Amboseli As A Biosphere Reserve

What’s On in the Ecosystem Amboseli as a Biosphere Reserve A Compendium of Conservation and Management Activities in the Amboseli Ecosystem Harvey Croze∗ Soila Sayialel+ David Sitonik∞

Amboseli Trust for Elephants PO Box 15135 Langata 00509 Nairobi, Kenya info@elephanttrust.org www.elephanttrust.org v. 1.2 (February 2007)

∗

Trustee, Amboseli Trust for Elephants (ATE) Trustee, ATE and Project Manager, Amboseli Elephant Research Project (AERP) ∞ Consultant to AERP +

1

Contents Main Conclusions ......................................................................................1 Conservation ..........................................................................................1 Development ..........................................................................................1 Logistics .................................................................................................1 25/02/07 18:07:00Introduction ..................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................2 Background ................................................................................................2 Conservation History .............................................................................2 Background to the Current Situation .....................................................3 The Stakeholders....................................................................................3 The Opportunity .....................................................................................4 Methodology ..........................................................................................4 Zonation, ecozones and the ecosystem ......................................................5 The Amboseli Ecosystem.......................................................................5 Vegetation ..............................................................................................6 Water resources......................................................................................8 Rainfall...............................................................................................8 Dams and wells ..................................................................................8 Boreholes ...........................................................................................9 Water quality in Namalok and Kimana swamps................................9 Nolturesh Spring ..............................................................................10 Wildlife ................................................................................................10 Birdlife .............................................................................................12 Land Use ..................................................................................................12 Maasai Pastoralism ..............................................................................12 Agriculture ...........................................................................................13 Farmers: rainfed agriculture.............................................................13 Farmers: irrigated agriculture...........................................................13 Land Use Change .................................................................................13 Legal Status......................................................................................13 Impacts on Wildlife..........................................................................14 Drought Response ............................................................................14 Sub-division: the Tragedy of Fragmentation?..................................14

Amboseli Biosphere Reserve Structure ................................................... 16 Ol Tukai: the exceptional core............................................................. 16 Buffer Zone.......................................................................................... 17 Transition Zone.................................................................................... 17 Conservation-related Research ................................................................ 18 Wildlife-based Enterprises....................................................................... 19 Wildlife Concession Areas .................................................................. 19 Lodges.................................................................................................. 19 Public Campsites and Tented Camps................................................... 20 Other enterprises .................................................................................. 20 Beekeeping....................................................................................... 20 Cultural Bomas ................................................................................ 20 Community Development Organisations................................................. 21 Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association .............. 21 Amboseli/Tsavo Game Scouts Association ..................................... 21 South Rift Association of Landowners............................................ 22 Human-wildlife conflict....................................................................... 22 Group Ranches..................................................................................... 23 Threats to Wildlife ................................................................................... 24 Poaching............................................................................................... 24 Ivory................................................................................................. 24 Bushmeat ......................................................................................... 25 Spearing ............................................................................................... 25 Lions ................................................................................................ 25 Elephants.......................................................................................... 26 Causes .............................................................................................. 26 Morans ............................................................................................. 26 Potential Follow-on Activities ................................................................. 27 Management of Amboseli National Park............................................. 27 Payment for ecosystem services .......................................................... 28 Support to group ranches ..................................................................... 28

Foreword Frontmatter Foreword Acknowledgements

We have found it difficult to bring this report to a conclusion: new activities and facts pop up every day. Moreover, we have been hopefully awaiting an equitable, peaceful and reportable outcome to the contentious matter of ‘ownership’ of Amboseli National Park. As of the cover date of this report, the issue is still being weighed in the courts and debated in the corridors of power. Perhaps in the next edition…

But in any event, in order to be useful, the report, like the ecosystem, must remain dynamic and open-ended. We hope with feedback from readers and correspondents that we shall be able to correct its deficiencies, and augment and update it from time to time to become an on-going process that records up-to-date what’s on in the ecosystem.

Disclaimer Executive Summary:

Acknowledgements Backmatter Annexes: 1. Summaries of contemporary conservation and research 2. Summaries of wildlife concession activities

Many people have kindly provided their time and information to us. We hope that all are listed correctly in Annex 3. We are most grateful to them all, and trust that we have represented accurately the facts they provided and the views they expressed.

We are particularly grateful to the UNESCO Kenya Office, the Kenya National Man and the Biosphere Commission and the Kenya Wildlife Service for commissioning the inventory during a period when there is frequently more supposition than data points, more opinion than facts.

3. Persons contacted 4. Acronyms 5. Payment for Ecosystem Services 6. Literature Cited

Disclaimer The views expressed in this report unless otherwise stipulated are attributable to the authors and should not be considered as the official position of the International MAB Secretariat or the Kenya MAB Nations Committee. If there are errors of fact, we should be grateful to learn about them for correcting in subsequent versions. If there are judged to be errors in interpretation, we should be interested to hear of these as well, and include them in subsequent versions as Comments.

Boundaries shown on maps should be taken as illustrative; we make no imputation concerning either legal status or ownership.

The written conventions for place names in Maa, the Maasai language, are not fully canonized. In this report we have used transliterations (provided by the two of us who are Maa speakers) that are as close as possible to topographical map names, which themselves were imperfectly rendered by colonial cartographers.

H.C., S.S., D.S.

2

Main Conclusions Conservation • •

• •

• • •

In general, the Amboseli wildlife population is healthy and can still provide a major attractor for wildlife-viewing-based tourism and potential generator of income for the community.

The greatest threats to sustainable wildlife conservation in the Buffer Zone are: permanent settlements along the National Park boundary; fragmentation of the ecosystem through ongoing sub-division of Group Ranches; competition for water and grazing (especially in the Core, in and around the central swamps); the bushmeat trade; spearing of lions and elephants; degradation of swamps and wetlands.

The most urgent conservation goal must be to ensure wildlife access to dispersal areas by means of a lasting compact based on equitable benefit sharing with the surrounding Maasai community Zonation: Kuku Group Ranch should be included in the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone.

A Transition Zone comprising all of Kajiado District is unrealistic; the Ilkisongo ecozone is the logical alternative. The Buffer should include a ‘Tight Buffer’, a 5-10 km settlement-free with in which rules of behaviour and occupancy are firmly laid out.

There needs to be a modest investment in bringing baseline ecosystem-data up-to-date, for example, migrating DRSRS table files into GIS, updating the existing waterpoints dataset.

An updated census of the resident and migratory birds in the National Park is urgently needed; ecological studies of bird species assemblages would be most useful.

The hydrology of the Kilimanjaro catchment vis a vis the Amboseli swamp system is little understood and urgently needs study as a basis of life in the ecosystem.

Development •

• • • • •

Management of the current situation. An emergency plan of action needs to be implemented immediately to ensure management continuity and equitable distribution of revenues until legal ownership of Amboseli National Park is established and accepted (see Follow-on Activities for one suggestion).

There exists a serious policy vacuum: at the national level, there is no general landuse plan; at the ecosystem level, there is no zoning and management plan. A national plan is under development, but will face many existing situations that will be difficult to reverse.

The stakeholders who live in the Buffer Zone must formulate their own community vision of how they want the ecosystem to be in the future. This will help them be proactive in the face of corrupt politicians and profiteers from the outside.

Development of strategies of payment for ecosystem services (PES) appears to be a promising way forward to ensure the long term integrity of the Buffer Zone, if a suitable policy environment and management authority can be put in place and maintained.

Employment, as with much of the country, is arguably the most important development path goal for the individual.

The refurbishment of boreholes in the Buffer Zone appears essential to reducing grazing and watering pressure on the Core; must be properly funded, managed and maintained, including ‘wildlife-proofing’ of the infrastructure. An urgent review of borehole status in the ecosystem is necessary.

• • •

•

•

‘Designer Herds’?: there is a need to consider a campaign to shift the pastoralist’s vision to quality rather than quantity, since it is clear the Maasai will never completely abandon their cattle for other forms of landuse.

Sedentarisation per se is not a threat to wildlife; unplanned sedentarisation and the attendant mushrooming of half-baked infrastructure without regard to ecosystem dispersal areas and corridors is a serious threat.

Development aid should focus on providing quality infrastructure (working boreholes, schools, clinics, adult education centres) away from the National Park boundaries to serve as ‘attractors’ to pull settlement away from the Core edge and to provide a better quality of life for the community.

Corruption within the Group Ranch Committees and at the local political level is a universally-identified impediment to development, but there are hopeful signs in some committees that the newly-elected members are working in a more transparent and professional manner within grass-roots coordinating bodies, such as ATGRCA and ATGSA (Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation and Game Scouts Associations).

The impact of expanding agriculture cannot be underestimated; the growing threat of human-wildlife conflict and negative impacts on water resources must be addressed.

Logistics •

• • •

• •

Crucial long term monitoring and research of ecosystem processes and key species such as elephants must be encouraged both to provide current data necessary for management of a non-equilibrium arid system as well as to maintain a ‘competitive edge’ with regard to the foundation for wildlife-based tourism enterprises.

Information centres for visitors at key points of entry, waiting and gathering are totally lacking in and around the park. A few well-planned and managed ‘cultural bomas’ would introduce visitors to Maasai culture.

The mess of uncontrolled and unplanned development within Ol Tukai (the 160 Ha unprotected commercial zone within the Core) needs urgent planning and management attention on the part of the Olkejuado County council.

The profiteering of tour drivers is drastically reducing benefits to Maasai. participants in ‘cultural boma’ events and is creating incentives for adverse infrastructure development that blocks wildlife corridors. The tour companies must be forced to discipline their drivers, with enforced penalties for misconduct (including off-road driving).

There is an urgent need to train a new generation of local scientists to carry on the work from an aging group of expatriates.

An Amboseli Biosphere Reserve website should be considered, the contents of which could include a ‘living’ version of this inventory report, summaries of ‘best practices’, news of the ecosystem, etc.

Main Conclusions 16/08/2007 06:55:00

Introduction The Amboseli ecosystem is unique. No other place in Africa combines the special hydrology, topography, geological and cultural history of Amboseli. Despite a modest rainfall, a system of swamps fed by the Kilimanjaro mountain forest catchment and its wooded- and bushed-grassland verges support a spectacular array of birds and mammals, dominated in terms of visibility(but not of biomass) by a population of some 1,400 African elephants, the best-studied in the world. Overlaid on this scene, against the spectacular backdrop of Kilimanjaro looming to the south, is a traditional system of nomadic pastoralism practiced by a people – the Maasai – whose faith and pride in their own culture is impressively steadfast in the midst of the often shabby trappings of rapid social and economic development.

In October 2005, following a surprising announcement that Amboseli National Park was to be de-gazetted, the UNESCO Nairobi Office and the Kenya National Commission for UNESCO in consultation with the Kenya Wildlife Service asked the Amboseli Trust for Elephants to conduct an inventory and prepare an analysis of the current Amboseli situation and describe the major actions required to apply Biosphere Reserve (BR) principles to its management so that the Amboseli Biosphere Reserve (ABR) can become a material contributor to conservation, development, education and research in the region, as well as a model for other biosphere reserves in similarly complex social, political and ecological settings. The analysis is to include: •

an inventory of contemporary conservation-related activities in the ecosystem;

•

specific suggestions for any changes to the zonation of Amboseli Biosphere Reserve required to better match the current reality;

•

other actions needed to effectively fulfil the three biosphere reserve functions of conservation, development and logistic support at Amboseli;

•

advice on possible organizational arrangements and financing mechanisms for a specific biosphere reserve coordination structure involving key stakeholders;

•

preparation of one or more brief outlines for projects to implement the actions proposed.

Accordingly, two ATE personnel, Soila Sayialel, ATE Trustee and Project Manager of the Amboseli Elephant Research Project (AERP) and Harvey Croze, ATE Trustee, together with David Sitonik, Consultant to AERP, undertook the task from 1 November 2005 through 31 March 2006.

Background Conservation History Amboseli has had a long history of conservation. In 1906, the colonial government created the 27,700 km2. Southern Reserve1, which includes present-day Amboseli,. In 1948, in recognition of the value of the abundant wildlife and unique habitats in the area, 3,260 km2 of the ‘reserve’ was excised as the Maasai Amboseli Game Reserve and placed under the administration of the National Park Trustees. A further change occurred in 1961 when the same area became a County Council Game Reserve administered by the OCC that administers Kajiado District.

The Maasai Amboseli Game Reserve was run by the OCC for the next 10 years and then in 1971, because of concerns for the survival of Amboseli as a conservation area, a Presidential Decree declared that an area of 390 km2 surrounding the ecosystem’s main swamps was be used exclusively for wildlife and tourism. Amboseli National Park (ANP) was gazetted in October 1974 and came under the control of the National Parks Trustees.

Over the following fifteen years, ANP was run by the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department, a government authority under the former Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. In 1989, parks management devolved to a new parastatal body, the Kenya Wildlife Service, which, despite vicissitudes of direction and politics, has managed Amboseli relatively well up to now.

Meanwhile, in 1991, UNESCO declared Amboseli a Biosphere Reserve 2, thereby recognising the uniqueness of the arid ecosystem that is maintained by water percolating from the forests of Kilimanjaro (a UNESOC Tanzanian World Heritage Site3) and the need to buffer the relatively tiny protected core (essentially the National Park), that is less than 5% of a nearly 8,000 km2 ecosystem. In Kenya, there is only one other Biosphere Reserve, Mount Kenya, which is also a WHS. Wildlife protected areas in the Amboseli ecosystem such as ANP, Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary and Eselenkei Conservation Area (see Fig. 3) are all surrounded by human activities such as permanent and semi-permanent settlements, electric fences, agricultural plots and burgeoning commercial centres. Irrigated agriculture, often done up to the edge of watercourses, invariably removes all riverine vegetation to make room for crops. Water availability is crucial to wildlife – especially water-dependent species such as the elephant – and as agriculture uses up more and more of the water in the dispersal areas, the land becomes less viable for wildlife use. This is occurring along 1

Note that ‘reserve’ was used at that time not as in wildlife protection but as in native containment.

There are five other Biophere Reserves in Kenya (with dates of establishment): Mount Kenya (1978), Mount Kulal (1978), Malindi-Watamu (1979), Kiunga (1980) and Mount Elgon (2003 3 A World Heritage Site is designed to enshrine a natural or man-made feature that is unique in the world and, unless explicitly protected, would be under threat from development.

2

2

virtually all the major rivers and swamps in the ecosystem, such as the Nolturesh and Selengei rivers and the Kimana, Namelok, and Olng’arua le Nger swamps. Fencing of the swamp areas of Namelok and Kimana to prevent elephants in particular from destroying crops displaces elephants and other wildlife species from their traditional grazing areas, blocks their dispersion and denies them access to water.

Over the years, despite its small size, Amboseli has come to be one of the top three most visited parks in the Kenya National Parks system, along with Nairobi and Nakuru. The 80-100,000 visitors a year make Amboseli a major contributor to foreign exchange earning. In 2005, Amboseli grossed some USD 3.5m in gate takings. Proximity to the capital (35 minutes by light aircraft, 4-5 hours by road) and the open habitat that facilitates viewing of the rich diversity of wildlife undoubtedly contribute to the park’s popularity. But there are three iconic elements that give Amboseli its attractive edge: the elephants, Kilimanjaro and the Maasai.

Background to the Current Situation On 29 September 2005, the Kenyan Minister of Wildlife and Tourism signed a decree to de-gazette Amboseli National Park as a park and turn it over to the Olkejuado County Council (OCC) to be run as a National Reserve.

The Daily Nation

In effect this means that all gate receipts and other revenue would go to the OCC instead of Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) that manages the national parks system. The rules and regulations for reserves are more flexible regarding human activities within the boundaries, whereas conservation and tourism should be the only activities within parks. The declaration came as a complete surprise to nearly everyone, both NGO and government alike.

Most local and international conservation organizations vehemently condemned the change of status, and a suit has been brought by one group. Most claim that the change is illegal. According the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, notification of degazettement has to be posted formally and publicly, followed by a 60 day period for discussion, after which it has to be passed by Parliament. None of these actions was taken.

On 11 October, the OCC ran a full page advert in the local press explaining its position, including the reason why the change is not unlawful. OCC lawyers argue that the 1974 gazettement of Amboseli was itself illegal and unconstitutional: by giving Amboseli back to the County Council, the government is redressing a wrong.

Although it is still too early to predict the final outcome, it seems that the OCC is moving towards continuing with KWS as the manager of the current national Park.

The Stakeholders The number of players in the Amboseli arena is legion and perhaps typical of the complex mix of stakeholders involved in community conservation efforts. The Maasai themselves are represented to a greater or lesser degree by elected Group Ranch Committees4 at the local level and at the national level by Members of Parliament and NGOs such as the Maa Civil Society Forum.

Some Group Ranches have let concessions areas to safari operators or hoteliers.

Although the group ranch structure (historically superimposed on the traditional Maasai clan or ‘section’ hierarchy) is still in place, adjudication in many parts of the ecosystem is well-advance thereby creating a new cadre of individual landowners with title deed. In the better-watered areas, such as the lower slopes of Kilimanjaro and along the nonprotected swamps, landowners are sub-letting to sharecroppers from other tribes thereby diversifying the ethnic and cultural mix, as well as increasing the target areas for humanwildlife conflict.

The Kenya government’s custodian of the parks and wildlife estate is KWS that currently has a very effective and committed Senior Park Warden on site. The National Environment Secretariat is mandated to audit the environmental impact of all development proposals. The local government is represented by the Olkejuado Country Council as well as the traditional system of chiefs and sub-chiefs that may or may not correspond to Group Ranch office bearers.

NGOs abound. Some have an international link, such as AWF (African Wildlife Foundation), IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare), the Dutch-funded SVP or Birdlife International that has anointed Amboseli an Important Bird Area. Others are locally based or incorporated, like the Amboseli Trust for Elephants (ATE), ACC (the African Conservation Centre), the School for African Field Studies and the Kenya Tourism Federation.

Intergovernmental bodies also have a presence, for example: UNDP/FAO designed a Wildlife Utilisation Fund for Kajiado District in 1975 (the proposal was ignored at the time); the International Livestock Research Organisation (ILRI; part of the CGIAR) has an on-going study of savannah mixed productions systems in southern Kajiado; and currently a consortium comprising ATE, ACC, AWF, KWS, the University of Utrecht and the FAO Agricultural and Development Economics Division is developing for

4 The so-called Group Ranches were introduced in 1968 as an effort to match administrative units to the traditional clan-based Maasai system of pastoral land ownership and sharing. See Kiyiapi (2004) for a concise historical sketch of group ranches in Kenya.

3

UNEP implementation a GEF Medium-sized Project for a payment for ecosystem services in the Amboseli region5.

Amboseli has a rich history of research. Long term projects include the Princeton Amboseli Baboon Research Project, the Amboseli Research and Conservation Project, and the Amboseli Elephant Research Project (Annex 1 for summaries of research projects). Other species have been studied for shorter periods, for example: vervet monkeys, lions, hyenas cheetahs. There have been paleolecological studies of the Amboseli basin and at three studies of Maasai attitudes to wildlife (two under AERP and one under the ILRI-University of Michigan LUCID – Land Use Change Impacts and Dynamics – project).

