand 313 each and every inch of our ancestral land and that way nobody may deceive them by grabbing our 314 community land because this is where all our livelihoods is derived from. We all get food, milk, 315 herbal medicines, pasture, wild fruits and vegetables, insects, wild tubers and water from this area. 316 Also, we have been living with wildlife among us and they are part of us, so if we forget our 317 boundaries we will forfeit all these benefits to strangers”. 318 Boundaries are demarcated by seasonal rivers, village earth roads and by escarpments. A seventy- 319 four years old village elder/herder reported that “God loved us so much because he gave us a 320 natural boundary of a huge rock and escarpment which has been beneficial for protecting us from 321 intruders on the eastern side and these rocks have big caves which are habitats for wild animals 322 such as snakes of all kinds like African python, cobra, black mambas etc. We have leopards, 323 hyenas, porcupines and many wild animals. If there was no natural boundary of this long ranged 324 escarpment, poachers would have long invaded and killed those pythons and leopards for their 325 skins”. This elder’s sentiment was supported by all 5 members on the FGD panel. See the 326 rock/escarpment they referred to in figure 3. 327 328 Figure 3: The rock/escarpment with steep falls acting as a physical boundary for Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons 329 in Njawuli sub-location, Mwanda location in Taita Taveta County, Kenya. According to Elders, these rocks are habitat 330 to many wildlife species and also source of water springs, salt licks and used as traditional religious shrines called 331 fighi and seso © Daniel Mwamidi 332 333 334 ii) Community’s deep connection to their pastoral commons territory 335 336 Question: What are the community’s perceived importance of Mwanda-Marungu 337 pastoral commons territory? 338 During interviews and FGDs, Elders and herders reported that they have local spiritual shrines 339 called fighi and Seso which were used for worshiping their god called Mulungu and have existed 340 for centuries and thus locals are attached to them. They often make periodic sacrifices by 341 slaughtering animals to appease the spiritual being and also to ask for blessings of their land, 342 livestock, pasture as well as for making rain, ward off human and livestock diseases. Elders and 343 herders reported that big rocks and caves within pastoral ICCAs were used as burial sites by the 344 locals and religious shrines and that some of these sites have since been abandoned but still remain 345 sacred as they were used for sacrifices in case of disease in the family and livestock. 346 Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the Elders and herders interviewed reported that they have very 347 deep connection to their pastoral commons territory because it provides: Source of wealth and 348 livelihoods; myriad keystone species for prediction of events and ecosystem integrity; Ancestral 349 connection; Cultural ecosystem services; and provisional ecosystem services. For instance, during 350 the interview, a seventy-nine years old elder referred Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons as 351 ‘hospital’. Upon further inquiry as to why he referred the commons as a hospital he said: “As you 352 see, we do not have a conventional hospital in the entire region and the nearest is about 50 km 353 away in Mwatate town which is difficult to reach at night especially in cases of snake bites which 354 are very common in this area. So we have our own indigenous herbal medicines to treat our 355 families and livestock from many diseases. We all depend on these indigenous trees you see around 356 to treat deadly diseases such as cancer, schizophrenia, paralysis and many more diseases. If you 357 destroy one tree, you may have killed more whole village because these indigenous trees may take 358 hundreds of years to grow to maturity before one is able to use them as medicine”. Sixty-nine 359 years old elder added by supporting the elder and said “besides herbal medicines, we live here in 360 harmony with nature because even we use animals around us to forecast events. Like now we are 361 worried because the populations of bird species have gone down and it is not a good indicator, 362 and there could be an impending disaster that is about to happen, such as extreme drought, famine 363 or diseases outbreak. We never went to school but we can foretell events by observing wildlife 364 around us and with accuracy than those who even went abroad to study”. 365 Response on reasons for deep connection to their community territory (% of response on each theme)- n=108 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 Source of wealth and livelihoods (88%) Special connection with some species of flora and fauna in foretelling/forecasting events (86%) Ancestral connection to landscape through inheritance (95%) Cultural ecosystem services such worshiping shrines/burial sites for their kinsmen in their landscape (90%) Provisional ecosystem services such as food, herbal medicines, pasture (98%) 366 367 Graph 1: A summary of interviews responses on perceive reasons for deep connection of the 368 locals to their pastoral commons lands in Mwanda-Marungu. 369 370 a) Sustained Governance Authority and Management Regime of pastoral commons 371 372 Question: How is Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons governed? 373 Management of pastoral commons is conducted by Elders called “Waghosi wa Kireti” translated 374 to “Elders of pastoral commons”. In all three villages in Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons 375 (Maranu gha Mkamwasi; Itinyi, Marungu) each elect 5 Elders who are given community mandate 376 to serve for 5 years’ term (which can be renewed) depending on Elder’s performance during their 377 tenure. These Elders are responsible to oversee over all pastoral resources such as water, pasture, 378 indigenous forests, wildlife, cultural norm reinforcements through punishments and fines. They 379 are also responsible to oversee and enhance protection of community shrines called fighi and seso 380 which are the ‘sacred grooves’ and community sacrificial sites. 