AERP is the research arm of Amboseli Trust for Elephants (ATE) and has been working in Amboseli continuously since 1972. During that period it has built an unparalleled body of scientific knowledge on the Amboseli elephants, helping to make the population the best known in the world and the centrepiece of attractiveness to the foreign and local tourists who last year alone generated some US $3.5m in revenues.

The Opportunity

UNESCO 1999, Mburugu 2000, UNESCO/MAB 2003). These reports provide an adequate general background to the ecology of the region including the array of wildlife.

This report will not repeat that background, but will refer to any significant changes that may have occurred over the past decade.

Methodology There were four main methodological elements: Dialogue and consultation with stakeholders; review of literature since 1995; map-based analyses (to consider, i.a., rezoning issues for the Buffer Zone, wildlife occupancy, human-wildlife conflict sites, opportunity sites for enterprises, wildlife corridors, etc.); prescriptions for the future (i.e., best guesses, based on views of stakeholders and potential donors).

The main targets of the inventory can be captured in a linkage diagramme (below) that outlines the main classes of contemporary stakeholders in the Amboseli ecosystem, the major groups being: Group Ranches6, Farmers, Concessions, Hotels, Government, Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs), Intergovernmental Organisations and Bi-lateral Donors.

Although Amboseli is a dynamic and in many ways robust ecosystem, it cannot survive under heavy and uncontrolled use by both people and wildlife. On the other hand, there are other national reserves that have been in existence in Kenya for many years. It is not a new concept for a local community to be in charge of a conservation area, and the concept is, theoretically, a good one.

As chaotic as the current situation may appear for the moment, there is no reason why Amboseli could not become a model of a well-run protected area. There are certainly many pitfalls – human greed and political infighting at the top of the list – but on balance, this could be a tremendous opportunity for the Maasai to reap the benefits of conservation.

Whatever happens over the short and medium term with regard to legal wrangling and ultimate responsibility for management, it is vital that the Biosphere Reserve model be rejuvenated and maintained in the Amboseli ecosystem, with a protected and wellmanaged core area (e.g. the current National Park) surrounded by a buffer zone in which a compact has been negotiated with the community to allow wildlife access. Without this model, Amboseli could go the way of Nairobi National Park: an isolated protected island, viable only as a glorified zoo, benefiting only a fraction of the surrounding community.

Since 1991, UNESCO and the Kenyan National Commission for UNESCO have been maintaining a kind of watching brief on the area and have produced several reports 5 The protect is a resurrection of a GEF PDF–B that was originally proposed for tee Amboseli-Mondale region but lay dormant since 1997.

4

Figure 1. Amboseli Biosphere Reserve Stakeholders (see Annex 4 for acronyms acronyms

6

See (Grandon 1991) for a description of the genesis and structure of the Group Ranch system.

Zonation, ecozones and the ecosystem The original zonation of ABR included a Core comprising Amboseli National Park, a Buffer comprising four surrounding group ranches (Olgulului/Ololarrashi, Kimana, Eselenkei and Mbirikani) and a Transition Zone comprising the entirety of Kajiado District (see sketchmap, right).

Kajiado7 District is a ca. 22,000 km2 in Central Province that stretches from Nairobi south to the Tanzanian boarder. It has marked geophysical features – some truly spectacular, such as the eastern ledges of Great Rift Valley – that create four distinct ecozones as defined by geomorphology, topography and vegetation, namely: the Athi-Kapiti Plains, the Rift Valley, the Central Hills and Ilkisongo (UNDP/FAO 1980; Table 1 and Fig. 2).

Beyernsmayer 1993. Croze and Lindsay, in press); suffice it here to paraphrase from those sources.

The AE is a roughly 8,000 square kilometre area that straddles the Kenya-Tanzania boundary, reposing as a broad basin between the northern slopes of Kilimanjaro, the late (post-Pleistocene) volcanic Chyulu Hills to the East, a motley range of broken basement hills to the North and scattered granitic outcrops and earlier volcanic cones to the West and Southwest. The most recent eruption of Kilimanjaro about 1.5m years ago blocked a northwest-to-southeast drainage line, creating a closed central basin and a lake with no outlet: Lake Amboseli. Today, the lake holds only a few centimetres for a couple of weeks during the best of rains, and the alkaloid salts that have accumulated over the years reflect starkly white on satellite imagery (see Figs. 2 and 3).

The District also has a steep NorthSouth ‘sociological gradient’, from the peri-urban areas of Nairobi at Source: UNESCO MAB, Paris the extreme North through varying degrees of rain-fed agriculture, irrigated agriculture and horticulture, ranches and traditional pastoralism that characterise most of the reaches of Maasailand that cross the Kenya-Tanzania boundary.

The Amboseli Ecosystem The Ilkisongo Ecozone encompasses a plant an animal assemblage that makes it conveniently congruent with what is commonly known as the Kenyan portion of Amboseli Ecosystem, as defined by a commonality of soil and vegetation types, a local rainfall regime, a distinct drainage system and the occupancy of large herbivore populations, both residents and locally seasonal migrants. When migratory species make up a large proportion of the animals in an area, the limits of the annual movements make be taken as operational ecosystem boundaries (Pennycuick 1975) The ecosystem has been well-described elsewhere (e.g. Western 1973, Lindsay 1985 & 1994,

Fig. 2. The ecozones of Kajiado District, Kenya. See Table 1. (Image: GoogleEarth)

7 ‘Kajiado District’ is the administrative name. The district County Counsel, ‘Olkejuado County Council’ has opted to use the original Maa name for the region, which, by the way, means ‘long river’.

5

Ecozone

Topography & Drainage

Dom. Veg. Structure

Main Ecosystem

Athi-Kapiti

A distinct high undulating plateau, bound by Grassland, Migratory herbivoreRift wall to West and upper valleys of busheddefined; congruent Selengei drainage to South. Drainage: east grassland with ecozone and north into Athi River system Ewaso-Ngiro Wooded and Rift Valley Bounded by Rift Valley escarpment to west migratory defined and east, by administrative and international bushedecosystem only 40% grassland, boundaries to north and south, respetively. of ecozone due to bushland and Large numbers of north-south step faults. water limitation. grassland Drainage: south, except in northern part where predominantly to north.

Central Highly dissected, conspicuous ranges of Woodland and No migratory-defined Hills basement system hills. Drainage: bushland. ecosystem southeast.

Ilkisongo Undulating low basement (northwest) and Bushland, Amboseli: Migratorylava (southeast) hills increasing in height to grassland, defined ecosystem recent volcanic structures to south bushedcongruent with (Kilimanjaro) and east (Chyulus). Drainage: grassland ecozone; historical predominantly east and south; all directions evidence of subinto closed basin of Pleistocene lakebed populations.

Table 1. Four ecozones of Kajiado District, Kenya. (modified from Croze 1978, after Pratt and Gwynne 1977)

Quaternary volcanic soils on the northeastern Kili slope dominate around the town of Loitokitok, encouraging rain-fed agriculture; basement rock soils cover the most of the rest of Ilkisongo, making only pastoralism possible. These dark red to reddish brown sandy clay soils are low in fertility despite the rapid growth of grass on them in the early rains. Darker brown-to-black (‘blackcotton’) alluvial clays accumulate in seasonal runoff lines and low-lying areas of impeded drainage: these trap nutrients and support grass growth for a while after the rains. In general, even where volcanics are present, soil fertility in the ecosystem is a tenuous matter, underlain as it is with impoverished basement quartzites, crystalline limestones, schists and gneisses. The soils in and around the Pleistocene lake bed are an unfriendly mix of saline accumulations that support only a meagre seasonal growth and produce a ferocious albedo the vertical energy of which is believed to repel clouds and delay the onset of the rains compared to surrounding areas.

On an agro-climatic zone map, the region in general is coloured arid to semi-arid (Zone VI, Sombroek et al. 1982) with low agricultural potential.). Over two discernible seasons – the ‘short rains’ between November and December and the ‘long rains’ between March and May – only some 350mm falls on average annually. The short dry season between January and February is relatively hot (up to 35º C in February); the longer dry season between June and October can be cold (down to 8ºC in July). There is some evidence that daily temperatures, especially maxima, have increased over the past three decades (Altman et al, 2002).

The forested catchments and volcanic soils of Kilimanjaro and the Chyulus feed through a little-understood underground drainage system a number of small springs and an 6

important series of west-east oriented swamps that are literally the lifeblood of the ecosystem: Enkong’u Narok and Lonkinya within the Amboseli National Park boundaries, and then Namelok, Kimana, Lenkati and near the Chyulus, Esoitpus.

Without the swamps, the ecosystem would certainly not be able to sustain the existing populations of large herbivores, small mammals and birds, not to mention the Maasai and their livestock and the high-intensity agriculture around Namelok and Kimana in particular. There are no permanent rivers coming from the Kilimanjaro slopes and the catchment of Namanga Hill to the West (but there are some perennial flows from major springs such as the Nol Teresh).

The vegetation consists of trees, bushes and grasses. Much of the grassland is savannah mainly with scattered trees and thickets.

Although the region is traditionally ‘Maasailand’, there are significant concentrations of non-Maasai groups: Kikuyu, Kambas, Luos, Luhyas, Somalis and Chagas, the latter predominantly in Tanzania. The total population is roughly 200,000 of which only some 36,000 are Maasai about (Republic of Kenya, CBS, 2001). There are about 3,000 residents in the Amboseli biosphere reserve buffer zone, and 3-4,000 people living in the biosphere reserve transition area (KWS, 1991). There are also about 180,000 cattle and 230,000 sheep and goats found in the Amboseli ecosystem (Western and Monzolillo, 2005), mostly owned by the Maasai. Other land uses in the surrounding areas (and within the biosphere reserve buffer and transition zones) include semi-pastoralism, farming (rainfed and irrigated), and tourism based on wildlife viewing (KWS, loc.cit.).

Changing, is the best way to characterise the core of the Amboseli ecosystem. Since the 1950s and 60s when dedicated wardens and keen researchers began making systematic note of events Amboseli basin: the swamps have grown in number and size, standing water has increased, Acacia woodlands have changed dramatically, grassland and saltloving plant species have spread (Wester and Van Praet 1973, Strhsaker 1976, Behrensmeyer 1993, Altman 1998). Local met station data hint at discernible daily temperature increases (Altman et al. 2002), and the Kilimanjaro glaciers are shrinking rapidly (Thompson et al. 2002), suggesting ecosystem drivers are in flux.

Vegetation Using the National Park as a point of reference, the dominant vegetation types (Pratt et al. 1966) are open grasslands towards the north and northeast to the Chyulu Hills; Acacia8-dominated bushland to the south until the forest belt of Kilimanjaro.

Throughout these main types there are patches of swamp and swamp-edge grassland and Acacia woodland following a roughly northwest-southeast line along the park’s long axis, with wooded and bush grassland found variously wherever there is seasonal accumulation of water (Mumiukha 1977).

8 We note the recent proposed changes in the nomenclature of the genus Acacia, but will avoid using Senegalia or Valechica until the changes are generally accepted in Africa.

Figure 3. Amboseli ecosystem showing main swamps, protected areas and agricultural incursion into the pastoral landscape.

7

In the Amboseli Core, the physiognomy and composition of the plant are strongly determined by the state or level of soil chemistry, water availability and the of intensity herbivore use, all of which are clearly subject to marked spatial and temporal variation (Croze and Lindsay, in press). To quote that source: Amboseli is a non-equilibrium ecosystem, typical of arid and semi-arid regions that are highly variable (in physiognomy and species mix), unpredictable and resilient (Niamir-Fuller 2002). From time-series analyses of gross changes in habitat type cover over three decades, as well as evidence from paleoecological records and oral traditions, it is evident that the inherent nature of the central Amboseli basin is that of a system fluctuating between two extreme conditions in what appears to be a non-periodic cycle: large swamps-small woodlands and small swamps-large woodlands.

There have also been bouts of greater-than-average rainfall, more or less consistent with El Niño years, 1997/98 being the most conspicuous, 1993/94, the greatest exception (Croze & Lindsay, in press).

Outflow volume from the springs appears to depend on variations in rainfall amount and runoff from Kilimanjaro’s forest zone. Rainfall variation may be random or cyclic, anything but constant. The relationship between rainfall events and the recharging of watersheds is not a simple correlation with annual amounts. There is some evidence from both the Chyulu-Mzima Springs system and the Lake Victoria basin that single pulses of high rainfall can saturate the watershed and provide downstream flow for a number of years to follow (Nicholson 1999).

Currently the Core is in the former phase with relatively extensive swamp and swampedge grasslands and a markedly diminished tree cover.

Water resources Spatial scarcity of permanent water is the salient feature of Amboseli’s surface hydrology; water is obviously a key limiting factor in the ecosystem. There are no perennial flowing rivers in the ecosystem, only numberous seasonal streams that flow for short period during the rains (Fig. 4). The Eselenkei-Kiboko river drainage in the north and northeast portion of the ecosystem is highly seasonal. There is no surface runoff from the Chyulus: rainfall soaks almost on impact into the porous volcanic soils.

There are also no permanent streams coming from the Kilimanjaro slopes or the catchment of Namanga Hill (also known as Oldonyo Orok, the ‘black mountain’) to the West.

The rain that falls onto the forested catchments and volcanic soils of Kilimanjaro and the Chyulu Hills, feeds through a poorly underground drainage system and emerges at the southern margin of the basin in a number of springs that cut in channels northwards across the Amboseli plains. The volume of outflow determines the extent of surface water and height of the underground water table in the basin.

The spring-fed swamp system and its associated vegetation provides the water and vegetation to transform Amboseli from a potentially impoverished rain-poor semi-arid area into the haven for biodiversity (and attraction for human enterprise) that it is today.

Rainfall Like much of East Africa, there are two discernible rainy seasons – the ‘short rains’ in November and December and the ‘long rains’ March to May. Only some 340 mm falls on average annually. The rainfall regime is highly erratic and unpredictable in terms of ‘good’ years and ‘bad’ years. Over the past 30 years there have been at least three major drought periods, roughly one each decade: early 70s, mid-80s and late 90s.

8

Figure 4. Water resources in the Amboseli ecosystem

Dams and wells Numerous seasonal river dams and shallow wells that capture rainfall or tap into shallow groundwater sources are dotted across the ecosystem is (Fig. 4). Wildlife as well as Maasai livestock have access to most dams (a few are fenced). The accessibility is beneficial on the one hand as it attracts grazing pressure away from the central swamps. The disadvantage is that provision of extra water into the dry season

reduces negative feedback on population growth and may increase he frequency of livestock-wildlife conflict over water.

Boreholes From the early conservation history of Amboseli it was recognised that if the core of today’s national park and Biosphere Reserve were to be sustained, then the Maasai herders would either have to have access to reliable water points away from the Park’s edge or to the swamps within the Park, or both. The 1970s donor-funded efforts to drill (or refurbish) and maintain boreholes at strategic points well outside the Park was only partly successful. Those that were financed by the New York Zoological Society fell into disuse over the course of the 70s and 80s, largely because the burden had been put onto the wildlife management authority (then the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department) that in practice did not have the competence, mandate or stable leadership necessary to take on the burden of managing a system of boreholes outside of the protected area.

Today there is an overview of the main water points in the ecosystem (Fig. 4) compiled from older maps and GPS points taken by field workers. But the information behind the map is urgently in need of updating, perhaps by reference to the AMREF master list.

Since 2004, the African Medical Research Foundation (AMREF) has undertaken to rehabilitate all community-owned boreholes in Kajiado District in a bid to solve some of the water related health problems in the arid and semi-arid parts of the District, including Ilkisongo. The AMREF Kenya Borehole Project has been extended some months beyond its December 2006 end date.

From project offices based at the District seat of Kajiado town, AMREF collaborates with relevant government departments, for example, as a member of the District Steering Group and Athi Water Services all of which are concerned with water services in the district. It also collaborates with OCC to facilitate transfer of county council drilled boreholes to community ownership; OCC personnel provide technical expertise in the rehabilitation of some old boreholes machines and pumps. To avoid duplication, AMREF also works closely with Arid Lands, another government department involved in water services provision in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL).

Nominally, the community pays 25% of the total rehabilitation cost of a borehole, while AMREF through its boreholes services program or donors provides the remaining 75%.

This is intended to instil a spirit of community ownership and custodianship. The 75% covers technical support, purchase of equipment, training of community-owned resource persons, and capacity building for the committee members.

It is hoped to ensure sustainability by requiring a membership fee of KES 10,000 (USD 140), from each registered borehole user and thereafter a monthly subscription of KES 20 per cow head to be used in the future maintenance when donor funding comes to an end. AMREF is setting up a ‘cluster shop’ that will contain all the spares needed for

the minor repairs of the boreholes thereby reducing the cost of travelling to Kajiado.

The shops will also serve as sites for training borehole operators on the basic mechanics, for routine checks and trouble shooting to help reduce running costs.

The rehabilitated boreholes sadly do not take into consideration the presence of wildlife and the likely need to fortify the borehole infrastructure against utilisation and breakage by thirsty wild animals. It is generally not wise in the long term to provide water for wildlife and risk interfering with natural movements and demographic events. It is a better strategy to reduce competition for water and grazing in the central swamps of Amboseli by providing adequate water for livestock elsewhere. However, community members are unlikely to be motivated to bear additional costs of ‘wildlife-proofing’ borehole infrastructure until they see more material benefits from the wildlife estate.

Given the importance of boreholes as attractors to relieve pressure from the Core, it is important that a thorough review be undertaken to ascertain both the current status of all existing waterpoints and the attendant infrastructure. Such a review will help planning realistic wildlife corridors as well as provide a rational basis for soliciting donor funding for making the infrastructure ‘wildlife-friendly’ or ‘-unfriendly’ as the case may be.

Water quality in Namalok and Kimana swamps As mentioned above, a string of groundwater-fed swamps are on the one hand the lifeblood of the ecosystem and on the other the centre of gravity of the major commercial enterprises: tourism in the Amboseli National Park (Sinet, Enkong’u Narok and Lonkinya swamps), the Kimana Wildlife Concession (Kimana swamp) and on Kuku Group Ranch (Lenkati and Esoitpus swamps); and irrigated agriculture around the edges of Namelok and Kimana swamps.

ILRI commissioned a water quality survey in five important sources of water and grazing: Namelok, Kimana and Lenkati swamp, plus two of the very few important perennial rivers in the ecosystem: the Nol Turesh and the Rombo (see Table 2).

In the case of the swamps, samples were taken at the source of the swamp strings, inside the swamps where high-intensity irrigated agriculture is currently underway and near the downstream outlet of the swamp drainage.

The conclusions make disturbing reading. Even though people use the waters for domestic purposes all along the reaches of the swamps and rivers studied, “…most of the chemical parameters, … [the total suspended solids]… and concentration of iron, nitrates and phosphates are beyond the World Health Organization and Kenya Bureau of Standards safe limits. This in combination with pesticides application renders the water unsafe for human consumption and raises concerns on human, livestock and wildlife health issues.” (Githaiga and Muchiru 2003, page 25; Githaiga et al 2004)

9

occupancy;

Nolturesh Spring The Nolturesh Spring is located in the southeastern corner of the ecosystem (Fig. 4).