381 In case of anything to be communicated to all fellow villagers, they do it through 3 locally elected 382 Elders one from each of the 3 villages whose roles are to blow a wooden whistle (firimbi) so as to 383 notify villagers of any new development or a problem within their community land. This may 384 include anomalies such as breaking of pastoral norms set by Elders thus calling for an assembly to 385 execute punishment or fines, intrusion of their pastoral landscapes, outbreak of pests or diseases 386 or a message from the National/Regional Governments such as livestock vaccination or other 387 information. These Elders who blow whistles are called “Mghosi wa firimbi” and they are also 388 mandated to spearhead keeping of vigil (alongside youths) in cases of intruders who may enter the 389 pastoral commons with wicked intent of burning charcoal, cutting down of indigenous trees of 390 harvesting of herbal medicines or hunting of wild game meat within commons. Youths who have 391 attained ages of over 25 years are tasked by Elders to block any attempt by the intruders to enter 392 their pastoral commons to graze or utilize resources found there. In cases of rebellion to the youth’s 393 move, intruders are thoroughly beaten and sent away or their livestock confiscated. 394 Assemblies are conducted bi-monthly (after every two months) so as to closely monitor wellbeing 395 of the pastoral landscape. According to Elders and herders, all villagers are required to attend the 396 meetings and absconders are penalized a fine of one goat (normally a male goat (buck) which is 397 slaughtered and eaten by all villagers. Elders reported that they highly favor youths and are given 398 bigger stake in surveillance of community landscape because of what they said about youths being 399 future Elders in their community lands and thus they need to be involved at every stage of decision 400 making. Women are also given opportunities in village committees such as pasture harvesting 401 during wet seasons so as to be used during the dry seasons. They are also involved in selling of 402 dried pasture to other livestock owners outside their pastoral common. 403 During the Focus group discussion of a panel of 8 members, a seventy-one years old Elder reported 404 that “I have been elected since I was at the age of 36 years and until now; I have been very faithful 405 to discharge my duties of protecting our pastoral commons because lives of all these local 406 community members that you see here and our future generations are entirely dependent on this 407 land. The Elder continued saying “ we are mandated to train our youth to be zealous in protecting 408 their ancestral land because if they destroy it they have nowhere to go. That is why we are very 409 strict not to admitting foreigners to settle in our land, because after welcoming them, they may 410 start destroying the environment because they will not understand our norms and it will be difficult 411 to train and old man new skills. They may destroy the community resources such as indigenous 412 trees, wildlife, water and afterwards vanish-never to see them again, thus leaving us behind with 413 irreversible problem of ecological degradation”. 414 According to six Elders in FGD panel, they have put strict rules that no one from outside Mwanda- 415 Marungu is allowed to graze livestock in pastoral landscape because they reported that outsiders 416 (Wachea mbai) may not adhere or stick to their rules of pastoral commons’ management. During 417 FGD, Elders said they fear that outsiders may view community rules as being ‘oppressive’ and 418 thus becoming rebellious and influencing others not to obey, consequently leading to degradation 419 of their pastoral commons and resources found in their territory. A sixty-five years old elder 420 reported that “You see our neighboring Kishushe community grazing lands (situated about 20 421 kilometers north-west of Mwanda Marungu) have been destroyed because of bad leadership where 422 their elected Elders became greedy and were compromised by foreigners (Wachea Mbai) and 423 brought them inside at the heart of community land. After a while, those foreigners became 424 rebellious to the norm that governs Kishushe pastoral commons and introduced bad practices such 425 burning of charcoal, cutting down of indigenous trees and selling them as logs to town, hunting 426 for game meat, burning of bushes to cultivate-which has now made Kishushe community land look 427 like a desert. They also introduced corrupt practices such as selling community land without the 428 consent of the local community members. At the moment, Kishushe commons have been further 429 destroyed after they allowed Wanjala iron ore mining company to do mining which has destroyed 430 vast area of community grazing lands. You can go there and see for yourself the environmental 431 disaster that is in Kishushe pastoral lands. Because locals elected bad leaders, they are now seeing 432 consequences that will affect them and their entire future generations”. 433 The above elder’s sentiment was supported by 100% of the six FGD members and a sixty-two 434 years old herder added that “We avoid at all costs electing individuals who have tendencies of 435 being corrupt by seeing how they manage their own families, livestock and homestead. You cannot 436 elect an elder to rule over thousands of locals, whilst he cannot manage his own family with less 437 than ten members. We make it mandatory that for an elder to be elected, he must have over 50 438 livestock and he must be married and have children because that way, he will have interest at 439 heart to protect the pastoral commons since if he fails, his own livestock and family will also 440 suffer”. The herder’s sentiment was also supported by 100% of six FGD panel. 441 Elders also monitor the Kraal as it is not supposed to be destroyed when one is migrating to other 442 areas. It is a curse to destroy kraal structure locally called (Waza or maranu). The motive behind 443 this is to safeguard environmental protection because building new Waza/maranu demands a lot 444 of trees to build to protect many livestock. A clan kraal is made of acacia thorny twigs so as to 445 keep away predators (lions, leopards, cheetahs, hyenas) and it may hold over 500 cattle, 0ver 700 446 goats and 500 goats including donkeys. 447 448 b) Important cultural values that could contribute to conservation of biodiversity in 449 Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons 450 451 Question: what are the cultural norms, taboos and values attached to wildlife found in 452 Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons? 453 Elders and herders reported that they have a very close connection to their community landscape 454 and biodiversity found in their pastoral commons. They acquire ecosystem services such as wild 455 vegetables, root tubers, pasture (and hay for sale to neighboring communities during dry seasons), 456 fuel, (firewood) water, herbal medicines provision, wild game meat, wild mushrooms, gums, wild 457 fruits to supplement their diets (see figure 4). 458 459 Figure 4: An artistic expression of Mwanda-Marungu community pastoral commons and the services associated with 460 this communal landscape: 1). Wildlife habitat and livestock/wildlife co-existence; 2). Provisional services (firewood, 461 water, thatching grass, hay sold to neighboring community during dry seasons- thus local revenue); and 3). Shrines 462 for worship and cultural values. © Sage Maghanjo. 463 464 During FGD, Elders reported that they have use several wild animal species found in their land to 465 foretell events. They mentioned of the use several bird species to predict different occurrences in 466 their landscape and some serves as warning to dangers of wild animals’ attack to humans or 467 livestock. For instance, they mentioned to use Lesser Honey-guide (Indicator monor)-locally 468 called (kawuki bird) to search for wild honey in kireti (pastoral commons). Seventy-eight percent 469 (78%) of herder reported that whenever one sees or hears (Ngelekele) Bearded Woodpecker 470 (Chloropicus namaquus) singing and flying over you, it may be a sign of danger such as lion, 471 snake or death of livestock due to a disease or death of very close family member or within your 472 clan. A fifty-three years old herder reported that “woodpecker is a very important bird species that 473 no one is allowed to kill because it our ‘watchtower personnel’ and it informs us of impending 474 dangers ahead and thus we have a cultural duty of conserving and protecting it”. All FGD seven 475 panelists alluded to the herder’s sentiments about woodpecker and an elder (69 years old) referred 476 woodpecker as a gift from God because it protects them and their livestock”. 477 Eighty-three percent (83%) of herders interviewed reported that when (Kiarara) Common Cuckoo 478 (Cucuulus canorus) make loud noise, there must be a big snake within that area such as python, 479 cobra, puff udder, green mamba or black mamba, so they regard this bird as an important for early 480 warning to herders to avoid passing or grazing in such areas. Elders reported that normally predict 481 abundance of pasture, rain or food harvest if many (Irewu)-D’Arnaud’s Barbet (Trachyphonus 482 darnaudii) nests in Acacia tortolis (shighiri). They said that when barbet birds build many nests, 483 it signifies abundant rainfall for that year and but in the event of absence of barbet nesting, it 484 correlates to very low rainfall and thus it informs herders to conserve pasture as hay or silage for 485 use during drought seasons, thus they all said that it is a taboo to kill barbet bird. 486 Ninety-three percent (93% of respondents during FGD Elders reported that owls are indicator 487 species as they signify healthy and productive pastoral commons and also as a very important 488 biological control of rodents such as rats, squirrels and also snakes. They said that it is a taboo to 489 kill an owl and it is linked to curse to the one killed it. At the same time, Elders reported that they 490 are worried that of late they have seen fewer and heard less hooting of owls and thus probably their 491 pastoral commons could be degrading. 492 Eighty-six percent (86%) of herders interviewed associate Nyagha (ostrich) with safety of their 493 livestock. They reported that they prefer taking their livestock to graze in areas that have ostriches. 494 Elders alluded to this saying that since the time of their forefathers, ostrich is associated with 495 wellness and calmness and thus you will be safe if your animals graze by it. 496 Ninety-three percent of herders (93%) of herders said that they monitor movement of (Indoindo) 497 white headed vulture (Trigonoceps occipitalis) because whenever they are seen flying near, there 498 could be lions, leopard, hyenas or cheetahs nearby, so herders reported that they normally avoid 499 taking their livestock to such areas as they may be attacked. 500 Ninety-two percent (92%) of respondents reported that there have put restrictions by cursing 501 anyone who destroys indigenous trees in water point or riverine ecosystem which they said are 502 very important for survival of the community, livestock and provide habitats to myriad of wildlife 503 species such as baboons, monkey, birds, bats, insects, monkeys etc. Some of the riverine 504 indigenous tree species they mentioned are Ficus thuningii (Mvumu), Ficus sycomorous (Muku), 505 Acacia tortolis (Mughunga) and Acacia melliferra. During the FGD, one elder reported that “All 506 community members have equal duty to conserve and protect riverine forests because we get 507 pasture for our goats and goats because trees normally shed leaves during dry season. It is 508 punishable offence to cut a tree in riverine because it also protects water sources and prevent 509 erosion on seasonal river banks”. All seven respondents (Elders and herders) in the panel 510 supported the elder’s sentiment. 