Historically, it flowed freely from the source in a meandering stream serving both people and wildlife, and finished in the Esoitpus swamp. It still does, but to a far less extent, In 1988, the spring was capped and a waterwork inaugurated to divert the water. 75% now flows out of the ecosystem to the north to provide irrigation for privately owned horticultural enterprises outside of Nairobi. The rest serves the domestic water needs of Olotokitok and its immediate surrounds. The Nolturesh stream is now a trickle and the small remnant patch of forest at the headwater is being rapidly cut down.

Wildlife

•

Wildlife also makes significant use of the bushland surrounding the Core; survival in the long run is absolutely dependent on the good will of the owners and occupiers of the ecosystem dispersal areas and Buffer Zone

•

The four Group Ranches originally designate as the Buffer Zone are appropriate given the pattern of wildlife dispersal;

•

Kuku Group Ranch should be considered part of the Buffer Zone;

•

In fact, Kaputei South should not be in the Buffer Zone at all, since the contemporary distribution of wildlife suggests that the density of animals has changed over the years (R. Groom, pers. comm.).

In general, the amazing array of large and small mammals, birdlife and vegetative diversity has not changed significantly over the past three decades. Indeed, under the implied protection of Maasai landowners and the watchful eye of researchers, the elephant population has grown to some 1,400. Other large mammals have remained more or less constant, with the exception of some localised diminishing of numbers of browsing species – lesser kudu and impala, for example (Western and Manzolillo 2005). There have indeed been changes in Acacia xanthophloea and A. tortilis woodland along the swamps and just to the southeast of the National Park, but such changes – though visually striking – must be seen in the context of the long term, non-equilibrium behaviour of arid ecosystems that are by nature highly variable, unpredictable and surprisingly resilient (see box).

Although there is no published record of the seasonal distribution and abundance of wild herbivores over the ecosystem, the data do exist, for example, in the long term aerial survey records of the Amboseli Research and Conservation Project under the auspices of ACC, and within the Government of Kenya’s Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS). Western (2005) has summarised the average occupancy of large herbivores both seasonally migratory (wildebeeste, zebra, elephants) and resident (buffalo, impala, kongoni, etc.), over 30 years of ecological monitoring by systematic reconnaissance flights (see Fig. 5).

Several things are clear from the distribution of wildlife vis à vis the ecosystem features:

10

•

The core of Amboseli National Park maps well to the core of wildlife occupancy (dark red on the map);

•

Settlements are encroaching into the southern portion of the core

Figure 5 Average (30-year) occupancy of wildlife in the Amboseli ecosystem (modified from Western 2005); Tanzania elephant range courtesy of A. Kikoti

Estimates of total numbers of wildlife in the ecosystem are few and of questionable comparative value due to differences in survey techniques and areas covered. But in round terms, the ecosystem currently is supporting of the order of 60,000 wild herbivores (of the size range from Thompson’s Gazelle to Elephant) and 400,000 domestic stock in the form of zebu cattle, sheep and goats (Western and Manzolillo 2005, DRSRS 2006, Croze and Lindsay in press).

It is not the purpose of this review to provide a comprehensive report of the status of all wildlife species. Readers should refer to the reports and publications of the on-going research programmes (see Annex 1 for summaries). The following thumbnails may be highlighted: Elephants. Arguably one of the best-studied populations of large, free-ranging mammals in the world. Deserves World Heritage status. Popular press views of ‘overpopulation’ unfounded given contemporary non-equilibrium ecological thinking and as long as dispersal areas outside park are available. Elephants now spend ca. 80% of time outside park.

Rhinos. The population declined from ca. 120 in the 1950s to some 10-15 in the late 1970s (Western 1981). A mis-guided translocation programme to ‘improve genetic diversity’ resulted in death by territorial fights or disease. Finally, the killing of rhinos – either as a social protest by Maasai or in poaching for their valuable horns – resulted in the last animals being exterminated by the early 1990s.

Other Very Large Herbivores (hippos, buffalos, giraffe). No detectable change in population sizes. Giraffes under threat from bushmeat trade.

Medium-sized Herbivores. Grazing species: significant increase in zebra due to reduced grazing competition; no significant change in wildebeeste; apparent decrease in Thomson Gazelle and the less numerous oryx (Western and Manzolillo 2005) 9.

Browsers: apparent decrease of impala, kudu and dik-dik within park boundaries due to changes in Acacia cover, apparent decrease in gerenuks and eland in the perimeter bushland; no detectable trend ecosystem-wide.

Lions. Due to spearing (and poisoning) by Maasai, lions are under serious threat. 108 confirmed killed in the ecosystem between 2001 and 2006 (S. Maclennan, pers.comm.). There may only be 800 left in all of Kenyan Maasailand (Kajiado and Narok Districts).

Hyenas. Significant increase in numbers over the past five years. Have become more important than lions as predators of livestock.

9 M. Norton-Griffiths (pers.comm.) has suggested that the regression analysis used by Western and Manzolillo-Nightengale (2004) needs careful review. Some 60% of the observations fall within the first 20% of the time series giving the later observations a disproportionate influence on the slope of the regression line compared to the earlier clumped together observations. It is even possible for one point alone to drive the result of the regression. The data should be transformed, and the analyses run again..

Other large predators. Insufficient data to draw conclusions. Cheetahs have returned to the park after being hounded out by off-road driving in the 1980s. Some ten individuals now seen regularly. Increasing numbers of hyenas a threat to smaller carnivores.

Livestock. No significant trends discernible since the 1960s (see footnote 9).

Conventional wisdom is that ratio of ‘shoats’ (sheep and goats taken together) to cattle has increased.

Croze and Lindsay (in press) summarise the current wildlife situation as follows: The creation of the National Park and resultant removal of dry season grazing competition is likely to have had cascading effects on the Amboseli wildlife populations and their habitats, allowing population increase in grazers such as buffaloes and zebras and seasonal grazers such as elephants.

Predator populations have also benefited from the increased prey base. Maasai spearings have eliminated rhinos from Amboseli and if unchecked are likely to exterminate the remaining lions. The removal of lions, together with increased food supply has allowed the hyena population to grow. Elephants discovered that the Park was a sanctuary from human contact and concentrated in its confines, thereby accelerating woodland change and displacing browsing ungulates and other treedependent wildlife.

The Amboseli Myth: Loss of Biodiverity Occasional grey-literature contributions assert that Amboseli elephants no longer wander freely outside the park, are therefore unnaturally compressed within the park and negatively impacting biological diversity (e.g. Mitchel 2005, Western & Manzolilla 2005). There is no published, peer-reviewed evidence for such views. On the contrary, over the past few years, the 1,400-plus elephants have been spending more not less time outside the park. Nor is there any hard evidence that there has been a general loss of biodiversity. Indeed there has been local changes in habitat physiognomy and species mixes, but nothing that should be tarred with epithets like ‘negative’ and ‘loss’, except subjectively based on visual evidence.

Gillson and Lindsay (2003) observe that the “… the view of ecosystems as stable constructs in natural balance has been largely replaced in mainstream ecology by the understanding that species, populations and community structures are rarely at equilibrium, but are shaped by complex processes acting within and between trophic levels, and responses to climatic and physical environmental factors (e.g. McNaughton et al., 1988; Pimm, 1991).”

When the conventional wisdom of the 'fragile' or 'delicate ecosystem' is viewed in the ‘non-equilibrium’ context, it would appear that most of the arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL) of Kenya are more robust than one might suppose, else they would not have done so well for so long with a low and erratic annual rainfall. Contemporary ecological thinking is steering right away from the old cattleman's notion of 'carrying capacity', a mythical number for wildlife in ASAL ecosystems. With the benefit of nearly half a century of research, it is now clear that these 'non-equilibrium' ecosystems are highly variable, devilishly unpredictable and very resilient (Niamir-Fuller 2002).

The causes of woodland change are conventionally attributed to ‘predation’ by elephants. However, Western and Vanpraet (1973) in an elegant analysis showed that the ultimate cause had to do with the increase in the level of the water table that in turn altered the osmotic balance in the root zone of mature Acacias. Acacia woodlands cannot be considered a classical ‘climax’ vegetation type. For example, Maasai oral tradition recalls a loss of Acacoa xanthophloea along the swamps at the turn of the previous century (D. Western, pers. comm.), and John Fletcher, formerly of Kerr and Downey Ltd recalls that in the 1950s there were no or very few Acacia tortilis near the Iltalal airstrip (L. Belpietro, pers. comm.).

Even if ‘visual ecology’ is applied, and one stares carefully at the former A. xanthophloea woodlands in the heart of the national park, it is evident that the Phoenix reclinata palms have taken the acacias' place as emergents. Destruction? Loss? No, just change.

11

Birdlife Birds are particularly good indicators of biodiversity richness, and Amboseli is particularly rich in birds, with over 400 species recorded including over 40 birds of prey. Kenya ranks number five in Africa on Birdlife International’s list of countries with Important Bird Areas (IBA)10. And within Kenya, Amboseli is one of the 60 IBAs. Birdlife International (2005) highlights the following in Amboseli (paraphrased to include common names): Several species of global conservation concern occur, including the Lesser Kestral, Falco naumanni, (on passage), small numbers of non-breeding Madagascar Pondherons, Ardeola idea, (mainly May–October) and Lesser Flamingos, Phoenicopterus minor, (present in variable numbers, up to a few thousand). The African Shoebill, Balaeniceps rex, has been recorded once. Regionally threatened species include the Darter or Snake-bird, Anhinga rufa, (scarce non-breeding visitor); the Great Egret, Casmerodius albus, (usually present in small numbers); the White-backed Duck, Thalassornis leuconotus, (occasional visitor); the White-headed Vulture, Trigonoceps occipitalis, (uncommon resident); and the Martial Eagle, Polemaetus 11 bellicosus, (resident in small numbers).

Moreover, some ten percent of Amboseli birds are resident species that are classified by Birdlife International as Biome-Restricted Species (A3), meaning that their breeding distributions are largely or wholly confined to one biome, that is, to one of the world's major vegetation communities, in this case, tropical savannah grassland.

As the physiognomy of the Amboseli has changed over the years from more to less wooded, it would be expected that the species assemblage of birds would also change.

More water species might be expected in the expanding swamps, and fewer woodland species in the former A. tortilis and A. xanthophloea woodlands. But the species tradeoffs do not appear to be simple. For example, AERP researchers noted the reappearance in Ol Tukai Orok in the middle of the park of the typical A. xanthophloea starlings, the Superb (Lamprotornis superbus) and Hildebrandt’s (L. hildebrandti).

of the wildlife-based Amboseli ecosystem as well as the various forms of land use opportunities.

The situation today, however, is rapidly changing. The human population is increasing, evidently checked to some degree by the increasing prevalence of HIV/AIDS. The traditional Group Ranch system is breaking down through adjudication and subdivision.

Irrigated agriculture has virtually closed off two of the five important swamps in the ecosystem and rainfed agriculture is inexorably marching down the slopes of Kilimanjaro into important seasonal wildlife habitat. There has been a change in the structure of the Acacia woodlands in the Core. Some wildlife populations have changed or are being severely challenged. For example, there no rhinos left, save a few in the Chyulu Hills. The elephants, a major tourist attraction in the Park have increased in numbers. However, they are being speared in the Buffer Zone along with the beleaguered lions. The ‘bushmeat’ trade (see below) is removing unknown but large numbers of zebra, wildebeest, giraffe (and probably impala, kudu and gerenuk from the buffer zone). Water resources are being heavily used, diverted or polluted in major springs and swamps.

LANDUSE

NAMALOK SWAMP

KIMANA SWAMP

LEINKATI SWAMP

NOLTURESH RIVER

ROMBO RIVER

Wildlife X X X Livestock X X X X X Mixed wildlife/livestock X X X Rainfed cultivation X X Irrigated agriculture X X X X X Mixed C/L/A X X X Table 2. Land use types in three swamp and two river systems in the Amboseli ecosystem (modified from Githaiga and Muchiru, 2003)

Clearly investment in an updated bird census and studies of bird species assemblages would be extremely informative.

An illegal trade in sandalwood (Osyris lanceolata) not only is using the Oloitokitok area, in particular, as a entrepôt to Tanzania, southern Africa and India, but the meagre stands the ecosystem supports are being razed thereby removing yet one more opportunity for income-generation.

Land Use

In general, there is virtually no planning and management control to what’s going on the ecosystem, indeed in most public lands across the country. There is, however, a move afoot in the form of a National Land Policy Formulation Process to rectify the fact ‘Kenyan has not had a clearly defined or codified National Land Policy since independence’ (GoK 2006).

Previous MAB reports on the characteristics and status of the Amboseli Biosphere Reserve (e.g.., UNESCO 1999, 2003) present accurate and timely accounts of the scope

Maasai Pastoralism 10 IBAs are designated if the area in question is home to globally-threatened, restricted-range or restrictedbiome species, or if it hosts congregations of significant numbers of birds.

11 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/index.html?action=SitHTMDetails.asp&sid=6432&m=0

12

Pastoralism of the semi-nomadic, transhumanant variety has been the land use of choice for hundreds of years in the region (see Dahl and Hjort (1976) for one of the best general treatments of pastoralism; and see Campbell 1978, Campbell et al. (2000 and

2003), Reid et al (2004) and the other working papers of the LUCID programme (http://www.lucideastafrica.org/publications.htm) for the best contemporary picture of pastoralism in the Amboseli ecosystem). Emerging land use activities in the ecosystem, whether agriculture- or wildlife-based, will have to compete not only economically, but culturally and spiritually with ‘having herds’.

For wildlife to have a sustainable future in Amboseli, two ‘fronts’ of potential conflict with pastoralism have to be addressed urgently. One, the economic front, squarely rests on the issue of distribution of benefits from wildlife. The Maasai quite reasonably ask, “Why should we tolerate the presence of wildlife on our lands if only a small portion of the benefits are going to only a few of us?” The benefits, of course, range from short term cash in hand to longer term development of the region and alleviation of poverty.

The other arena has to do with day to day competition for essentials: pasture, water and living space. The necessarily low density of pastoralists combined with a cultural propensity to respect wildlife, has traditionally allowed the essentials to be comfortably shared. But densities are increasing, not so much because the absolute numbers of either people, livestock or wildlife are growing out of hand, but because land use changes, principally subdivision and growth of agriculture, is constraining movements of all players, crowding them here and their, and forcing them into conflict situations.

The tradeoffs between the two fronts seem quite obvious: if the presence of wildlife is made worthwhile economically, then pasture, water and living space may be foregone – given over voluntarily – as a reasonable price to pay, an acceptable opportunity cost for having wildlife.

Agriculture Over the past 50 years, on the high-ground fringes of the ecosystem and, of course, in the unprotected central swamps, agriculturalists have settled into the Amboseli ecosystem. Whether they are immigrants from Ukambani or Ugikuyu or Maasai experimenting with crops, they are a land use change agent that cannot be ignored.

Two issues predominate. One is that contemporary Maasai, particularly near the growing expansion of rainfed agriculture (see below), have become more dependent on the agriculturalists for food. Diet preferences are changing, apparently driven predominantly by women nurturing children (W. Kiiru, pers. comm.). Protein meals of meat and to a lesser extent milk are a relatively expensive energetic offtake from a herd, and thus are harvested parsimoniously. Maize, roots and pulses are readily available (given good rains) and relatively easily obtainable for sale or barter for milk.

Vegetable-based meals are more frequent and more filling.

The other issue is that although the agriculturalists suffer opportunity costs from wildlife as least as severe as those of the pastoralists, they derive hardly any of the benefits. Unless this imbalance is addressed, the agriculturalists will always be hostile to the presence of wildlife in the ecosystem (M. Billow, DO Loitokitok, pers. comm.).

Farmers: rainfed agriculture The principle land use change in the ecosystem over the past three decades has been the expansion of the area under cultivation (Campbell et al 2003). Between 1973 and 2000 the forest cover on the lower slopes of Kilimanjaro above Oloitokitok declined 2.3% (646 to 417 Ha), an ominous trend that impacts on the ecosystem’s water catchment capacity. Since then, the forest clearance seems to have continued, and 76% (32/42) of the ‘shamba sysem’ areas on Kili’s NE slopes have not been fully replanted (Lambrechts et al 2002) 12. During the same period, rainfed agriculture in the Oloitokitok along increased by 177% (Fig 3; agricultural data after Campbell et al, loc. cit.). Clearly this expanding agrarian front increases geometrically the probability of human-wildlife conflict.

Farmers: irrigated agriculture The fenced areas around Namalok and Kimana swamps (Fig. 3) have been alienated to wildlife and pastoral livestock and given over entirely to intense irrigated agriculture.

In general, the land tenure system has shifted from communal stewardship to individual ownership as farmers from outside have moved in a bought or rented plots from the Maasai. The high-intensity production of produce such as tomatoes and onions is generating impressive per-hectare returns, at least two orders of magnitude more than traditional livestock production (Campbell, pers comm.)

It is difficult not to conclude that the impressive production from the areas of irrigated agriculture has a questionable future. If productivity falls off over the next few years, it will either require a huge investment in clean-up of the polluted waters, or the farmers will simply move away, leaving depleted and poisoned soils and water.

Land Use Change Legal Status Despite the politically motivate situation mentioned above, there has been no officially gazetted change in the Core Amboseli National Park as of the date of this report; KWS is still the legal owner of the Park.

Land ownership through adjudication and land use through individual concession area agreement is rapidly changing the face of the Group Ranch system (see below).

12 The rate of decrease of forest cover is likely to have accelerated since then, as witnessed by the large areas of evident clear-cutting on the NE slopes of Kilimanjaro. The ultimate cause may rest with contemporary changes in Kenya forest policy (J. Olsen, pers.comm.). By banning logging and sale of its own plantation timber, Kenya has effectively created a huge market for its neighbours (ref xx). This could be driving increased logging in the Kilimanjaro catchment. And, it is not so very surprising that the itinerant, landless farmers who are allowed to till for three years the clear-cut ‘shamba system’ areas are not the world’s best custodians of tree seedlings.

13

Impacts on Wildlife For nearly three decades, southern Kajiado district has been the subject of a comprehensive research and analysis programme under the joint auspices of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and Michigan State University (Department of Geography), with significant inputs from the National Museums of Kenya (NMK), the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), AWF and ACC. The project is called LUCID for Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics (http://www.lucideastafrica.org/). One of its many important working papers (Reid, Campbell et al 2004) provides a comprehensive overview of the impacts of land use change on inter alia biodiversity. It is worth quoting from the executive summary on land use change:

1994) due to human population growth, livestock diseases, land use changes and land fragmentation (GOK 2001) has caused cultural changes that are less compatible with wildlife. Warinda (2001) observed that in Ilmbirikani Group Ranch there was increasing preference by Maasai to invest in agriculture as a way to cope with livestock declines. The table below (adopted from Warinda loc.cit) shows strategies that Maasai use to cope with adverse environmental impacts such as droughts.

Although it may be tempting to surmise that moving livestock off the ranch might be ‘good for’ wildlife, in fact the moves are only temporary until the rains come and actually will greatly increase grazing pressure and competition with in other parts of the ecosystem. What is of greater concern to wildlife and the potential for conflict is the marked increase in investment in farming.