511 512 c) Community’s customary norms that may promote in-situ biodiversity conservation 513 514 Questions: Are there taboos, norms that promotes co-existence with wildlife within 515 Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons? 516 Seventy-three percent (73%) of the Elders and herders reported that they have put restrictions of 517 not to kill wild animals within their territory and in extreme cases such as famine such as that of 518 1991/1992, 1995/1995, 2000 and 2009 they reported to have killed a male wild animal such as 519 antelope for food and they restrict killing a female animal because of what they call as ‘killing the 520 entire generation of species’. According to Elders, such strategy has helped to maintain population 521 of antelopes in their region. They however reported that there had been few incidences where 522 hunters from outside have indiscriminately killed wild animals at night regardless of this and thus 523 endangering wildlife stocks. 524 Ninety-four percent (94%) of Elders and herders reported of restrictions of grazing or taking 525 livestock/salt lick points past 3 pm every day, so as to pave way for wildlife to drink and lick salt 526 as well. Elders explained that the 3 pm rule was put by their forefathers because this strategy 527 promotes co-existence with wildlife and minimizes contact between wildlife and livestock. A 528 forty-three years old herder said that “we normally avoid taking our livestock at water points past 529 3pm because at that time wildlife would also come out to drink as well, so we give them the 530 opportunity because if not they will suffer. Wildlife just like our livestock are God’s creation, and 531 thus they also have right to enjoy common resources such as water and salt lick because it is God 532 who created for us all”. During the FGD, a sixty-seven years old herder said that “we also avoid 533 taking our livestock past 3pm to water points and saltlicks because in the event of wildlife and 534 livestock meeting, predators such as leopards, lions, hyenas may be tempted to attack and kill our 535 livestock, and once this happens, it would be a disaster because they those predators will develop 536 taste of our livestock and intensify attacks instead of hunting wildlife such as antelopes”. 537 All FGD members supported the herder’s sentiments and one elder (seventy years old) reported 538 that they also have a norm that restricts their people in pastoral commons from introducing plant 539 crops that are not indigenous in this area. Fifty-nine years old herder agreed to elder’s sentiment 540 and he added that: “if wild animal taste new crop, they often develop likings of it and thus making 541 them coming frequently to human settlements to look for the crop thus increasing conflicts”. A 69 542 years old elder agreed by saying that: “we used to live well along with wild animals, but conflict 543 with wildlife has increased due to some few locals who have planted exotic crops that are not 544 indigenous in this area. If wild animal tastes the crop, they often develop likings of the crop and 545 thus making them coming more frequently to villages to look for the crop. For instance, elephants 546 now frequently come to our villages looking for maize, banana stalks, pawpaw and cassava which 547 were introduced by some locals in these areas in early 2000s”. 548 A sixty-one years old lady said that “there was a non-governmental organization (NGO) which 549 introduced drumstick tree (Moringa oleifera) tree species in this region that has attracted 550 antelopes, dikers (mwakuli) baboons and monkeys and now these animals are raiding village 551 farms. Few people, who opted to plant drumstick trees, sold their livestock after a promise that 552 they will quickly become rich by planting and selling this tree species, but the NGO has since 553 become non-operational and now those who planted moringa do not know where to to sell the 554 produce. We advised them not to accept the moringa project, but some were greedy, and now are 555 very poor without livestock. They have problems with wildlife coming to feed the plant. This place 556 is only good for keeping livestock but not for farming of crops especially exotic ones”. 557 Ninety-seven of respondents reported that they have restriction on charcoal burning and burning 558 of fire in pastoral commons so as to conserve indigenous trees, wildlife and soil fertility. 559 Herders reported that before the introduction of electric fence in Tsavo national park, elephants 560 used to graze alongside their livestock in Marungu village pastoral commons and they used to offer 561 ecosystem services to the community and livestock. An elder called Maghanga from Marungu 562 village aged 79 years reported during the FGD that “Elephants are our servants because they 563 normally prune canopy on trees such as acacias and thus enabling sunlight to get to the ground, 564 and this helps grass to grow and thus providing pasture for our livestock free of charge! We do 565 not pay elephants, but hey help us. In fact, they also help our women with firewood for cooking 566 because the felled trees dry up and we use them to cook our food. We now benefit if they come to 567 our grazing lands occasionally, but the frequency of coming has reduced because of electric fence 568 at the Tsavo west national park. We fear that if they come fewer times, we are going to have 569 reduced grass to feed our livestock and thus impoverishing us day by day. We heard that elephants 570 are killed inside the National park by ‘wadiwi’ (poachers). When elephants are within our 571 landscape, nobody kills them, but now they are being killed in the protected area” His sentiment 572 was supported by all respondents in Focus group discussion. 573 Elders said to have put strict norms that ensures sustainable utilization of pasture in their 574 landscapes. No herder, person is supposed to burn charcoal or smoke cigarettes within the 575 commons as this many pose dangers of fire and destroying pasture and what Elders described as 576 “lwala lwa mbuwa” (hardening of ground and bareness of land). A 69-year-old elder said “Fire 577 may make us poor within few minutes. If this beautiful land you see is razed by fire, all wild animals 578 that we live with them are killed plus their young ones, eggs, insects, snakes and also all pasture 579 will be destroyed. Fire will scare away baboons, elephants and monkeys which help our goats 580 during dry seasons by dropping acacia pods (muzaule) which are excellent food for our goats. So 581 we cannot allow anyone to put on fire that will cause suffering to innocent creation of GOD”. His 582 sentiment was supported by all members and a herder aged 48 years (Mwanyika) said “I have seen 583 fire causing dangers in Kishushe commons. When I had visited my friend last month in Kishushe, 584 I saw a barren land because in December, 2016, another evil man set on fire huge pastoral land 585 because he was denied access to graze, and today this area has very little vegetation, not as it used 586 to be before (see figure 5 on what the respondent referred to). In fact, herders from Kishushe, 587 Paranga, Werugha, Wumingu,Mbulia, Mbololo, Voi, Mwatate and other neighboring area come 588 to purchase pasture from our pastoral commons during dry seasons because. Our land will 589 continue providing pasture for as long as we restrict the use of fire to burn bushes and forests. 590 591 Figure 5: The view of Kishushe/Paranga community grazing land. According to a respondent, this area’s vegetation 592 was burnt by a person who was denied access to graze and did so in retaliation. According to Elders, this area has 593 diminished its productivity and can no longer support the livestock as before thus demonstrating the dangers of fire in 594 ecological integrity. The photo was taken at the elevation of 735 M Above Sea Level ;Latitude -3.29269° or 3° 17' 34" 595 South; Longitude 38.3997° or 38° 23' 59" East. (© Daniel Mwamidi. 596 597 DISCUSSION 598 Basing on responses from the Mwanda-Marungu residents’ pastoral commons in this Southern 599 Kenyan territory, it provides evidence from the community members on how their pastoral 600 landscape meets the description of being considered as Other Effective area based Conservation 601 Measures (OECMs) described by CBD (2018). 602 The results clearly indicate that Mwanda-Marungu locals are knowledgeable of their territory 603 through boundaries and have clear understanding of every part of their ancestral landscapes. This 604 may be a driver as to why Mwanda-Marungu enjoys relatively ‘robust’ ecosystems (basing on the 605 number of livestock that is supporting and myriad ecosystem services such as pasture, water, 606 herbals, wild edible vegetables, fruits, insects among many that locals have reported to get, 607 landscapes attracting tourism, etc.) as opposed to other neighboring areas in Taita hills for example 608 Kishushe, Paranga, Mbulia community landscapes where private mining companies, sisal 609 plantations were established in communal land thus also distorting community leadership 610 jurisdiction. According to Wagner (1999), local people have higher tendencies to know their 611 boundaries precisely if they have a close attachment to their landscapes either through aesthetic 612 enjoyments and moral religious meaning they accrue from it. This is true with residents of 613 Mwanda-Marungu who reported to have a very close attachment to their landscape and Elders 614 teach their children each boundary of their community landscape. They even describe their land 615 as a ‘hospital’ which shows the extent that this land is important for their day-to-day life. This has 616 been demonstrated by Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2004) in which they have observed that 617 indigenous peoples and local community have higher chances of success in conservation of nature 618 because they conserve what is theirs, what they know and what they benefit from, and thus they 619 perceive their ancestral landscape as all what they have and thus they have moral obligation of 620 protecting it. 621 Basing on the Mwanda-Marungu herders and Elders, it appears that they have great zeal and ability 622 to sustainably manage their landscape and resources in the long-run because by involving their 623 youths in identifying and protecting their landscapes and resources, then we can deduct that 624 Mwanda-Marungu pastoral commons may still be protected if there are no external factors that 625 may come to degrade the drivers that underpin its sustainability. This corroborates with 626 Krettenauer, (2017) who observed that youths who are taught about environmental protection 627 matters by their parents/societal Elders have high possibilities of becoming environmental 628 protectors later in their later lives. 629 As noted, Mwanda-Marungu is not a free access area where external or internal members freely 630 get in to graze or utilize resources, but it strictly belongs to the local residence and must be used 631 according to very concrete rules decided by a collective of leading and knowledgeable male Elders, 632 which qualify as OECMs and further meeting ICCAs criteria as described by Kothari et al. (2012). 