The Loitokitok area has experienced rapid and extensive land use change over the past 30 years in response to a variety of economic, cultural, political, institutional and demographic processes. Expansion of agriculture down the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro dominates these changes in land use. Farmers expanded rainfed agriculture from the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro onto the piedmont on the lower slopes and also now grow irrigated crops around swamps and along rivers. The expansion of the area under crops has restricted the viability of herding activities around the base of the mountain, resulting in increased sedentarization arid diversification of herding livelihoods into mixed herding-farming livelihoods. Wildlife populations, which had access to swamps ringing the base of Kilimanjaro in the 1970’s now have no access to one of these swamps arid only partial access to three others.

% saying strategy very important Strategies Relying on famine relief

And on land use change and wildlife: Between the 1970’s and 1990’s most of the 17 rangelands districts of Kenya lost over 50% of their wildlife. However … in Kajiado …. wildlife numbers have remained unchanged. The conversion of swamps to cropland over the last 20 years near Oloitokitok and the growth of settlements and human populations is altering the distribution and probably the abundance of wildlife in the Amboseli Basin. Wildlife no longer have access to important wetland areas that were the stepping stones in their movements between the Amboseli and Tsavo ecosystems.

Stakeholders are not blind to the threats to wildlife from rapid land use change, and over the past half decade have gathered on numerous occasions to lay the foundations for a comprehensive ecosystem management plan (Manegene and Bernard, 2004). But plan as they might, was the best of plans are doomed to sitting on shelves or hard drives in the current policy vacuum from above. Then is no real leadership from the Office the President on down to the District level. And that which exists is largely corrupt and self-serving. Again and again at stakeholder gatherings the lament is heard: if only we had land use planning!

Drought Response A main advantage of the traditional Maasai livestock production system is that it is relatively tolerant to wildlife and that incidences of conflict can be addressed through traditional conflict resolution structures (ASAL Programme, Kajiado District 1990).

However, declining per capita livestock holdings (Grandon 1991, quoted by Western 14

1997

2001

78

70

Assistance from friends and next of kin

71

70

Investing in some business

80

93

Feeding on livestock

58

74

Selling some livestock before dry season

51

72

Moving livestock out of Group Ranch

73

95

Investing in farming

60

87

Table 3. Strategies to cope with adverse environmental impacts by traditional Maasai community in Ilmbirikani Group ranch (more than 55% responding).

Sub-division: the Tragedy of Fragmentation13?

The Group Ranches are being subdivided at a rapid pace throughout Kajiado District, already completed in most parts of the Athi Kapiti and Rift Valley ecozones and the northern reaches of the Central Hills. Ntiati (2002) in an interesting analysis observes that the process is unplanned and ad hoc. In Ilkisongo, at the time of checking with the Registrar of Group Ranches (January 2006) sub-division has been completed on Kimana Group Ranch, is underway around Namanga Hill and on Mbirikani Group Ranch, and is marching westwards as far as Lemomo Hill on Olgulului/Ololarrashi Group Ranch14 (see Table 4 and Fig. 3).

13

Thanks to J. Worden for the wordplay on ‘Tragedy of the Commons’.

The Olgulului/Ololarrashi Group Ranch Committee is attempting to work with its constituency to set aside some areas – particularly those to the North, away from the lower slopes of Kilimanjaro – that will not be 14

Although the Maasai are fully aware that small plots are neither viable either for traditional livestock husbandry nor certainly for agriculture over most of the ecosystem, the urge to have a title deed appears to outweigh the cooperative imperative that was the traditional basis for Maasai society and animal husbandry as well as the establishing principle for Group Ranches. But the Group Ranch concept has essentially failed, overwhelmed by disillusionment with corrupt leaders and the desire for security of tenure. A theoretical livestock production model shows what the Maasai certainly sense: that reducing the rangelands to even relatively large parcels (ranging from one to 196 km2 in the model runs) will result in a marked decrease in livestock carrying capacity and production (Boone et al 2005).

Poverty in the Ecosystem

But even as subdivision marches across the ecosystem, fences around the 40 to 100 Ha plots are not springing up: the Maasai pastoral system of mobility and flexibility continues to operate at a large spatial scale. Despite frequent periods of low rainfall, contemporary modification of traditional drought coping strategies – such as reciprocal grazing arrangements between neighbouring clans or setting aside of ‘grass banks’ during good rains – seems to be just barely keeping the pastoralists from tumbling over the poverty line (see Box right, Poverty in the Environment).

Group Ranch

Area (Ha)

Registered Members

Adjudication Status

Eselenkei

74,794

1,160

Not yet

Kimana/Tikondo

25,120

841

Completed

Kuku A+B

ca.100,000

4,501

Not yet

Mbirikani

125,983

4,560

In progress

Olgulului

147,060

>4,000

In progress

Rombo

38,265

3,749

Not yet

Table 4. Group Ranch status. Source: Ntiati (2002) S. Kidemi, Adjudicator of Group Ranches (Jan. 2006),

The straight-forward metrics of poverty (see box) do not probe very deeply into roots causes of poverty on the one hand or how to escape its traps on the other. It would be instructive, for example, to unravel the real causes of low and skewed incomes in the ecosystem by looking at the causal relationship between environmental conditions and basic health parameters, together with investigation of the impact of loss of natural resources as a determinant of poverty (Shyamusandar 2001). Or, as suggested by DFID (2001) develop indicators that hit more closely to home, in the realms of tenure and property rights (such as, proportion of poor who have a choice of what to do on the land), water quality and quantity (e.g. hours rural women and children spend collecting adjudicated. The process is fraught, however, and as it stands adjudication is set to sweep across a potential wildlife corridor to the south that would match the ‘Kitenden Corridor’ in Tanzania.

Standard poverty statistics show that people living in Kajiado South, which encompasses most of the Amboseli ecosystem, are what might be called ‘averagely poor’, compared, for example, to the small-holder, rainfed agriculturalists of neighbouring Machacos District to the northeast (Ndegenge 2003). The GoK set the poverty line at KES 1,239 in 2000 (USD 16.11 then), being the money needed daily by an average adult to meet calorific and other basic needs. In Kajiado South, 48% of the population is estimated to be below the poverty line (figures in other constituencies in Kenya range from 33-65%, with 50% being the national average).

The map above shows for the people living in and around the ecosystem the ‘poverty gap’, that is the percent of the poverty line amount the average person would need to reach the poverty line (GoK 2001; map source, J. Nackoney, WRI, pers.comm). So, a person with a poverty gap of 20% would need ca. KES 240 per day just to reach the poverty line.

Concerning distribution of income, Kajiado South has a Gini index of equality (or inequality, named after the Italian statistician who first proposed it in 1912) of 0.34. A zero would indicate perfectly distributed income; a 1 would suggest that one person has all the income. Most developing countries have an index between 0.30 and 0.60. In 1997, Kenya as a whole had an estimated Gini index of 0.43, nearly that of Kajiado North.

water), and natural disasters (percent of population living in drought-prone zones).

And, the WWF Macroeconomics Program Office adds two important ‘social capital’ indicators of the community’s viability: (a) influence on decision-making in the 15

adjacent protected area, and (b) ability to respond to and develop economic incentives and opportunities (Reed and Tharakan 2004).

Certainly sub-division is seen as one of the greatest threats to wildlife in the ecosystem, by conservationists and many Group Ranch members alike. The ultimate reason for downside – unviable small plots that permanently block wildlife movements and exacerbate human-wildlife conflict – is once again laid at the feet of the government.

There is no national land use planning that explicitly provides zonation for wildlife as a legitimate land use. Hence, when someone gets a plot, as the Chairman of Olgulului/Ololarrashi points out, “He can do whatever he wants on the plot, and no one can stop him.”15 On the other side of the coin, many Maasai recognise that once one has a title deed there is a basis for negotiating agreements with neighbours to form larger areas of common ground that can be better used with economies of scale for whatever kinds of land use the ‘neighbourhood’ agrees upon. By the same token, conservationists accept that negotiating contracts for, say, concession areas, could be more straightforward with title deed holders than with a relatively amorphous and ever-changing Group Ranch leadership.

Ntiati (loc. cit.) concludes: …unless the current sub-division of group ranches in Loitokitok sub-district is designed to take into account the existing cultural and ecological constraints of savannah systems with support from the local communities, [it shall] … lead to land fragmentation land degradation, less productive land usage, less equitable access to resources especially water and greater conflicts between people and people and wildlife than the group ranch system. Alternative arrangements ought to ensure that the values of land to both people and wildlife are optimised. Land may need to be re consolidated e.g. under family ranching or inkutot co-operative ranching that can build upon the natural advantages of savannah systems. In taking this path, however, care must be taken to ensure that people involved have a strong interest and dependence upon the resource in question. And to safeguard against divergent objectives, special arrangements through creation of by-laws or sometimes setting conditions needs to be in place in order to retain equity and ensure effective management of land resources.

At the District-wide scale, mention needs to be made of the current political machinations to have Kajiado Distinct sub-divided into at least two new entities, one of which would be ’Oloitokitok District‘. An intriguing idea, since it would probably be one of the first times in history that a political boundary was made to be congruent with an ecosystem. The move would also go far to redress the imbalanced representation currently evident in the district seat in Kajiado town: of the 54 counsellors, only 8 are from the Ilkisongo section. The subdivision, which will undoubtedly be used as a plank 15 This despite the fact that there are specific tenants in the Land (Group Representatives) Act 1968 (CAP 287, Laws of Kenya) that restrict, for example, farming on GR land (Belpietro, pers. comm.)

16

in the 2007 national election campaigning, would of necessity shift the distinct seat to Oloitokitok town. Accelerated urban growth on the edge of the ecosystem would certainly increase pressures on the ecosystem wildlife.

Amboseli Biosphere Reserve Structure The original zonation of ABR as shown on page 5 should be revised, particularly with regard to the Buffer and Transition Zones.

Ol Tukai: the exceptional core When Amboseli was declared a Biosphere Reserve, there was some resistance because one feature of the Core is exceptional: there is in the centre of the Park a 162 ha (400A) area that has since the Park was gazetted been owned and operated by the OCC as a commercial zone. The area is fenced off from the Park by an electric fence that works intermittently, its management a confused arrangement between ACC, KWS and sometimes the lodges.

Today in the Cores’ core there are two operational lodges (Ol Tukai Lodge and Amboseli Safari Lodge) that are enjoying the current boom in tourism on their own demarcated plots. Associated with the lodges are large facilities for workers and visiting tour drivers, a few small kiosks and two bars (not counting the lodge bars).

There are several lesser constructions: the derelict family bungalow of one of the lodge owners, and the operational offices and living quarters of the ACC Amboseli Research and Conservation Project and the Amboseli Elephant Research Project. All of these (except AERP, which sub-lets from Amboseli Wildlife Resorts Ltd, current owners of Ol Tukai) are tenants of the OCC. There is also on the Amboseli Safari Lodge plot the wreck of the Kilimanjaro Safari Club, abandoned and left to decay around 1992.

There is already one petrol station under construction on the Ol Tukai Lodge plot. It is rumoured that the OCC has allotted space for a second station, some 200 m from the first in full view of the veranda of the Amboseli Safari Lodge. It is alleged that space currently occupied by ACC is under negotiation with a large safari firm that runs lodges in other parts of the country.

The situation within Ol Tukai is totally unplanned and frankly chaotic. The OCC, far from taking a leadership role and imposing a unified vision for this very special ‘core within the Core’, has evidently over the years been no more than a collector of rents.

Stakeholders have tried to jointly manage certain aspects, for example, the electric fence that was installed under the auspices of KWS and ACC in the mid-1990s16. ACC 16 The objective of the electric fence around Ol Tukai has been a loose mixture of protecting the Acacia xanthophloea trees from feeding elephants on the one hand and the tourists and lodge employees from large wild animals on the other. The result of vegetation growing thick and bushy when elephants are excluded is less an ecological experiment than a demonstration of the obvious.

with concurrence of KWS has staunchly attempted to maintain the fence in the face of resource restriction and evident indifference on the part of other stakeholders. A stakeholders’ gathering in February 2004 suggested that the hoteliers take joint responsibility for maintaining the fence. It has not happened.

Today, Ol Tukai Lodge maintains its own, obviously smaller perimeter fence, ACC has given up the struggle, and KWS has handed over the equipment and management of the larger fence to ASL, which is re-aligning the fence to fit in with its own renovation and improvement plans Indeed, given the changing nature of land use within the ecozone, consideration should be given to a set of ‘multiple cores’ that would include, in addition to Amboseli National Park, the protected areas of the Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary, the Chyulu Hills National Park, Namanga Hill Forest Reserve, and, eventually, Kilimanjaro National Park in Tanzania17 (see Fig. 3).

Buffer Zone What of the Buffer Zone? It is simplistic to merely capture the gazetted boundaries of the Group Ranches proximal to the Core (Amboseli National Park). On the one hand, those four Group Ranches do not adequately coincide with the dispersal of wildlife. (see Fig. 5): from the average distribution of Amboseli migratory wildlife, it is clearly necessary to include explicitly Kuku Group ranch in the Buffer Zone.

The current distribution of settlements in the Buffer Zone is a threat to wildlife distribution (see Fig. 6). Not only are there many settlements, but many of them are clustered close to the Park boundary. Most are still the relatively low impact traditional Maasai nkang, a closed circle of low mud- and dung-plastered huts occupied seasonally by an extended family. Their growing numbers is a cause for concern, but not as serious as the appearance of so-called ‘cultural bomas’ (see below).

It is apparent that the park perimeter is gradually being cut off by a growing number of settlements. Since it is clearly unrealistic to manage all four (or five, if Kuku Group Ranch is included) Group Ranches as a Buffer Zone, it would make more strategic sense to aim at a smaller operational buffer zone. For example, a ‘tight buffer zone’ reaching five kilometres from the park boundary (Fig 6) would provide an area of some 300 km square (in addition to the Park area) within which there could be a focused campaign of negotiation with the Olgulului/Ololarrashi Group Ranch for phasing out settlements. Clearly, such a strategy would only be viable if the community were offered attractions (such as reliable, perennial boreholes) beyond the edge of the ‘tight buffer’.

Figure 6. Proposed 5 km 'tight buffer zone' around Amboseli National Park.

Transition Zone Given the ecological and socio-economic heterogeneity of Kajiado District (see above) there is little operational meaning to designating the entire district as the Transition Zone. Practically, the focus should be on the Ilkisongo ecozone (Fig. 2), for it is there that the flow of experience and benefits from the Core and Buffer Zone can be immediately manifested. The Transition Zone would then become the seven Group Ranches and innumerable (and growing) number of small holdings within the 8,500 km2 ecozone (see Figs. 3 and 5).

The Maasai tell us clearly: “You no longer have to teach us the benefits of the wildlife resource. We understand that now. What you need to help us achieve is how to tap those benefits and how to make certain that a fair portion of the considerable revenue streams get back to us. And quickly. Else all bets are off.”

Accordingly, the remainder of this review focuses on the wildlife research projects and wildlife-based enterprises that characterise the Transition Zone today. Whatever management regime is put in place in the Core, whatever tactics are employed in the Buffer Zone, in the Transition Zone lies the future of Amboseli.

17 Although this review explicitly excludes consideration of the Tanzanian portion of the ecosystem, the transboundary aspect must be kept open for the future.

17

Oneto) and a Maasai PhD student (with AWF) working in Logido in Tanzania (Stephen Kiruswa).

Conservation-related Research The number of research activities in the ecosystem is surprisingly small, considering its importance biologically and economically. There are two principle reasons for this.

One is lack of participation on the part of local universities in wildlife and conservation research. Thirty years ago, the University of Nairobi offered a post-graduate Biology of Conservation course that was popular and provided a cadre of young researchers (many of whom are today’s national decision-makers) to work in the national parks.

Today there is disillusionment at the prospects of a graduate-level career in wildlife conservation in the public sector, and only limited opportunities in the private. The resultant lack of demand by students and lack of serious investment by the government in education creates an arid environment for research.

Despite that gloomy view, there are some highlights, for example, the ecosystem hosts two of the longest standing large mammal studies in the world – the Amboseli Baboon Research Project (first field work began in 1963) and the Amboseli Elephant Research Project (1972) – plus a long term synecological programme begun in 1967, the Amboseli Research and Conservation Project (ARCP; see Annex 1for short synopses of all projects).

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is cooperating with IRLI to apply GIS technology to anti-poverty campaigns (J. Nackoney, pers. comm..).

In addition, there are currently a number of short term projects, mainly postgraduates from overseas, that are either underway or have recently concluded, including: •

The Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project

•

Maasailand Ecological Research

•

Cheetah Conservation and Human Impact

•

Maasai Settlement and Land-use, Landscape Mosaics, and the Spatial Patterning of Vegetation and Wildlife in East African Savannas

•

[Use of traditional medicinal plants in the Amboseli ecosystem]

•

Status of Wetlands of Kajiado District

•

People-Wildlife Relationship in the Amboseli Ecosystem

•

Amboseli Carnivore Monitoring Project (Currently in abeyance seeking funding)

•

[Wild dog research…]

2

The AWF Heartlands programme nominally covers over 10,000 km of northern Tanzania and southern Kenya including the Amboseli ecosystem; it provides support to some single-species studies and community-based conservation efforts.

LUCID (Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics) is arguably the most comprehensive research programme in the ecosystem (see Annex 1 for description). Its systematic research touches on land use change, attitudes to wildlife, livelihoods, socioeconomics and poverty.

ILRI, one of the main LUCID sponsors, has other activities, sub-programmes and cosponsored research in the ecosystem, for example, affiliated with the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, there are: •

People-wildlife relations (Joana Roque de Pinho, PhD research)

•

Maasai settlement and land use, wildlife and vegetation patterns (Jeff Woerden, PhD research)

•

The role of humans in the structure and functioning of ecosystems; Household economies and political-economic drivers behind Maasai pastoralist land use change (Shauna Burnsilver, PhD research)

Two new initiatives are under way. One, called ‘Retoreto’ (reciprocity) is examining the system of reciprocal grazing rights among the Maasai. The other, ‘Family Portraits’, is compiling interviews with families on household economies and strategies.

ILRI also supports a Community Facilitator in Oloitokitok town (currently Leonard 18

See Annex 1 for summary descriptions of the foregoing.

The three most extensive programmes that deal broadly with conservation research -ARCP, AWF Heartlands, and LUCID -- each have their own flavour and degree of effectiveness. ARCP has impressive longitude, having begun more or less in the late 1960s, and ecosystem-wide overage, but curiously, has contributed relatively little of rigour to a corpus of published scientific knowledge. It has, however, moved forward significantly the concept of community involvement in management of the ecosystem through presence, participation and a kind of historical narrative. Without the shield of scientific rigour, it risks exposes itself to the vicissitudes of short-term political alliances.

The AWF Heartland programme is eager, earnest and well-versed in the processes of participatory gatherings of stakeholders. It fills this interlocutory niche well -somewhere between hard science and practical on-the-ground management – but on its own (that is, without strong science and effective management) barely sustains credibility amongst the community.

LUCID would seem to go further and deeper than the other two programmes. It boasts a timeline that stretches back into the late '70s with studies on attitudes of landowners to wildlife (Campbell et al. 1984) and it combines a broad-based interdisciplinary approach and active cooperation between several organisations with peer-reviewed

science. Its main limitation from an Amboseli ecosystem perspective is that the study area only covers the southeast corner of the ecosystem (with the exception of collaborative work with IRLI that reaches into the northern portions).

It is perhaps worth noting that there is virtually no Kenyan government investment in wildlife research in the Biosphere Reserve, with the possible exception of periodic elephant counts organised by KWS (the last one occurred in August 2004) and the occasional survey overflight by DRSRS (last one, March 2006). Certainly KWS publicly acknowledges the value of wildlife research, issues research permits after due scrutiny of proposals, receives progress reports, dispatches veterinary officers as the need arises and maintains a collegiate, professional correspondence between its experts and the researchers in the field. But there is no financial investment in research.

conservancies increase household welfare? Are conservancies pro-poor? And, do nonparticipants in conservancies also gain as well as those who choose to participate directly? The answer in Namibia, by the way, appeared to be have been ‘yes’ to all.

Lodges In the Buffer Zone, the number of lodge-styled hotels would appear to be not excessive in the sense of providing a base for a visitor load of that does not put undue pressure on the ecosystem. Even the largest operations do not exceed 200 beds. There are six main lodges (see Annex 2 for summaries, including commentary on the level of ‘ecofriendliness): •

Amboseli Sopa Lodge

Wildlife-based Enterprises

•

Amboseli Serena Safari Lodge

‘Wild udders hang idle.” -- ex-Senior Chief Joseph Nakoloyieu

•

Ol Tukai Lodge

Wildlife Concession Areas

•

Kimana Lodge (including plus associated camps)

•

Amboseli Lodge (and Kilimanjaro Safari Camp)

•

Tortilis Camp

The concept of ‘renting’ wildlife areas for developing enterprises to provide overseas visitors with a ‘safari experience’ and contact with relatively untouched natural Africa is probably over 100 years old, having begun with old colonial ‘white hunters’. Today the practice is broad-based and, if well managed, potentially the single best long-term revenue generating activity in non-agricultural zones.

Although venerable safari companies such as Ker and Downey Ltd have been providing tented-camp experience for decades, the first significant community-based enterprise was established near the Kimana swamp in 1995. Since then there are a number of highly successful enterprises that are generating significant revenue for Group Ranch members and providing important centres of conservation away from the Core of Amboseli National Park. In fact, they might be considered ‘satellite-cores’ in the Biosphere Reserve. They include: •

Kimana Wildlife Concession Area (Kimana GR)

•

Maasailand Preservation Trust (Oldonyo Wuas; Mbirikani GR)

•

Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust (Campi ya Kanzi; Kuku GR)

•

Selenkay Conservation Area (Eselenkei GR)

•

Kiterua Limited Game Concession (Olgulului/Ololarrashi GR)

•

Elerai Conservation Area

•

Ol Kanjau

See Annex 2 for a summary of their activities. It would be salutary if a study could be undertaken to ask, as did Bandyopadhyaya et al. (2004) in Namibia, three questions: Do

The past two years (2005-06) have been boom times for the lodges, with most of them reporting high occupancy rates even during the traditionally slow months. The reason seems to be in part a ‘Tsunami dividend’ that since has diverted tourism away from the Far East and in part improved overseas marketing.

The lodges are obviously important means to funnel money into the community, indirectly though employment or outlet for sales of handicrafts and traditional performances, or directly though payments of rents and concession fees. With the notable exceptions of Tortilis Camp and to a lesser extent Serena Lodge, the lodges are not particularly eco-friendly in the manner, say, of Campi ya Kanzi or Oldonyo Wuas.

Two get particularly bad environmental marks: Ol Tukai (for sewage treatment) and Amboseli Lodge (derelict premises, poor solid waste management, noise pollution).

The response of lodge operators to an additional bed tax surcharge was in general guarded. Two reasons were citied. One had to do with the mechanism of implementation. How, for example, could a supplement be charged without impacting on the hotel’s income tax burden? Contract rates are already published for 2007, so no scheme could begin in any event until 2008. Moreover, it was doubted that hotels would wish to cut into their margins.

In interview with lodge staff, the following additional points were highlighted: •

subdivision will impact on lodge’s access to surrounding area.

19

•

more ways could be found to market the Park: clients are generally overwhelmed by the wildlife, but would like diversity, for example, night game drives, donor-sponsored reforestation.

•

greatest threats to the park: not enough revenues are getting to the community from gate takings; and the park’s infrastructure is poorly maintained

•

private ventures have advantage over government agencies in having more intimate contact with and understanding from the community than

•

additional (international) money should be raised to provide a water pipeline grid from the swamps to defunct waterpoints around the park to help to negotiate a 20km buffer around the Core

There is the distinct feeling amongst stakeholders that the lodges could give back much more to the community at levels commensurate with the obvious profits they are making in the current bullish tourism climate.

Public Campsites and Tented Camps There are a number of campsites available for the more intrepid visitor ranging from the upmarket to the basic, namely: Abercrombie & Kent Tented Camp; Ker & Downy Tented Camp; Chyulu Tented Camp; Kimbla Campsite; Cottar's Tented Camp; Leopard Tented Camp; Nairushari Special; Olgulului Public Campsite; the ATGSA Tented Camp.

The Public Campsite on the Southern boarder of ANP is owned and operated by the Olgulului/Olorrashi GR. It is protected by an electric fence and GR askaris (guards), and provides water, long-drop toilets, a small shop and gazebo gathering space. The GR Committee has its offices on the site.

With revenues from the Amboseli Baboon Research Project and camping fees, the campsites generates some KES 2.5m (USD 35,000) per annum. A hyaena research team rented space in the campsite in 2003/04, but was force to move out when the GR Committee increased the fees to beyond the project’s budget.

Although the fenced compound and the grounds of the ATGSA Tented Camp were completed in 2005, the camp, just two kilometres east of the KWS Park Headquarters, has not been able to open due to bankruptcy of its tent maker.

Other enterprises Beekeeping There are numerous small-holder initiatives to maintain one or two traditional hives for domestic use and market sale. Currently, only the Namalok Community Development Association (see Annex 1) has attempted large-scale apiculture. Much more could be made of bee-keeping 20

Cultural Bomas Maasai entrepreneurs strike deals with safari tour drivers to bring paying clients to a ‘typical’ Maasai nkang or family enclosure – generically called bomas in Kiswahili – to see how the people live and dress, to enjoy traditional dancing and singing and to buy handicrafts.

Indeed the bomas generate income for some people – perhaps one in ten in the Olgulului Group Ranch bomas – but there are significant downsides. First, the tour drivers make most of the money. Each tourist in a say 7-seat minivan pays $20 per head for the visit, some KES 10,000 in total. The driver, ever the helpful guide, handles the negotiations and pays the boma representative KES 300 (about $4.00) for the whole group and pockets the rest. The Maasai are fully aware of this, but it appears that to them a little is better than nothing. Next the bomas are hardly ‘cultural’ in the deep sense. They are a grotesque hyperbole of the truly typical, environmentally-friendly family nkangs that dot the Amboseli landscape. One of the ‘cultural bomas’ has been estimated to house over 300 people, instead of the dozen or so extended family members in the real thing. Worse, they have become permanent features and have engendered attendant hard infrastructure: primary schools, shops, bars – all with mabati (corrugated iron) roofs that contrast conspicuously with the soft browns of the huts and surrounding soils. There are currently six such bomas a short walk from southern boundary of the Park, right in one of the favoured paths of Amboseli elephants’ routes to the southern bushland and lower slops of Kilimanjaro. They increase significantly the risk of human-wildlife conflict.

But there is some good news. The Eselenkei Group Ranch and the management of the Selenkay Conservation Area have designed a ‘cultural boma’ experience based on what the tourists really want to see: not a tacky kiosk and people begging for handouts, but an honest glimpse into another culture. Each client to Porini Camp is given the opportunity to be taken to the designated nkang after being briefed around a maquette in the camp. They are met by an elder and shown around whilst people carry on their daily activities. There is no hustling during the visit: handicrafts are sold in a community-stocked and run shop at the camp. In fact, no money changes hand at all during the visit: the community is paid at the end of the month based on the number of visitors. Typically, the amount is KES 50-60,000 ($7-800), several times more than the tour driver-exploited bomas of Olgulului/Ololarrashi Group Ranch to the south.

Community Development Organisations Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association The Amboseli-Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association (ATGRCA) was established in 1997 to provide a platform for GR representatives to coordinate conservation activities that impact across GR boundaries. It was spearheaded by ACC and funded at start-up by the USAID CORE (Conservation of Resources through Enterprises) programme. It boasted some success, notably: •

establishment of the Ambosel-Tsavo Game Scouts Association (q.v.);

•

negotiations in 1994 with KWS to start revenue sharing18;

•

establishment of the Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary.

Sadly, the initiative became mired in household politics, unprofessional conduct and dubious fund management. As a result, the failures more than the successes are remembered: both stakeholders as well as donors were thoroughly put off.

Yet, as the stakeholders have been discussing problems and solutions over the past fiver years, again and again the view is expressed that some ATGRCA-like organisation is sorely needed for a number of reasons, for example, to: •

convene GRs on matters of mutual conservation interest;

•

contribute to land use planning that involves ‘cross boundary’ issues such as wildlife corridors;

•

leadership due to limited capacity, weak infrastructure from lack of resources and structural challenges related to the changing nature of GRs. The workshop went on to structure a plan to revive ATGRCA and deal with issues of commitment, structure, management, partnerships, representation of women and youth, resource mobilisation.

The GRs present committed to paying the annual subscription (KES 10,000, USD 140).

The NGOs made financial contributions towards a six-month ‘rejuvenation’ period that finished in September 2006. The signs of success are mixed. At a follow-up meeting of GR committee members in early March 2006, the annual subscriptions were indeed duly paid. Since then, however, the Executive Coordinator resigned to join the rejuvenated Kenya Meat Commission and an interim Coordinator has been appointed.

Amboseli/Tsavo Game Scouts Association The Amboseli-Tsavo Game Scouts Association (ATGSA) is an umbrella body that coordinates all the game scout activities in the ecosystem. It was formed originally under the auspices of ATGRCA (with the purpose of enhancing wildlife conservation and management in the group ranches. Community game scouts are natural resource managers based at the village level that are involved in day-to-day management of wildlife in the dispersal areas outside the protected areas. This group of now over eighty young men plays a crucial role in protecting wildlife and providing security to tourist in areas where Kenya Wildlife Service cannot cover adequately due to shortage of personnel and other resources.

The benefits that accrue from the activities of this association are: •

Improve security for tourists and wildlife

represent and negotiate on behalf of all the GRs with District and central government, and with KWS;

•

Reduce poaching, deforestation, wildfires and charcoal burning

•

Improve management of the environment and the natural resources

•

provide a forum for community self-regulation and enforcement of appropriate wildlife conservation behaviour;

•

Reduce incidents of human/wildlife conflicts

•

have legal standing and enter into binding agreements;

•

assume the functions of secretariat and implementing agency for projects, ad hoc short-term action programmes, or longer term bodies such as land use trusts.

In a workshop of GR committee members (all present except Kimana), convened in March 2006 by the ATGRCA secretariat (with support and facilitations from ACC, ATE/UNESACO-MAB and AWF) there was a frank and open recognition that the need for ‘an ATGRCA’ exists more than ever and that not insignificant problems must be overcome. The hurdles include: lack of commitment, lack of coordination, poor

Given the operational success of the ATGSA, and given the troublesome history of ATGRCA, many voices are heard proposing that the Scouts’ Association is well positioned to take the lead in wildlife conservation and management in the ecosystem.

The increasing importance of the wildlife and tourism industry in Kenya’s economy has increased the need for wildlife managers. Whereas other sectors have a wellestablished tradition of training and providing young managers, management of natural resources in the non-protected areas is a relatively sterile field. There is a serious shortage of the middle and lower class managers outside the protected areas, in which conventional wisdom estimates the majority of Kenya’s wildlife resides. The Game Scouts initiative shows great promise in filling that gap.

18 The notion of revenue sharing through a ‘Wildlife Utilisation Fund’ had originally been proposed and designed for Kajiado District by the precursor of KWS, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department, in the late 1970s (UNDP/FAO 1980).

21

South Rift Association of Landowners The South Rift Associations of Landowners (SORALO) is an initiative that has coalesced around a community-based lodge and sanctuary near Shampole, some 100 km to the west of Amboseli National Park. With support from ACC and the European Union, SORALO was formalised in 2004 with the stated mission to “bring together landowners for effective management of resources to directly improve livelihoods” and work towards a vision of a sustainable land use system that integrates conservation, tourism and livestock development.

Of the thirteen GRs nominally participating, only the eastern-most, Meto, borders on the western flank of the Amboseli ecosystem. Nonetheless, the objectives are relevant to Amboseli, and the current activities and approaches are relevant to the Biosphere Reserve, for example: •

developing tourist circuit in the south rift region to serve community owned tourism products within the region;

•

ameliorating infrastructure to create accessibility and linkages between the group ranches;

•

promoting flexible grazing systems and mobile grass banks;

•

improving livestock production and marketing in the area;

•

Creating awareness on livelihood diversification and natural resource management;

•

devising alternative options to legalise land ownership without causing land fragmentation

•

Supporting policies that foster new and flexible approaches to land management, such as creation of land use zones and promotion of appropriate governance structures for monitoring and compliance.

Human-wildlife conflict Human-wildlife conflict, which is now becoming a minor study discipline in its own right, is the inevitable result of two compounding negatives: not having a comprehensive land use policy that controls access and use of a growing human population; not having management plans that internalise benefits from wildlife and encourage participation in wildlife enterprises.

Although the number of wild ‘culprits’ in human-wildlife conflict is legion, ranging from insect and rodent species that account for major post-harvest grain losses to hippos that kill more people in Africa than any other species, human-elephant conflict (HEC) usually gets top billing. For that reason, HEC is a major threat to elephants in many parts of Africa and Asia. In the Amboseli ecosystem, the conflict is the result of 22

human population increase, modification of land-use practices and changes in people’s attitude towards wildlife. The IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group has identified the Amboseli population as being a key reference point for elephant conservation strategies.

Table 5 summarises, for elephants and predators, the magnitude of losses from humanwildlife conflict. The data were collected by KWS and ATGSA over the past decade (1993-2005, elephant data; 1994-2004, predator data)19. The numbers are quite rough to be sure, given the lack of a sampling frame and the heterogeneity of the sources. But they do give an idea of order of magnitude, probably erring somewhat to the low side.

That said, the numbers are not very large. There are at least three possible not mutually-exclusive reasons. (a) Rarity. It could be that in fact that getting assaulted by wildlife, elephants in particular, is a relatively rare event, compared, for example, to becoming involved in a motor car accident. In that regard, an elephant attack is rather like airplane crash: relatively infrequent and improbable, but spectacular and potentially costly when it occurs. (b) Negative bias. Undercounting or non-reporting, which biases the sampling downwards because of missing or unreported events, logically is rather unlikely. Even if the scouts do not achieve complete coverage in time and space (despite being obviously dedicated and keen), there is an incentive for victims to make certain somebody knows about an attack. If anything, one might expect over-reporting on the part of victims. (c) Falsified records. As mentioned in (b), both the Scouts and the victims should be motivated to report and perhaps even exaggerate. For KWS officials, however, who are the custodians of the wildlife and in part responsible for reducing human-wildlife conflict, there might be motivation to create an impression for headquarters of 'no worries here' through underreporting incidents. It should be stressed that there is no evidence whatsoever of such a bias in records compile under the current and recent senor KWS staff in place.

Despite rather low average numbers, it is clear that predator attacks can increase in frequency locally. As we shall detail below, the Mbirikani Predator Compensation Scheme reported that in 2004, there were a total of 746 predator attacks of stock, some two per day. Now, Mbirikani is some 1,200 km2, roughly 15% of the ecosystem. If that were extrapolated to the whole ecosystem, there would be expected of the order of 5,000 attacks a year. That is clearly a gross overestimate, since 13 attacks a day would be headline news, every day

19 The data come from KWS Occurrence Book reports of incidental observations, particularly by the 80 Maasai scouts who patrol the ecosystem. There are three main reporting stations from which the data were transcribed (by AERP): Mbirikani, Oloitokitok and the Public Campsite in Amboseli. Going by the place names recorded, it can be estimated that the coverage of the reporting covers some 80-90% of the ca.

7,000km2 range of the Amboseli elephant population (the Kenya part of their range). On the other hand, it covers the areas where elephants at least are most likely to occupy, so, from the elephant point of view, the coverage is quite representative.

Total

Annual Mean

Annual Range

Max. Yr.

Killed

18

1.4

0-6

1999

Injured

18

1.4

0-4

1999

ELEPHANTS '93-'05 People Cattle Shoats

Killed

32

2.5

0-9

2000

Injured

5

0.4

0-5

1999

Killed

18

1.4

0-6

2004

Injured

0

0.0

n/a

n/a

LIONS '94-'04 People Cattle Shoats

Killed

4

0.3

0-2

1999

Injured

9

0.8

0-3

1994/95

Killed

82

6.8

0-20

1996

Injured

1

0.1

0-1

2002

Killed

484

40.3

3-94

1998

Injured

6

0.5

0-4

1997

ALL PREDATORS '94-'04 People Cattle Shoats

Killed

4

0.3

0-2

1999

Injured

11

0.9

0-3

1994/95

Killed

106

8.8

3-20

1996

Injured

1

0.1

0-1

1998

Killed

731

60.9

3-131

1998

Injured 20 1.7 0-14 2004 Table 5. Losses and injuries from human-wildlife encounters. Source: KWS and ATGSA occurrence records.

Group Ranches Although the future of the Group Ranch (GR) system in the ecosystem, indeed throughout Maasailand is uncertain, the GRs, particularly Olgulului/Ololarrashi that completely surround the park except for the eastern-most boundary are a key focus for negotiating land use in the Buffer Zone. The GR Committee members are not unsympathetic to wildlife, as illustrated from the notes below from a meeting with the Committee on 17 January 2006.

(Meeting with Mr. Daniel Lolteresh and 9 members of the Group Ranch Committee 17 January 200).

The Committee was briefed by SS and HC on the concept and practice of the UNESCO system of Biosphere Reserves. They were unanimous that the Biosphere Reserve construct is

an appropriate one for the ecosystem. Members concurred that Kuku must be included in the Buffer Zone. UNESCO and any other external players must focus on the owners of the Buffer Zone land and not consider the whole of Kajiado District. The OCC, by implication, is an imperfect intermediary for Ilkisongo: only eight of the 52 OCC counsellors come from the ecosystem.

They clearly recognise the great opportunity for realising benefits from wildlife, but the question remains: how?

In reviewing threats to the Buffer Zone, members mentioned: increasing human and livestock populations, proliferations of nkangs, increase of some wildlife species (elephants mentioned), decrease of others (rhinos mentioned).