633 Kothari’s criteria is handy in ensuring that there are rules governing the territory of an area 634 occupied by the indigenous people / local communities and that local members have regimes that 635 protects resources that are found in the land so as to guarantee sutainability as opposed to free 636 access where Hardin’s tragedy of commons (1968) may set in. This is not the case with Mwanda- 637 Marungu pastoral commons where Elders themselves reported that they do not allow foreigners to 638 graze inside their pastoral commons and block the attempt of other community members to enter 639 their pastoral commons if they do not adhear non-adhereance to the rules and norms that governs 640 grazing in their landcapses in fear of severe punishments by the community. The authors 641 (Mwamidi et al. 2018) had similar observations of boundery protection of pastoral commons by 642 Daasanach community at the northern Kenya, where they restrict other communities from grazing 643 in community protected areas in fear of non-conformity to the norms that governs the sustainable 644 use of pastoral resources in their communal land. According to Kothari et al. (2012), free access 645 to community resources may be unsustainable in the long run because it is free for all, thus a 646 tragedy may come in (Hardin 1968), whilist this is contrary to Mwanda-Marungu pastoral 647 commons whereby only members access and graze, while they have to do so in adherance to the 648 norms set, and thus qualifying Mwanda-Marungu as a potential OECMs, and followingOstrom’s 649 principles of commons (Ostrom, 2015). 650 It is interesting to note that Mwanda-Marungu continues to get ecosystem services as Elders and 651 herders continuosly report. It is a clear indication that territorial protection may help to conserve 652 natural resources in the landscape and can guarantee furture prosperity of the region. If such 653 pastoral systems are supported and strengthened, they may help in attaining the UN’s Millenium 654 Development Goals (SDGs) such as target 1 (ensuring poverty eradication); and target 13 of 655 building climate change resilliance (UN, 2015). In-situ biodiversity has been reported to be of the 656 desirable startegy of coping up with effects of climate change especially where there is key 657 endegenous vegetation, species may cope easly than in areas where it would have been greatly 658 modified (Greenwood et al., 2015). Greenwood’s finding can be seen in action in Mwanda- 659 Marungu whereby Elders reported that they protect endegenous vegetation and species of fauna 660 found in their landscapes and have even restricted locals from introducing exotic plant species that 661 may interupt nature and wildlife co-existance. In addition, Elders mentioned how they enjoy from 662 beneficial symbiotic relationship with baboons, bird species and elephants alongside their 663 livestock, which demonstrates that they encourage in-situ biodiversity conservation and co- 664 existance. 665 United Nations Development program (2015), pointed out that one of their startegies of 666 eliminating poverty is through building local communities’ resilliance in food reliance through 667 environmentally friendly mechanisms which are less costly and highly consistent and resilient. 668 Mwanda-Marungu Elders mentioned how they derive their livelihoods within their communal 669 lands and the strategies they employ so as to ensure that there are sustainable supply of ecosystem 670 services such as food, wild fruits, edible tubers, fruits, insects, vegetables, herbal medicines, water 671 resources, etc., it clearly shows that pastoralists can provide important solutions for sustainability, 672 and if well approached (e.g. participatory process of adding value to the different food chain 673 production, inclusion of their service for environmental protection attractive for emerging tourism, 674 etc.), can also contribute in poverty eradication in rural areas, especially where there other forms 675 of livelihoods cannot or very difficultly be practiced such as in 80% of Kenya’s landmass which 676 lies in arid and semi arid regions. 677 678 CONCLUSION 679 Sound customary norms and rules are linked to the well-being of the studies commons and this 680 work opens the door to stimulate further studies in the area and other similar pastoral commons in 681 the region, to quantify their exact effectiveness. Although we did not do a quantitative species 682 assessment or others of the sort, report from Elders and our observations indicated that these 683 pastoral commons in Mwanda-Marungu are relatively well conserved in comparison to others 684 nearby without such systems, and may offer a lesson learnt to other degraded pastoral ecosystems. 685 We can base our conclusion on the results that we have provided, by pointing that despite the 686 neglect of customary pastoral commons in East Africa and especially in Kenya, and also 687 assumptions that pastoralism may be irrelevant or even counterproductive in solving 688 environmental crises, there are clear indications that the studied pastoral commons may offer 689 sustainable models for environmental conservation and for attaining the Sustainable Development 690 Goals -Target 1 of extreme poverty eradication and target 13 of building resilience on climate 691 change effects and enhancement of adaptation, which is for the moment contrary to many 692 perceptions and previously held notions about these important communal systems. 693 These commons provide myriad of ecosystem services as indicated in the results section and by 694 other authors cited here, while locals are so very closely linked economically and culturally to 695 these ecosystems that they also have a big stake in-situ biodiversity conservation of nature and 696 biodiversity which is one pillar of sustainable environmental conservation. 697 Mwanda-Marungu clearly meets the characteristics of both OECMs and also Indigenous and 698 community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) in all fronts such as: a) a community having a deep 699 connection to their territory through historical, religious, ecosystem services (socio-ecological 700 outputs) that are accrued in the landscapes; b) the local community have legitimate authority to 701 safeguard and reinforce rules and norms that governs their area and all members ensures that their 702 land is protected. 703 This seems to be essential in guaranteeing sustainability of natural resource protection such as 704 pasture, water, biodiversity, wild animals as well as cultural aspects attached to landscape elements 705 through worshiping shrines, beliefs, etc. And this is just an example of how many more pastoral 706 commons work around all Kenya and East Africa, so the Mwanda-Marungu commons are 707 important in themselves to demonstrate their autonomy and capacity in building sustainable and 708 resilient socio-ecological systems at local level, but also as a symbol and indicator of what exists 709 over thousands of squared kilometers of fragile ecosystems and populations throughout all the 710 Horn of Africa that are for now still mostly ignored or even degraded by state actions or that of 711 other international agencies that ignore such systems. 712 713 Acknowledgement 714 We thank the Almighty GOD for granting us good health during data collection and analysis 715 because it was during the period of high infections of the global pandemic of Covid-19. We salute 716 our families for their prayers and moral support during the entire period of fieldwork. 717 Exceptional thanks goes to the Laboratory for the Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems in a 718 Globalized world (LASEG), at The Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (ICTA), 719 Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain for funding our fieldwork expenses in Mwanda-Marungu, 720 Taita Taveta County. This research contributes to ICTA-UAB “María de Maeztu” Programme for 721 Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). 722 We also acknowledge Elders, herders and all community members from Mwanda-Marungu for their 723 immense support they accorded to us and their willingness to share their zealous customary norms that 724 governs the day-to-day management of their pastoral commons. May GOD bless and protect their 725 communal land so as to continue supporting them sustainably. 726 727 728 729 References 730 Alexander, H., Gerhard, N., Okello RE, Wachira JK, Nauta WJ., Walter P. 1979. Geology of the 731 Taita Hills Quadrangle (with a geological map 1:50.000), Kenya. Geol. Survey Kenya Report. 102. 732 1-34. 733 Alves-Pinto, H., J. Geldmann, H. Jonas, V. Maioli, A. Balmford, A. Ewa Latawiec, R. Crouzeilles 734 and B. Strassburg.2021. Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation 735 measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation," Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, vol. 736 19, no. 2, p. 115–120. 737 Amwata, DA., DM. Nyariki, and. Musimba NRK. 2015. Factors influencing agropastoral and 738 pastoral households’ vulnerability to food insecurity in the drylands of Kenya: A case study of 739 Kajiado and Makueni Counties. Journal of International 740 Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3123. 741 Anup, KC. 2016. Community Forestry Management and its Role in Biodiversity Conservation in 742 Nepal: Global Exposition of Wildlife Management. (I. Gbolagade Stephen A. Lameed, Ed.) 743 Basamba, T., Tukezibwa, D. Tumushabe, A., Ssekabira, K., . 2016. Impacts of Pastoral Activities 744 on Nature Conservation in Western Uganda. International Journal of Ecological Science and 745 Environmental Engineering. 3. 42-51. 746 Behnke, R. . 2008. The Economic Contribution of Pastoralism: Case Studies from the Horn of 747 Africa and Southern Africa. Nomadic Peoples. 12. 45-79. 10.3167/np.2008.120104. 748 Benjaminsen TA, Alinon K, Buhaug H, Buseth JT 2012. Does climate change drive land-use 749 conflicts in the Sahel? Journal of Peace Research 49(1):97-111. 750 Bennun, LA, Njoroge, P.(1999). Important Bird Areas in Kenya. Nature Kenya, The East Africa 751 Natural History Society.1999 - Birds - 318 pages. 752 Bikila NG, Tessema ZK, Abule EG. 2016. – Carbon sequestration potentials of semi-arid 753 rangelands under traditional management practices in Borana, southern Ethiopia. Agric. Ecosyst. 754 Environ., 223, 108–114. doi:10.1016/j. agee.2016.02.028. 755 Borrini-Feyerabend, G, Kothari, A, Oviedo G. 2004. Indigenous and Local Communities and 756 Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and 757 Cambridge, UK. xviii + 111pp. 758 759 Bravman. B. 1987. Making Ethnic Ways Communities and Their Transformations in Taita, Kenya, 760 1800 to 1950 James Currey. 761 762 CBD. 2018. Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological 763 Diversity: Protected Areas and Other Effective Area-Based Measures. Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, , 764 pp. 1-19. 765 Charles, A. (ed.) 2021. Communities, conservation and livelihoods. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN 766 and Halifax, Canada: Community Conservation Research Network. 767 Dawson, N. Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N.,Wongbusarakum, S., 768 Sangha, K., Scherl, L., Phan, H., Zafra-Calvo, N., Lavey, W., Byakagaba, P., Idrobo, C.,Chenet, 769 A.,Bennett, N., Mansourian, S., Rosado, F., Dawson, N.,Coolsaet, B., Rosado-May, F. 2021. The 770 role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecology 771 and Society. 26. 10.5751/ES-12625-260319. 772 Dominguez P., Hammis S. 2011. The agdal (common) of Yagur, ecology and pastoralism in 773 Fernandez K. (coord.) Ecología y Pastoralismo, Ed. Koldo Michelena, Donostia, 40-65 pp. 774 FAO. 2018. Pastoralism in Africa’s Drylands. Rome 52.pp. License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. 775 GoK, 2022. Kenya, Ministry of Planning, 2019’ Population & Housing Census Results’, 776 Government Printers, Nairobi. P38. Available online at: https://www.knbs.or.ke/publications/ 777 Gok, 2010. Kenya, Ministry of State for the Development of Northern Kenya and Other Arid Lands 778 Kenya. Arid and Semi-Arid Lands Sector-Wide Program. Government Printers. Nairobi. 