But by far their greatest preoccupation seems to be with subdivision. They mentioned Nairobi National Park and the Kitengela as a dire situation of no return. Once all have title deeds, there will be no place for animals to pass. The clear perception is that once individual landowners have title deeds, then they can do what they want, and there is no possibility for the community to steer development. The potential benefit of right of choice is seen as a detriment. The total absence of the concept of zoning rules probably stems from the national policy vacuum and lack of landuse planning. When asked, however, the members did agree that it would be possible for individuals to group together to achieve economies of scale, as they have done at Elerai.

They pointed to Kimana Group Ranch as a case in point: subdivision is nearly total and development is out of control (in the context of ‘mushrooming camps’, like Ol Kanjau). Some rich developers wanted to put in another large tented camp. Olgulului/Ololarrashi refused, so they went to one of the Kimana title deed holders, and there is now a 60-unit camp on the boarder with Olgulului/Ololarrashi, just east of ANP Headquarters.

Although the Maasai preoccupation with cattle is clearly still a driving force. There seemed to be, however, a consensus that most would be willing to trade off numbers for quality.

On the subject of maintaining space for wildlife, one member said: “If you have no benefit from a cow, then you had better sell it; if you have no benefit from the land, get a title deed and sell it…”

The question of ownership of wildlife was debated briefly: the government ‘owns’ the wildlife, even if it is on private land. But surely the government is the people…

They recognise that there is currently no process nor structure to deal with organisation within the Buffer Zone. ATGRCA is a possibility, but it needs to be strengthened. All but one agreed that there is a need for the group ranches to band together. Within the Group Ranch, rather than form a new organisation, it was suggested that a task force or some such as an organ of the Committee could be formed to look into the zoning and wildlife issue and negotiate with neighbouring Group Ranches and possibly a re-vamped ATGRCA. But, clearly, time is not on the side of wildlife. Adjudication is in progress and unless wildlife 20 can be seen to be generating obvious and concrete benefits very, very soon, the gateways to wildlife-based enterprises will be closed.

20 The Chairman told an anecdote about a member who came to him wanted to clear all wildlife off of the Group Ranch, since there was no benefit from keeping them. He was indifferent to the bursary payments from KWS, since he had no children in school. He insisted on getting his own sub-divided plot and needed a loan for the paper work. The Chairman found him the money, he got his title deed, and afterwards, the Chairman told him that the money came from wildlife sources (public campsite).

23

Threats to Wildlife A park the size of ANP clearly cannot may not sustain permanently within its boundaries the current wildlife population of migratory wildebeest and zebra (estimated at nearly 40,000, Western and Manzolillo 2003), elephants (over 1,400) and resident buffalo (ca. 500) together with other smaller herbivores (impala, reedbuck, waterbuck, warthogs, etc.). The Group ranches surrounding the park are key dispersal areas and through them there have to be corridors for wildlife to access the rest of the ecosystem.

The increasing human population, changing land-use practices and the fact that land sub-division is taking place without adequate planning for wildlife corridors, are all contributing to the diminishing the size of the dispersal areas and constricting corridors.

4. Permanent settlements. The growing number of non-transhumanant settlements, particularly the so-called ‘cultural bomas’ and their attendant infrastructure (see box) are a clear and present threat, both to freely moving wildlife as well as the obverse: people who are put squarely in harm’s way.

5. Maasai warriors. In the ecosystem there are several thousand energetic young men, who are underemployed. They represent great potential – witnessed by the successful Maasai Game Scouts programme – but also a serious threat to wildlife if there energy is not channelled along constructive lines (see below).

In 2004, the then KWS Senior Park Warden21 met with Amboseli elephant researchers to formulate the elements of a campaign to ensure the long term survival of elephants in the ecosystem. The ‘fronts’ of human-wildlife conflict defined in that exercise pertain as well to other species (Fig. 7). To summarise them briefly: 1. Intensive, irrigated agriculture. Areas of irrigated and fenced agriculture (Namalok, Kimana, see above) have two negative impacts on wildlife. They effectively remove important swamp areas from the mosaic of wildlife; and they create concentrated attractors for wildlife that exacerbates the frequency of negative encounters. The electric fence (initially installed with a grant from the European Community), if properly maintained by the community, should go a long way to reducing incursions and conflict.

2. Spread of rainfed agriculture. The march of agriculture down the lower Kilimanjaro slopes (see above) represents a moving front of potential human-wildlife conflict.

3. Closed corridors. Adjudication and apathy along potential wildlife corridors, such as East to Kimana or south to Kitenden, is rapidly closing off options for wildlife movements in and out of the Core. On the southern side of the boundary, the Tanzanian government has set policy in place to keep a ‘Kitenden Corridor’ free of agriculture. There is no similar policy on the Kenya side.

21 A high rate of turnover of KWS Senior Wardens is one of the constraints to successful implementation of planning and management in the park. Since 1990, there have been no fewer than nine different wardens assigned to the task. No sooner do they get settled in, make ambitious plans for improvement, get to know the research work going on, begin to form a network of local community correspondents, then they are posted elsewhere, Plans are thwarted, urgent management put in abeyance once again, ranger morale shaken, and, the flanks of good park management weakened to potential attack from divisive elements.

24

Figure 7. Human-wildlife 'fronts' of actual and potential conflict, with particular reference to elephants (see text).

Poaching Ivory Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, before the 1989 CITES curtailment of international trade in ivory, poaching for ivory was rampant in elephant habitats worldwide. Amboseli was largely spared the slaughter. Whilst virtually all populations were drastically reduced (Africa as a whole by 54 %, Kenya alone by 85%), the elephants of Amboseli actually increased by 25%, from about 800 to 1,000 individuals.

Two factors contributed to the relative safety of Amboseli’s elephants. One is the

general disinclination of Maasai to tolerate other tribes poaching on their land. The other is the almost constant presence of researchers providing additional eyes on the ground and early warning of incursion by poachers.

That said, there is undoubtedly some poaching for ivory. It tends to come in bouts and occur in the southern part of the ecosystem, along the international boundary. Several elephants were killed in a period of a few months in 200x [check], and recently (April/May 2006) up to ten more bulls may have been poached for ivory in the Sinya region of the ecosystem in Tanzania22.

Bushmeat Protein hunger in the urban areas of Kenya and Tanzania is fuelling an informal trade in so-called ‘bushmeat’. The Amboseli ecosystem is under siege from the demand, and there are three main routes to the trade: across the international border southwest through Namanga to Arusha; southeast to Moshi; and north to Nairobi. Tour drivers report that they regularly see pickup trucks plying along the Namanga-Kajiado road (and the dirt tracks that feed into it from the interior of the ecosystem) carrying protein to Kajiado and Nairobi. There is no reason to believe the Amboseli ecosystem is not contributing to the estimated 25% of urban protein that currently estimated to be supplied by bushmeat (BornFree 2004).

Spearing The long Maasai spear is not just decoration: it is a lethal traditional weapon that is still used today for self-protection and self-expression. Sadly it is too often used offensively on wildlife, lions and elephants in particular.

Lions Lions have always been hunted and killed by Maasai warriors in self-defence or retaliation for predation on their stock and as an expression of manhood and bravery during the traditional lion-hunt, the alamaiyo (Ole Saitoti & Beckwith 1980).

Ceremonial hunts usually take place in the rains, when there is plenty of grazing and more leisure time. It may also be the case in Amboseli that during the rains, there are fewer wildebeest and zebra in the basin and the incidence of hungry lions invading

bomas may increase thereby encouraging more retaliatory forays23. The frequency of lion spearing appears to have increased: between late 2001 and early 2003 22 lions were killed on Mbirikani GR alone (Hill and Bonham 2005). During the same period, at least eight were speared around the Park. The experts said that since 1998, at least Lion Compensation The Mbirikani Predator Compensation Fund (MPCF), managed by the Ol Donyo Wuas and the Maasailand Preservation Trust and implemented with the help of the Amboseli-Tsavo Game Scouts Association, appears to be stemming large-scale spearing of lions on the group ranch.

Under the terms of a tightly-negotiated contract, promissory notes are handed to individuals who lose a cow, sheep or goat from any large carnivore, not just lions. The system has built in an effective self-regulating mechanism: compensation payments are made at the end of each twomonth period if there have been no spearings of lions during the period. If there have, the notes issued during the period are rendered invalid. Essentially, the managers of the Fund say to the Maasai: “We are not here to give you money simply because carnivores kill your livestock… We are here to save from local extinction one of your greatest assets, the lion and other carnivores…” (Hill & Bonhan 2005). In 2004, the Fund paid out $27,000 for 746 head of stock, about two a day, killed mainly by hyaenas.

195 lions had been killed in and near southern Kenya's Amboseli and Tsavo preserves and the Nairobi National Park, reducing the confirmed number of lions to 2 010.

Of those, 20 had been killed this year alone and the trend appeared to be increasing.

The launch of the Mbirikani Predator Compensation Fund in 2003 (see Box above), spearing in the GR has dropped dramatically to only three documented spearings in two and a half years whilst spearing outside Mbirikani have continued with as many as 16 lions killed during the same period. In April 2006, with the onset of the rains, there was a spate of at least eleven spearings in and around the National Park, which, if orphaned cubs are included means a morality of around 20 (L. Frank, pers. comm.).

Two adults study-subjects were killed on Mbirikani, and it might be argued without the MPCF more may have been.

The bottom lion is that lions, like top predators elsewhere in the world, are severely threatened in the ecosystem, with only nine remaining on Mbirikani as of May 2006, and that is with the protection of the MPCF. An emergency meeting of stakeholders in mid-April came up with a 15-point action plan (see Box below, Towards SelfRegulation).

However, time is running out. Frank et al. (2006) summarise the grim situation:

22

Local conventional wisdom claims to know the main perpetrator (allegedly a notorious and skilful hunter named Ole Tarina); there are even detailed tales of how and where he rents the firearm and buys the ammunition. Of course, that gentlemen, like all others, is innocent till proven guilty, but it is astonishing that the authorities on both sides of the border seem powerless to take the matter to conclusion one way or the other.

Lion populations are in decline throughout most of Africa, but the problem is acutely urgent in Kenyan Masailand, where local residents are spearing and poisoning lions

23 Examination of the Amboseli National Park’s ‘Occurance Book’, in which records are kept of wildlife conflict incidents, shows that indeed lion attacks on stock increase in the rains, but in the past few years are far less frequent than attacks by hyenas.

25

at a rate which will ensure local extinction within a very few years. Kajiado and Narok Districts contain two of Kenya’s most important tourist destinations, Amboseli National Park and the Masai Mara National Reserve, where lions are the primary attraction for overseas visitors. Limited data from the Tsavo-Amboseli Ecosystem (lying between Amboseli and Tsavo West National Parks) indicate that a minimum of 108 lions, and probably many more, have been killed in the region since 2001. In spite of a generous compensation program which pays people for livestock lost to predators, lion numbers on Mbirikani Group Ranch have declined steadily, and evidence suggests that the situation is as bad or worse elsewhere in the region.

Young warriors who engage in traditional lion killing do not face significant consequences because of lax law enforcement and judicial corruption. Unless that changes in the immediate future, Kenya will lose its most important tourist attraction.

It is worth noting that compensation may not be a universal cure-all for lion predation.

On the one hand, there are some parts of the ecosystem – Elekenkei GR, for example – the where the system of game scouts on the ground and a full time concession-funded warden to interact with the community appears to be sufficient to forestall the spate of spearings suffered recently in other parts of the ecosystem.

Elephants The spearing of elephants is not, like the alamaiyo, part of Maasai tradition. As with the near-total elimination of rhinos in the 1970s, attacks on elephants are motivated by politics and protest, with a good measure of delinquency driving the act.

In 1997, after a particular messy eye-for-an-eye killing by KWS of a tuskless matriarch in exchange for a cow tusked to death by an unidentified adult female, ATE leveraged donor funding and after long negotiations initiated a ‘Consolation Scheme’ with the three GRs closest to the national park. The name of the scheme was chosen to emphasis that ATE is not responsible for compensating for wildlife incidents, but, as a coresident of the ecosystem, understands the importance of the herder’s loss and wishes to help consol him for it. When a cow, sheep or goat is reported to have been injured or killed outside of the park, a verification team comprising ATE, KWS and a GR representative visits the site to endorse or not the veracity of the case. Payment (KES 15,000, ca. USD 200 for a cow; KES 5,000, USD 70 for a shoat) is made is made immediately, and the matter closed. To date, nearly USD 40,000 has been paid out.

The history of recorded spearings is currently being analysed by AERP. Although the time series is short and the data variable, it is tempting to conclude that the consolation scheme is having an impact: although spearing is not diminishing to zero, the number of attacks appear to be holding steady at around 8-10 per year. With no control dataset, it is difficult to conclude a statistical difference.

What is clear is that the Maasai appear to be appreciative of the scheme. They recognise that even though it is not a legal responsibility of AERP to provide a compensation payment, they appear grateful that the project is concerned about the well-being of the community and the basis of its livelihood. Often community leaders have stood up in meetings to say how good it is to see that ‘research’ is bringing 26

something back to the community. And, indeed, when payments are suspended pending discussions after a spearing incident, the elders are quick to impose internal discipline. So, statistics apart, the scheme appears to be effective.

Causes There is urgent need to understand the relative importance of the two apparent root causes of spearing across the ecosystem: retaliation and delinquency. (assuming the cultural imperative of the alamaiyo can be brought under control or diverted).

Although, the short term solution for each cause is probably about the same, namely, appropriate punishment in law24 as well as by traditional means from the community itself, the long-term solutions are quite different. Retaliation spearings appear to increase during the rains, concomitant with an increase of nocturnal incursions of into nkangs lions looking for easy prey whilst the wildebeeste and zebras have dispersed out of the core park area. If systematic data collection shows that this is a true picture, statistically as well as perceptually, then solutions would lie in relatively straightforward policy and technical interventions, such as incentives or regulations to move settlements away from the edge of the park where they are at increased risk or better, more modern, perhaps wildlife-subsidized defences for settlements.

Morans The long term solution for delinquency is less straightforward and has to do with answering the question: what to do with a cadre of under- or unemployed young men with lots of energy and an out-dated social function? The Maasai Game Scouts programme (q.v.) is an effective and useful source of employment, but can only make a small dent in the ranks of several thousand.

C. Moss (pers. comm.) has proposed the ‘Maasai Games’, a kind of regional annual Olympiad for the Maasai of Ilkisong and possibly beyond. It could put to good competitive test the particular skills of young Maasai, such as running, jumping, throwing spears and rocks, provide an energy release mechanism in bouts of training throughout the year, a surrogate for destructive competitive ventures such as spearing elephants and lions, and provide an alternative form a hero status for young women to admire. It would be appealing for corporate sponsorship, and already a conversation has begun with potential sponsors.

24 Cases of spearing of wildlife brought before local (i.e. non-Nairobi-based) magistrate’s courts are typically dealt with fines so small as to be without deterrent value, or by releasing the perpetrators with a warning into the custody of the community elders to punish according to traditional fines, such as the slaughter of a prized steer for all to eat. Clearly the one has little long term impact and the other can be considered the excuse for a party.

Potential Follow-on Activities Management of Amboseli National Park There are two systemic reasons that there has been no effective response by the community to the proposed change in the park's ownership (see above, Introduction).

One is that there is no lead community organisation. The NGOs have tried to establish and later resurrect ATGRCA, but the effort appears to have failed. The individual GR interests are too strong, or the ATGRCA leadership is too weak, or both. Without such an organisation, the community will be overrun by clever interests from outside, including possibly persons with a political bent on the OCC. The second reason is that the current manager of the resource, KWS, has failed to establish itself as a 'good contractor', acting fairly and effectively on behalf of the ecosystem and the people. Under the pronouncements of the new KWS leadership, there were great expectations that KWS would deliver. But it has not. Again, there are probably two reasons for the failure: lack of a comprehensive land use plan for the region (or anywhere else in Kenya, for that matter), and an apparent resistance in KWS on the part of HQ cliques to devolve responsibility and resources to its regions.

The status of ANP management up until September 2005 was essentially one of subcontracting. The government, 'on behalf of the people' had divested the management of the park in its parastatal wildlife arm, KWS. But, unlike a contract, there was no real accountability built in (a parastatal mandate can be like a contract without the penalty clause). Yet there may be now an opportunity to actually stabilise and even improve the situation.

The OCC, for better or worse, is currently the legally-constituted representative of local government (since the Ilkisongo Maasai themselves have failed to constitute an ATGRCA-like organisation). So, in the best of worlds, the OCC should inform the community that in the interest of optimising benefits to the people of the area, several things have to happen25.

Fixed amounts (or proportions) of the park's gate taking have to be negotiated and set immediately and allocated in budget to the entities that have a legitimate stakeholder claim on the benefits accruing from the landscape. They are the following, with indications of what proportions each should get: The management body. Running a park has clearly measurable capital and recurrent costs. These can be identified precisely in about five minutes by anyone who has access to the books (one former park warden claimed that he could run the park with the gate takings from August alone). That fixed amount, once transparently established, needs to be set aside in the budget (indexed over the years) at the outset. It 25 In fact, it may have happened that in the context of campaigning and positioning prior to the 2007 general elections, some Cabinet members have been instructed to ‘sort out’ the Amboseli situation.

must include, say, a 10% margin to cover growth and improvement of facilities (e.g., opening new circuits, improvement of public information, etc.). A negotiated 'profit margin', of say, 10% on top should be added and given to the manager's parent body (in the current situation, this would be KWS HQ).

The ecosystem. The wildlife and the landscape are obviously the elements that attract revenue in the first place. It would be imprudent not to invest in them in order to ensure that they and hence the revenue stream persist. The cost of baseline monitoring and research, compensation for and mitigation of human-wildlife conflict can be calculated based on the experience of KWS and NGOs. Logic would dictate that the calculated sum should be managed by the 'principal', the OCC. However, given the existing atmosphere of distrust, it would probably be better to build the cost into the contract with the management body (above). Order of magnitude might be 20% of the gate takings, possibly less.

The Maasai community. No one denies that the community must receive a goodly portion of the benefits. On the one hand there are logical reasons not to have just a magic percentage that is merely given and potentially frittered away each year. On the other hand there is strong history that involves a famous percent figure26. So, why not simply declare that each year 25% of the gate taking will be put into a trust fund, properly managed (managed, for example, by a properly audited group of GR representatives, perhaps with ATGRCA having an administrative role27. That fund would be drawn upon by application from community members (individuals or groups) for specifically-identified and budgeted projects that are approved by a community group that includes reps from the other stakeholders.

The OCC. The OCC is the 'parent body' (for now, at least, unless there emerges a new parent body in the form of a 'Loitokitok District' authority). Sadly, the OCC has no convincing history of good management of natural resources (although there are currently some encouraging signs in the area of borehole rehabilitation, see Boreholes, above); it is even seen by many as a direct threat to the future of the area. But it does have legal standing, so perhaps 10% should go to it for 'administrative costs' (the amount is less important than it be seen to be well below the proportion allocated to the community).

(Concessionaires and lodges are deliberately not included the in the foregoing stakeholder list, since their role is somewhat different. They facilitate generation of revenues for the community and obviously themselves. They should have a commenting, observer role in the management, but not be part of it, except to pay their fees and comply with the rules. They should eventually also be subjected to 26 During his tenure as Director of KWS in the 1990s, Dr. Richard Leakey at a public gathering of Maasai declared that the community should receive 25% of the gate takings of the park bordering on group ranch lands. Since then, at nearly every ‘stakeholder meeting’ of Maasai, that 25% figure has been echoed back at the representatives of government as an example of its failure to meet its obligation.

27 A specific administrative role for ATGRCA might give the organisation the focus it currently sorely lacks.

27

certification, so that if they do not meet certain standards of eco- and socio-friendliness, their leases and contracts are terminated.)

Day-to-day running of the park has to be given immediately to a competent body with a demonstrated track record in management of protected areas. In the interests of efficiency and continuity, KWS would seem to be the obvious candidate. KWS people and plant are there on the ground, and if it were to stay there would be no transition costs (which could be huge, both in monetary terms as well as the damage to the ecosystem during the confusion of the transition).

Thus, in order to manage the current, transitional situation, if it transpires that OCC is given legal ownership of the park, OCC should then 'enter into contract' with KWS for a period of, say 3 years, to manage ANP. If, on the other hand, the courts determine that ownership lies with the GRs, then the GR representative should enter into the contract. There would be a formal contract document with terms and conditions that would include measurable indicators of success, for example, visitor satisfaction, reduction of wildlife spearings, improvement of roads, innovative information campaigns, etc. Renewal at the end of the contract period would be dependent on a satisfactory management audit of performance by an independent review team. If KWS were to fail the review, then its contract would be terminated and a competitive call for tender for management of the park would be issued.

It is somewhat questionable which body could claim mandate and seize the day to endorse such a scheme and then put it in place. The KWS Board is one candidate.

Even although it is clearly an interested party, it is a recognised august body that could with authority issue a White Paper outlining the scheme for consideration by the Cabinet. If there were a strong and well-led ATGRCA, then it could take the lead as part of the on-going negotiations between the community and KWS. In the best of worlds, the OCC would theoretically be a strong candidate for such implementation.

But as yet there is little evidence that it has thought beyond the acquisition phase, and, sadly, the motivation of the OCC must be regarded with distrust.

Payment for ecosystem services Over the past decade there has been a growing body of knowledge and experience world-wide suggesting that that internalisation of ecosystem service benefits and costs is a legitimate ledger entry on the national development accounts. According, a number of interested parties28 are developing a concept for a GEF Medium-Sized Project entitled “Improving Livelihoods in Amboseli through Payment for Ecosystem Services”

28

The consortium of project drafters currently includes ACC, ATE, AWF , FAO, KWS and UNEP/GEF.

28

The concept has secured Kenya Government Focal Point Endorsement from NEMA, and is currently under development, as an MSP to the level of USD 850,000. Funding at this stage is less of a problem than constituting a representative entity to manage it.

If the project is successfully implemented, it will provide a powerful force for developing the mechanisms necessary to ensure a sustainable future for wildlife-based enterprises in the Amboseli ecosystem through supporting income-generation, developing ecosystem management and welfare mechanisms, ameliorating production system strategies, conserving ecosystem biodiversity, and developing flexible and innovative financing mechanisms (see Annex 5 for a problem statement).

Support to group ranches There will be a new phase of the USAID-supported CORE programme beginning in late 2006. If there could be evidence that the Amboseli ecosystem group ranches are truly getting organised in a business-like, transparent and representative manner, then they would have a good case for applying for support.

Towards Self-Regulation In April 2006, KWS convened a meeting with Maasai community members to address the spate of wildlife spearings. Elders present expressed shock and together with KWS agreed on a set of guidelines to ameliorate the situation. This is a positive move towards self-regulation.

1.

Morans or any other person known to have participated in the killing of lions should be arrested with the help of area and community leaders. The arrest should target the first and second person who speared the lion.

2.

Manyatta owner who allow morans known or suspected to have killed a lion, or dance with a lion tail or any other body parts will be arrested for abetting crime and community time.

3.

Before disposing suspects to the Police, KWS rangers and game scouts with the help of the communities must vet them to establish the real suspect and avoid criminalizing the innocent morans who just join others to dance.

4.

Game scouts and KWS rangers must not discriminate while arresting suspects even if the suspect is a relative.

5.

KWS should participate in joint patrols with the game scouts outside the park.

6.

The leaders with KWS should enforce traditional fines that are viewed by the Maasai people to be more punitive than court fines; recoveries should be used to compensate those whose livestock are killed by wildlife.

7.

Cultural manyattas found selling animal trophies such as lion/other species, teeth should be banned forever from dealing with tourists. Curio hawkers dealing on the same should equally be expelled from hawking in Amboseli ecosystem.

8.

KWS should intensify Intelligence network in Namanga and Maili Tisa (Ngatataek) area because poachers collaborating with Tanzanians operate in those area. Also at Kisanjani, pipe line and Enkii area.

9.

Stakeholders meeting to be called immediately by KWS to iron out conflicts of interest.

10. Game scouts who knowingly suppress intelligent information on suspects or manyattas that abets wildlife crimes as per this resolution will be terminated and immediately replaced.

11. Motorbikes with Tanzania registrations that operate at night around Enkongu-Narok area are a threat to wildlife security and the water pump machinery. KWS rangers and game scouts to arrest them and to inform the police for action.

12. Group Ranch and community leaders should draw up a grazing pattern plan to reduce conflicts with the park authorities and minimize adverse drought effects.

13. The Conflict Resolution Committee should be reactivated by KWS and Stakeholders immediately in order to reduce conflict and enhance coordination and capacity.

14. Leaders should address salt lick issue and have a proper plan which does not interfere with Park management strategy.

ANNEXES A compendium of conservation and management activities in the Amboseli ecosystem CONTENTS 1. Summaries of Contemporary Conservation & Research Amboseli Baboon Project .....................................................................................2 Amboseli Research and Conservation Project......................................................3 Amboseli Trust for Elephants & the Amboseli Elephant Research Project .........4 The taphonomic record of ecological change in Amboseli National Park.. Error!

Bookmark not defined.

AWF – African Wildlife Foundation: Kilimanjaro Heartland.............................6 LUCID – Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics ...........................................7 School for Field Studies........................................................................................8 African Conservation Centre (ACC) ....................................................................9 Research Programme on Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity ...................10 BEADS – Beads for Education, Advancement, Development and Success.......11 Namelok Community Development Association ...............................................12 Maasai Settlement and Land-use, Landscape Mosaics, and the Spatial Patterning of Vegetation and Wildlife in East African Savannas ........................................13 Cheetah Conservation and Human Impact in Kenya..........................................14 [Longido Elephant Research Project] .................................................................15 People-Wildlife Relationship in the Amboseli Ecosystem .................................16 Amboseli Carnivore Monitoring Project ............................................................17 Chyulu Hills Rhino Programme .........................................................................18 Spatial-temporal distribution of African elephants and their interaction with humans in Kimana and Kuku area of Tsavo-Amboseli National Parks wildlife dispersal area ......................................................................................................19 Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project ..............................................................20 Maasailand Ecological Research ........................................................................21 Kajiado Wild Dog Research ...............................................................................22 Mitigating Human-Elephant Conflict in the Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya ........23 South Rift Association of Land owners (SORALO) ..........................................24 Wings for Africa .................................................................................................25 Amboseli Community Wildlife Tourism Project................................................26

2. Summaries of Wildlife Concession Activities Maasailand Preservation Trust (Ol Donyo Wuas)............................................. 27 Selenkay Conservancy and Porini Camp ........................................................... 28 Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust (Campi ya Kanzi) ................................ 29 Kitirua Conservation Trust................................................................................. 30 Amboseli/Tsavo Game Scouts Association........................................................ 31 Ol Kanjau ........................................................................................................... 32 Sopa Lodge......................................................................................................... 33 http://www.africa-reps.com/sopa/amboseli.htm................................................. 33 Amboseli Serena Safari Lodge........................................................................... 33 Ol Tukai Lodge .................................................................................................. 34 African Safari Club (including tented camps, such as Leopard Lodge, Zebra Lodge, Cheetah, etc.; and Kimana Lodge) ......................................................... 34 http://www.africansafariclub.com/html/safarilodges.php .................................. 34 Amboseli Lodge and Kilimanjaro Safari Camp ................................................. 35 Tortilis Camp...................................................................................................... 35 Persons Contacted .............................................................................................. 36 3. Persons Contacted ………………………………………………………………………………… 36 4. Acronyms ………………………………………………………………………………… 38 5. Payment for Ecosystem Services ………………………………………………………………………………… 39 6. Literature Cited ………………………………………………………………………………… 40 amb_ate_review_annexes-11.doc / 16/08/2007 07:26

Annex to: Croze, H., Sayialel, S. and D. Sitonic (2006). What’s on in the ecosystem: Amboseli as a Biosphere Reserve. A Compendium of Conservation and Management Activities in the Amboseli Ecosystem.

UNESCO: Nairobi. 28 pp + annexes. (printed: 16/08/2007 07:26)

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH Amboseli Baboon Project Mission/Objective A long-term, coordinated series of studies of yellow baboons, Papio cynocephalus, in the Amboseli region.

Description The Amboseli Baboon Project has long cantered on processes at the individual, group, and population levels, and in recent years has also included other aspects of baboon biology, such as genetics, hormones, and nutrition, hybridization, and relations with other species. The 1963-64 exploratory and descriptive study and a brief follow-up in 1969 laid the groundwork for the series of studies that followed and that continue to this day. As of the end of 2000, some 50 investigators have worked on field or analysis and modelling aspects of the project at various times, including population ecology, social behaviour, development, individual-based life histories, male dominance and reproduction, aging, foraging, impacts of changing ecological conditions, genetic population structure, physiology. Here are some major transitions in the history of the project.

Principal(s) Steward and Jeanne Altmann; Susan Alberts, Raphael Mututua, Sereh Sayialel and others.

Location Amboseli National Park and southwester parts of the Amboseli ecosystem. Research Camp situation on compound on premises of Olgulului Public Campsite.

Timing Initiated 1963; long-term, coordinated project began 1971; on-going.

Funding source(s) Financial support for ABP has come from a number of sources at various times, especially the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and the Chicago Zoological Society.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University.

Main Partners: Department of Biology, Duke University; Amboseli Elephant Research Project.

2

Contact Info Jeanne Altmann Ecology & Evolutionary Biology Guyot Hall, Room 106 Princeton University Princeton NJ USA +1-609-258-3814 altj@Princeton.EDU Products More than 180 peer-reviewed articles, reports and popular accounts.

[Source: http://www.princeton.edu/~baboon/index.html ] Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Amboseli Research and Conservation Project Mission/Objective To provide long-term data on the structure, dynamics and changes of the Amboseli ecosystem and technical support for its conservation.

Description The Amboseli Research and Conservation Project, started in 1967, includes long-term monitoring of the numbers and distribution of wildlife, livestock and human settlement in relation to rainfall, pasture and other environmental factors. It aims to explain the factors governing the structure, dynamics and changes of the ecosystem and the interactions of human and wildlife activities. A key aspect of study has been the nature and causes of seasonal migrations among livestock and wildlife. Methods include sample aerial counts over an area of 8500 km2 of eastern Kajiado district encompassing the Amboseli ecosystem, total aerial counts of the dry season area, vegetation monitoring to track seasonal and long terms changes in habitat, species composition, standing biomass and complementary exclosure studies. The project also includes a number of subsidiary projects that look into key aspects of the ecosystem, including broad-scale changes in habitat, livestock wildlife interactions, livestock grazing strategies, herding and settlement decision-making, the ecology of pastoralism and the impact of drought. Data on long-term changes in migratory patterns and landuse are collated in GIS format. A large number of other subsidiary projects have been conducted over the years, including tourism use and impact, wetlands studies, bird censuses and the impact of sedentarization of pastoral communities on the ecosystem.

ARCP was directly involved in the planning and establishment of Amboseli National Park based on detailed plans it submitted to the Kajiado County Council and government and its role in subsequent negotiations.

ARCP has been involved in many aspects of conservation in Amboseli and the surrounding group ranches over the years. It was centrally involved in the original plans to establish a park, as well as the development plans for the park and revenue-sharing arrangements with the community and country council. ARCP was also a key player in establishing the Amboseli Tsavo Group Ranch Association and the Amboseli scouts association. It also established the first electric fences at Namelog to protect irrigated farms from wildlife depredation and was deeply involved in establishing similar fences at Kimana. More recently, in conjunction with AWF and ACC, ARCP helped convene a workshop on the future of the Amboseli ecosystem and establish a task force to oversee the planning work.

Location Data is collected in Amboseli Basin and eastern Kajiado. Data is analysed at the ARCP offices in the African Conservation Centre, Nairobi.

Timing On-going since 1967.

Funding source(s) ARCP has been funded by many organizations over the years, including Ford Foundation, Leverhulm, Wildlife Conservation Society, Little Family Foundation, Nichols Foundation, National Geographic and Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: ARCP established the African Conservation Centre to train Kenyans in conservation techniques and applications and undertake conservation programs elsewhere in Kenya. ARCP presently uses ACC office space and works closely with ACC on Amboseli programs.

Main Partners: The African Conservation Centre, Amboseli, Tsavo Group Ranch Association, Kenya Wildlife Service, Amboseli-Tsavo Game Scouts Association, Centre for Field Studies, Chyulu Hills Ungulate Research Project, African Wildlife Foundation, ILRI, Amboseli Elephant Research Project..

Contact Info Amboseli Research and Conservation Project P.O.Box 15289-00509 or 62844-00200 Nairobi.

Tel/Fax: +254 20 891360 / 891751 acc@acc.or.ke http://www.conservationafrica.org Products More than 80 scientific publication, planning documents, articles and books (list available on request).

[Source: D. Western]

Top of the Document

Principal(s) Dr. David Western, David Maitumo, Victor Mose, Edwin Sang, Daniel Macharia, Samantha Russell, Sunita Sarkar

3

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Amboseli Trust for Elephants & the Amboseli Elephant Research Project Mission/Objective The Amboseli Trust for Elephants aims to ensure the long-term conservation and welfare of Africa’s elephants in the context of human needs and pressures through scientific research, training, community outreach and public awareness.

Description The Amboseli Trust for Elephants (ATE) is a Kenya and USA-based knowledge and awareness program aimed at promoting elephant conservation through long-term research projects, training, capacity building, community relations, public appreciation and advocacy. ATE's fieldwork is carried out under the auspices of the unique 34-year Amboseli Elephant Research Project (AERP).

Since 1972, close observation by Cynthia Moss and the AERP research team has led to unparalleled, in-depth knowledge of these intelligent and complex animals, making the elephants of Amboseli the most celebrated wild elephants in the world and the centrepiece of attractiveness to the foreign and local tourists to Amboseli National Park at the core of the ecosystem. The revelations from Amboseli (as reported in more than 60 peer-reviewed papers, numerous books, articles, films and interviews) form the basis of present-day understanding of elephants, providing the primary tools needed to conserve and protect them in the wild and to define standards for humane treatment in captivity. ATE has three core programs clusters all of which are sustained by AERP's long-term field monitoring: Conservation & Population Studies (including ecological dynamics, demography, human-elephant conflicts, community engagement); Behaviour (genetics, communication, cognition, development, reproductive behaviour); and Welfare, Ethics & Advocacy for Wild and Captive Elephants. Major research areas include: • Social organization, population dynamics, calf development, oestrous behaviour – C. Moss, 1972-ongoing.

• Distribution and ranging patterns using radio-tracking – H. Croze: 1972-74; I. Douglas-Hamilton: 1996-2000.

• Musth and male-male competition – J. Poole: 1976; 1978; 1980-81; 1984-90; 2000-ongoing.

• Vocal communication – J. Poole & P. Granli: 1984-90; Savannah Elephant Vocalisation Project (SEVP) 1999-ongoing.

• Elephant feeding ecology and habitat use – K. Lindsay: 1977-79; 1982-84.

• Calf development and maternal investment – P. Lee: 1982-84 • Elephant growth – P. Lee: 1991-ongoing.

• Female cooperation and competition – S. Andelman: 1985-87.

• Maasai/elephant relationships – K. Kangwana: 1990-91.

• Reproductive hormone analysis – H. Mutinda: 1991-92.

• Communication and social organization – K. McComb, L. Baker & S. Sayialel: 1993-2000.

• Social determinants of ranging – H. Mutinda: 1997-2001.

• Population genetics and genetic determinant of social behaviour – S. Alberts, E. Archie, J.Hollister-Smith, N. Njiraini & T. Morrision: 2000-2004.

• Development of AmboGIS – H. Croze, K. Lindsay: 2002-ongoing.

• Attitudes of Maasai to elephants, wildlife and conservation. – C. Brown-Nunez, 2004-05.

4

• Human-elephant conflict and mitigation – W. Kiiru, J. Kioko, P. Ganli: 2005-06.

• Elephant cognition – R. Byrne, L. Bates: 2005-ongoing.

• Young bull behaviour and crop-raiding – P. Chiyo, 2005-ongoing.

Principal(s) Cynthia Moss (with international and Kenyan scientists named above). Current personnel: Harvey Croze, Joyce Poole, Norah Njiraini, Katito Sayialel and Soila Sayialel Location ATE/AERP has an Elephant Research Headquarters office and Elephant Research Camp based in Amboseli National Park (S02.66860, E037.28156). The camp has been in place in Ol Tukai Orok since 1974. Research has concentrated at the core of the elephants' range in Amboseli National Park; community outreach and ranging studies have covered the whole of the ca. 8,000 km2 ecosystem, including south to the Kilimanjaro forests and southwest the Longido and West Kilimanjaro area in Tanzania. ATE also maintains a small administrative office in Nairobi.

Timing On-going since September 1972. Current funding cycle through F/Y 2005/2006.

Funding source(s) Funding entirely through donations from individuals, trusts and foundations. A small proportion (<10%) from agencies and NGOS supports time-specific projects, such as GIS development or HEC. Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: None. ATE is a Trust established under the Trusts Act of Kenya. ATE-USA is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization.

Main Partners In Amboseli: KWS (Kenya Wildlife Services), African School for Field Studies, Amboseli-Tsavo Game Scouts Association, A-T Group Ranch Association among others.

In general: AWF, ACC among others.

Contact Info Langata Link #22/23, PO Box 15135, Langata 00509 Nairobi, Kenya tel/fax +254 20 891191 AmboseliEle@aerp.org www.elephanttrust.org Products More than seventy peer-reviewed scientific publications, plus numerous articles, popular books and films for TV (list available on request).

[Source: H. Croze]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

The long-term neotaphonomic study of vertebrate remains in Amboseli National Park Mission/Objective [in Amboseli Park, Kenya (including the bio- and geochemical processes involved in fossilization).]

Description A long term long-term neotaphonomic study of vertebrate remains in Amboseli Park, Kenya (including the bio- and geochemical processes involved in fossilization).