779 GoK 2012. Kenya, Taita Taveta County. First county development integrated. Development plan. 780 2013-2017. Kenya. 781 Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243–1248 782 Tsioumani, E &Tsioumanis, A. 2020. Biological Diversity: Protecting the variety of life on Earth. 783 Lessons from 50 years of UN sustainable development policy. IISD. Available online at: 784 https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-09/still-one-earth-biodiversity.pdf 785 Imanishimwe, A., Niyonzima, T. & Nsabimana, D. 2018. Contribution of Community 786 Conservation and Ecotourism Projects on Improving Livelihoods and Sustainable Biodiversity 787 Conservation in and around Nyungwe National Park (NNP). Journal of Tourism & Hospitality. 788 07. 10.4172/2167-0269.1000363. 789 IUCN/WCPA 2022. Site-level tool for identifying Other Effective Area-Based Conservation 790 Measures (OECMs). Version 2.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN World Commission on Protected 791 Areas. 792 Jonas, H. 2018. Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures: A New conservation horizon. 793 FUTURE LAW / IUCN WCPA TASK FORCE ON OECMs. Available online at: 794 https://www.cbd.int/pa/presentations/other-effective-area-based-measures.pdf 795 Jobbins, M., Brottem, L., and McDonnell, A. 2021. Pastoralism and Conflict: Tools for Prevention 796 and Response in the Sudano-Sahel, 2nd ed. Washington DC: Search for Common Ground. 797 KNBS. 2016. County summaries for livestock products for year 2016. 798 Kothari, A., Corrigan, C., Jonas, H., Neumann, A. and Shrumm, H. (eds.) 2012. Recognising and 799 Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: 800 Global Overview and National Case Studies. CBD Technical Series, 64. Montreal, Canada: 801 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ICCA Consortium, Kalpavriksh, and 802 Natural Justice. 803 Krätli, S., Toulmin, C. 2021. Farmer-herder conflict in sub-Saharan Africa? IIED, London 804 https://pubs.iied.org/10208iied 805 Krettenauer, T. 2017. Pro-environmental behavior and adolescent moral development. J. Res. 806 Adolesc. 27, 581–593. doi: 10.1111/jora.12300. 807 808 Little P.D. 1996. Pastoralism, biodiversity, and the shaping of savanna landscapes in East Africa. 809 Africa, 66 (1), 37–51. doi:10.2307/1161510 810 Mkangi, G. C.1983. The Social Costs of Small Families and Land Reform. A case study of the 811 Wataita of Kenya. Pergamon Press, Oxford. 812 Mghanga M. 2011. Mining in Taita Taveta County: Prospects & Problems. Heinrich Böll 813 Foundation. 814 Mwamidi, M., D, Mwasi S. M, Nunow A., A. 2012. Indigenous knowledge in Human -wildlife 815 conflict minimization: The case of Taita community in Taita Hills, Kenya. International Journal 816 of Current Research Vol. 5, Issue, 01, pp.001-005.Available online at 817 http://www.journalcra.com/sites/default/files/1565.pdf 818 Mwamidi, DM., Lopez, JR., Domenguez, P., Fernández-Llamazares, A., Burgas, D., Cabeza, M., 819 2018. Contemporary Pastoral Commons in East Africa as OECMs: A case study from the 820 Daasanach Community. PARKS, VOL 24 Special Issue, PP-79-88. DOI: 821 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.PARKS-24-SIDMM.en. 822 Niamir-Fulle, M. 2022. Sustainable pastoralism: A Nature-based Solution proven over millennia. 823 IUCN Crossroads Blog: IUCN. Available online: https://www.iucn.org/crossroads- 824 blog/202206/sustainable-pastoralism-nature-based-solution-proven-over-millennia 825 Ntumva, M., E. 2022. Farmer-pastoralist conflicts management approaches in Sub-Saharan Africa: 826 Insights into their strengths and pitfalls. Journal of African Studies and Development. Vol. 14(1), 827 pp. 12-26. DOI: 10.5897/JASD2021.0650 828 Nyariki, D.M., Amwata, D. A. 2019. The value of pastoralism in Kenya: Application of total 829 economic value approach. Pastoralism 9, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-019-0144-x 830 Ostrom E. 2015. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. 831 Cambridge University Press. 832 Owen G.,, Hannah L. M.,, Andrew JS, Robin JC, Ilya M. D. M. 2015. Using in situ management to 833 conserve biodiversity under climate change. Journal of Applied 834 Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12602 835 Renom J., Mwamidi D. & Dominguez P. 2020. Holistic ethnographies of East African customary 836 pastoral commons needed? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 43: 83-90. 837 Robertshaw P. 2021. Archaeology of Early Pastoralism in East Africa. 838 10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.013.1045. 839 Roka, K. 2009. Community-based Natural Resources Management. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A., 840 Berandli L., Ozuyar P.,Wall T (eds) Life on Land. Encyclopaedia of the UN Sustainabke Goals. 841 Springer, Champ. 842 Schley, H., West, I., & Williams, C. 2022. Advancing Wildlife Policy of Eastern Timber Wolves 843 and Lake Sturgeon through Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Sustainability. 14. 3859. 844 10.3390/su14073859. 845 Turner, N., Cuerrier, A., Joseph, L. 2022. Well grounded: Indigenous Peoples' knowledge, 846 ethnobiology and sustainability. People and Nature. 4. 10.1002/pan3.10321. 847 United Nations. 2015 The Millennium Development Goals Report. New York. 848 UN .1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf 849 United Nations. 2021. Reconsidering Rural Development. World Social Report. 850 https://www.un.org/en/file/112626/download?token=i5YLpkue [Accessed on 26th September, 851 2022] 852 Wagner, MB. 1999. Measuring Cultural Attachment to Place in a Proposed Power Line 853 Corridor. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 5(2), 241–246. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41446917 854 Zafra-Calvo, N and Jonas G. 2020. Protected areas to deliver biodiversity need management 855 effectiveness and equity, Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 22, 2020, e01026, ISSN 856 2351-9894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01026. 857 858 859