Behrensmeyer’s (1993) abstract: Taphonomic research in modern ecosystems provides insights on what we can expect to learn about paleoecology from fossils. A 15-year study of bone assemblages in Amboseli Park, Kenya, shows that such assemblages are sensitive recorders of population shifts in dominant herbivore species. Early weathering-stage samples representing 0 to 5 years of carcass accumulation show short-term changes in mammalian populations that track the increase in open grassland and decline in woodland habitats, and also the removal of domestic stock from the park. Bones on the ground surface of Amboseli are gradually destroyed or buried, and the buried subset provides an analogue for fossil assemblages preserved in ancient soils.

Institutional Affiliations National Museums of Kenya, KWS, ATE Contact Info Anna K. Behrensmeyer Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology Department of Paleobiology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012 NHB MRC 121 Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA fax: 202-786-2832 behrensa@si.edu

Products Over two dozen peer-reviewed journal articles.

[Source: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/curator_cvs/behrensmeyer.html ]

[NB: Joesph Mworia-Maitima (now at ILRI/LUCID and David Burney (Fordham University) took soil core samples in 1991. Burney (pers. comm.. to Behrensmeyer) reckons: “…with sufficiently robust equipment to deal with the clayey sediments and hardpans, one could get some interesting cores from the Amboseli basin for paleoecological analysis. I'm surprised to hear that someone hasn't done it already. For a fine-scale record of the late Holocene, which should be most interesting for its potential relevance to management-related questions…”]

Principal(s) Anna K. Behrensmeyer Location Amboseli basin Timing On-going since 1978 Funding source(s) Smithsonian Institution

5

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

AWF – African Wildlife Foundation: Kilimanjaro Heartland Mission/Objective The African Wildlife Foundation, together with the people of Africa, works to ensure the wildlife and wild lands of Africa will endure forever.

Description AWF recognizes the need to balance the conservation of Africa's landscapes and wildlife with the needs and aspirations of people. AWF also recognizes an essential ecological and economic reality: small, fragmented approaches to conservation will not succeed in conserving the wildlife landscapes so characteristic of Africa, nor will it yield sufficient economic returns to governments and their people.

AWF therefore works in selected large landscapes, or 'Heartlands'. Heartlands are large, cohesive landscapes, which are biologically important and have the scope to maintain healthy natural processes and populations of wild species well into the future. Each Heartland forms a sizable economic unit in which tourism and other natural-resource activities can contribute significantly to local livelihoods. Most Heartlands include a combination of protected areas, community lands, and private lands - often across national borders. In each landscape, AWF works with the broadest range of partners to improve conservation and natural resource management and to lessen threats to the overall resource base.

AWF interventions usually fall into six categories: • Land conservation • Conservation Enterprises

Principal(s) The AWF team in Kilimanjaro landscape is led by Paul Ntiati in the role of Heartland Coordinator. He coordinates AWF’s program both on the Kenyan and Tanzanian sides.

Paul is a native of the region and specialises in community-based conservation, building on some 15 years of experience with various NGOs. Further technical assistance is supplied by an enterprise officer and an ecologist on the Kenyan side, and a community officer and elephant research team on the Tanzanian side. In addition, the team is able to draw on support personnel from both the Nairobi and Arusha offices for a range of technical skills as required, including legal, socio-economic, NRM planning, enterprise, policy etc.

Location Office is located in Namanga, with additional support functions in Nairobi and Arusha.

Timing AWF has been present in the Kilimanjaro landscape for the past 40 years.

Funding source(s) Mainly multi-lateral and bi-lateral donors e.g. USAID, EU, Dutch Government plus foundations, individual donations etc.

Institutional Affiliation Parent Body – AWF is registered as a Local NGO in Kenya. AWF-USA is registered as a 501(c)3 not for profit organisation.

Main Partners – as below for ATE

• Capacity-building

Contact Info PO Box 48177-00100 Nairobi

• Support to protected areas

PO Box 20, Namanga

• Species applied research and protection • Policy advocacy and facilitation The Kilimanjaro Heartlands programme works with a spectrum of landowners across the landscape – both Kenya and Tanzania – focused on governance and land use planningzoning promises long-term ecological connectivity over a wide area – of the order of 1012 times the size of Amboseli National Park. The AWF presence in both Kenya and Tanzania has potential for support to trans-boundary efforts.

Products Quarterly AWF news-letters. Quarterly Kilimanjaro e-news updates. Various Working Papers.

[Source: R. Hatfield]

6

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH LUCID – Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics Mission/Objective The main objective is to stimulate research on land use and global change in east Africa by bringing together experiences from different long term research sites to bear on common regional research themes associated with land degradation and conservation of biodiversity in the context of sustainable livelihoods.

Description LUCID is a network of scientists who have been studying land use change in a halfdozen East African study areas and the implications for land degradation, biodiversity, and climate change for nearly three decades.

Each site has a working research team comprising of a site leader, scientists and students. The fieldwork aims to test and refine methods, and to provide scientific information on the linkages between land use change, and changes in biodiversity and land degradation. The work builds upon previously-gathered information as much as possible. The socio-economic component of the research is based on existing data, and on team members' reflections of various methods that they have experienced.

The results of these studies raise questions about the long-term viability of livelihood systems, crop agriculture and herding, of wildlife populations, and of the water and land resources upon which these land use systems depend. .

Principal(s) Dr. Joseph Maitima, Project Coordinator, Ecological; Dr. Jennifer Olson, Project Coordinator, Land Use and Socioeconomics; Dr. Robin Reid, ILRI; Prof. David Campbell, MSU Location There are six research sites in Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya, including the northeastern slopes of Kilimanjaro and south eastern Kajiado District, comprising Olgulului, Kimana, Mbirikani, Kuku and Rombo GRs plus Elerai, Enterara and Loitokitok.

Timing Studies initiated by D. Campbell began in the late 1970s; the LUCID umbrella was formalised in 2000.

Funding source(s) ILRI, Michgan State University Department of Geography; UNEP/GEF

To ensure cross-site comparability of the linkages, ecological information in particular is being collected in a common framework in each site using surveys, group interviews, key-informant interview, transects and quadrants and GIS analysis.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the Department of Geography, Michigan State University.

In the Kajiado study area, household surveys on land use practices were conducted in 1976, 1996, and 2001. These have been supplemented by field seminars, and community workshops to discuss the research findings and their interpretation, and to assess alternative strategies for dealing with issues of concern to the communities.

Main Partners:),, the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, the University of Bordeaux,.

Remote sensing and GIS are used to define the dynamics of land cover and land use change, particularly agriculture expansion from 1973 to 2000 in the area between Amboseli and Tsavo national parks. Comparison of land cover 1988 and 1998 in and around the Amboseli Park using ecological indices measured the impact of agricultural expansion on natural vegetation, and landscape structure and pattern. The analysis indicates increasing fragmentation, increasing patch diversity and decreasing complexity.

Vegetation surveys and soil analyses were conducted along transects that cross the agroecological gradient from the mountain's forest edge to swamps in the lower dry land zone. Wildlife counts will provide information on the changing numbers and distribution of elephants and large herbivores.

Contact Info ILRI, P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya j.maitima@cgiar.org j.olson@cgiar.org

Department of Geography Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1115, USA Tel: 254-20-630743, ext. 4821 Fax: 254-20-631499

Products Over 50 peer-reviewed articles and LUCID Working Papers.

[Source: http://www.lucideastafrica.org ]

Back to Annex Contents

7

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

School for Field Studies Mission/Objective The School for Field Studies (SFS), an international non-profit academic institution, provides environmental education and conducts research through its field-based programs. SFS is committed to providing: • hands-on, interdisciplinary education, and • environmental research in partnership with natural resource dependent communities.

Description The School for Field Studies (SFS) is one of the USA’s oldest and largest undergraduate environmental study abroad programs. Through a network of field stations worldwide, SFS teaches students how to address critical environmental problems using an interdisciplinary, experiential approach to education. SFS takes our students out of the classroom and into communities around the world to explore and examine the interdependent cultural, economic and ecological aspects of real-world problems in Costa Rica, Turks and Caicos Islands, Mexico, Australia and Kenya. SFS has accreditation with Boston University In Kenya, the interdisciplinary approach and a combination of lectures, expeditions, field exercises and research, exposes students to techniques for wildlife management, wildlife ecology, environmental policy and socioeconomic values. Field expeditions enable 20-30 students per year to observe the pros and cons of various management scheme alternatives. Studies include behavioural and ecological observations of wildlife (including elephants in collaboration with AERP), human-wildlife conflict in Kuku and Kimana, role of human structures in contraction of wildlife dispersal areas in group ranches around Amboseli, vegetation dynamics, socio-economic aspects of wildlife enterprises on Maasai group ranches including feasibility of a wildlife sanctuary in Kuku Group Ranch.

Principal(s) In Kenya, Dr. Simon ole Sano, Principal; Dr. Moses Okello, Associate Professor of Wildlife Management.

Location Kenyan campus located north of Kimana west of Emali-Oloitokitok pipeline road, some 30km east of Amboseli. (Originally field work was centred on the Hopcraft ranch on the Athi-Kapiti plains south of Nairobi National Park 8

Timing On-going since 1983.

Funding source(s) 95% of operational funding comes from tuition fees; some income from sub-contracts for research support.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: School for Field Studies USA (with accreditation from Boston University).

Main Partners (in Kenya): AERP, AWF, KES, Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary, etc.

More than 50 affiliated universities and colleges in the USA Contact Info The School for Field Studies, Centre for Wildlife Management Studies, P.O. Box 27743 – 00506, NAIROBI, KENYA oleseno@africaonline.co.ke Phone: 254-20-310229 (NPS) 254-45-622170 (Kilimanjaro Camp) 254-733-444001 (Kilimanjaro Camp) Mobile: 254-722-887257 The School for Field Studies 10 Federal St Salem, MA 01970 +1 978.741.3567 Products Students; reports.

[Source: http://www.fieldstudies.org] Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

African Conservation Centre (ACC) Mission/Objective “Saving African wildlife through sound science, local initiatives, and good governance.” (http://www.conservationafrica.org/ ) Description ACC is an indigenous African conservation initiative primary that aims to bring together the people and skills needed to build East Africa’s capacity to conserve wildlife. Its conservation programs are based on a five-pronged approach: •

Define the minimum area needed to conserve biodiversity

•

Identify threats to parks, ecosystems, key habitats and populations

•

Assemble players to help local people turn wildlife into an asset

•

Develop local skills and institutions for wildlife conservation

• Raise broad support for local conservation initiatives ACC’s work has focuses mainly in the Amboseli ecosystem, the Mara ecosystem and the Southern Rift Valley. In these areas, ACC has established wildlife associations, land trusts, wildlife sanctuaries, ecotourism lodges and community associations. In each of these areas ACC selects pilot conservation projects with a high chance of success and broad application. See summary of the Amboseli Research and Conservation Project (above).

Main Partners: Amboseli, Tsavo Group Ranch Association, Kenya Wildlife Service, Amboseli-Tsavo Game Scouts Association, Centre for Field Studies, African Wildlife Foundation, ILRI, Amboseli Trust for Elephants.

Contact Info African Conservation Centre Fairacres Rd, Off Langata Road Opposite Hilcrest Prep. School, KAREN P O Box 15289-00509 Nairobi, KENYA Tel/Fax +254 20 891360 / 891751 info@conservationafrica.org http://www.conservationafrica.org

Products Scientific papers, grey literature reports and, since October 2005 a newsletter, Conservation and Development. See also a nearly-working CBO (Community-Based Organisation) database search tool at http://www.conservationafrica.org/cbodatabase/cbo-database.php.

[Source: D. Western and http://www.conservationafrica.org ]

Principal(s) David Western, Founder; James Ndungu, Director.

Location Based in Kenya Timing Registered in Kenya in 1995.

Funding source(s) Many organizations, including the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Liz Claiborne Art Ortenberg Foundation, Ford Foundation, European Union, Tourism Trust Fund (Kenya), African Conservation Fund, the National Geographic Society, etc.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: (ACC grew out of a Wildlife Conservation Society programme).

9

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Research Programme on Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity Mission/Objective To promote participatory research and development of sustainable management of dryland biodiversity.

Description The Research Programme on Sustainable Use of Dryland Biodiversity (RPSUD, sic) is implemented by a three-country consortium: Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. The programme recognises that the key to dryland resources management lies in a clear understanding of the bio-ecological resilience of its resource bases and employing management strategies that optimize production and resource use in consistence with prevailing episodic changes of prevalent booms and bursts.

Over the past few years, several projects, typically supported at USD 15,000 each, have projects have been located in Kajiado District: 1997: An assessment and monitoring of wetland resources in Arid and semi-arid areas.

(N. N. Gichuki, H.A. Oyieke and G. G Ndiritu) Assessment of wetlands for water and biodiversity conservation was carried out in Kajiado District. Wetlands cover 2.5% of the District in three basins: River Athi, River Ewaso Ngiro (South) and the Rift Valley. The wetlands in the Rift Valley are important for bird conservation, salt licks and mining of soda ash. The wetlands associated with River Ewaso Ngiro (South) and River Athi basins support wildlife (large game), livestock, water supply and subsistence agriculture, especially in Ngong, Loitokitok and Nguruman areas. The wetlands supply water for livestock industry, agriculture, horticulture and people. Despite their small sizes, wetlands are valuable areas, which support the livelihoods of nearly 200,000 people in the District.

1998: Investigation of an indigenous knowledge system underlying the management and use of tree fodder resources in Kajiado District (Daniel Kisangau Patrick) nvestigations of an indigenous knowledge systems underlying the management and use of tree fodder resources in Kajiado. (Evelyne C. Kiptot) 2002-03: Utilisation of Plant Biodiversity in Kajiado (Humphery M. Ngibuini) Principal(s) (see names above) Timing 1997-ongoing 10

Funding source(s) SIDA (Swedish International Development Agency) /SAREC and the national programmes of the four institutions.

Institutional Affiliation Parent Body: The National Museums of Kenya (NMK) is the lead institution and also hosts the secretariat.

Main Partners: University of Dar es Salaam; Addis Ababa University; The Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Ethiopia; Uppsala University Contact Info RPSUD Secretariat National Museums of Kenya P. O. Box 40658, 00100 GPO TEL/FAX: 254-20-3751319 Nairobi – Kenya info@rpsud.org www.rpsud.org Products Gichuki, N. and Oyieke, H. 2000 (in Press). Community participation in wetlands assessment and conservation: Lessons learned in Kajiado district, Kenya Macharia J., Ndiritu G. G. and Gichuki, N. N. 2000 (In Press). Traditional Mechanisms of Conserving Wetlands and their Conflicts with those of modern institutions: A case study of Maasai Community of Kajiado District Kenya In: Regional workshop on Sustainable Management of Biodiversity in the third millennium and Beyond, Arusha, Tanzania Gichuki, N. N., H. A. Oyieke and Ndiritu, G. G. 2001. Assessment and monitoring of wetlands for conservation and development in dry lands: A case of study Kajiado District, Kenya. In: Finlayson, C.M., Davidson N.C., and Stevenson, N.J. (eds). Wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring: Practical techniques and identification of major issues. Supervising Scientist Report 161, Darwin, Australia.

[Source: http://www.rpsud.org/]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

BEADS – Beads for Education, Advancement, Development and Success

Funding source(s) Donors, private and public, including USAID

Mission/Objective To enhance the status of women in the community and to promote environmental awareness with a goal of preserving natural resources.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: BEADS for Education, Inc is a USA-based 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

Description The Beads for Education, Advancement, Development and Success (BEADS) programme provides school scholarships for African girls, promote business development for African women and support conservation through education. Since 1998 BEADS has provided full scholarships for Kenyan girls to attend school and now sponsors more than 200 girl in Isinya and Amboseli. For example, the Amboseli Wildlife Sponsorship Region began in January 2003. Linking with the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), the region is supervised by Paul Ntiati, AWF's Heartland Coordinator. These girls are selected on the basis of their ability to attain university degrees and become community role models and leaders.

Main Partners: AWF, Chaco Walking Shoes, Serena Hotels, Concorde Car Hire.

The Dupoto Women’s Group is a BEADS project comprising 25 women who produce high quality beaded products that marketed by volunteers in the United States. All of the profit is returned to the women’s collective. This is their primary source of income and these women support nearly 200 children. Due to their success, the Dupoto Women’s Group has received funding from USAID and has been selected as a role model for other women’s groups in Kenya.

Contact Info Beads for Education, Advancement, Development and Success 5501 Ventnor Ave. Ventnor, NJ 08406, USA +1-609-823-7701 beads4education@aol.com asil_notrub@hotmail.com Products Handmade designer products in the Maasai style, including, Maasai necklaces, wall hangings, Deco purses, key chains, necklace/bracelet sets, coasters, bowls, purses/ nested baskets, headbands, dog collars.

Some 200 sponsored girls receiving basic education.

BEADS also cultivates Human Rights Awareness and sponsored its first girls’ initiation ceremony August of 2006, and helps women to become economically independent through small business cooperatives. The programme also sponsors HIV/AIDS awareness workshops.

The second annual 100 miles BEADS for Education Break the Chains of Illiteracy Walkathon will take place in January, 2007. Walkers will walk from Isinya to Amboseli National Park.

Principal(s) Debbie Rooney and Lisa Stevens, Founders

[Source: http://www.beadsforeducation.org/]

Back to Annex Contents

Location Southern Kajiado District, Kenya.

Timing On-going, since 1998.

11

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Namelok Community Development Association Mission/Objective • Promotion of education in general and encouraging young people to take up higher education as a priority in their life

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: NACDA.

• Sensitization of the community about the importance of girl child education

Main Partners: GoK- KWS, Min of Health, department of Social service, Min. of Education, Constituency Dev. Fund, AWF,ATE, USAIDCORE.

• Advocacy on primary health care and HIV/AIDS

.

• Conservation of the natural environment through reforestation programs, protection of water catchments areas

Contact Info Box 165, Loitokitok

• Social welfare i.e. helping members in marriages and fundraising for higher education

Tel. +254 (0)724 644 595

Description Namelok Community Development Association (NACDA) is a community based organization formed that currently has a membership of about thirtysix with high school level of education and above. NACDA is registered as a Community Based Organization (CBO) with the Department of Social services and at the Kenya National Beekeepers Association. The geographical mandate of the Association spans three of the seven group ranches within the Amboseli ecosystem i.e. Kimana, Imbirikani and Olgulului/Ololarrashi group ranches. The association depends mainly on membership contribution, fundraising among members and donor funding to finance their operations.

The main activities to date comprise a community-run apiculture project begun in 2000 with an initial 200 hives donated by USAID/CORE. The hives turned out to be substandard. In 2003 AWF provided 100 hives (modern Langstroth hives) brought from African Beekeepers Limited. 98% of the hives were in production during the 2006 season.

The association intends to seek permission from the Namelok residents to manage the Namelok electric Fence Principal(s) Wilson Sirinketi Olmusheni, Chairman Location On three acres set aside within the fenced Namalok high-intensity irrigation zone.

Timing Founded 1998.

12

Funding source(s) The apiculture project is currently the main source of funding.

Products •

Most of the members have been through or undergoing college education with most of the girls who where married off back to school

•

Successfully participated in the Civic education provision on the run up to the last national Referendum

•

Promotion of the beekeeping activities and tree planting activities in the area

•

Distribution of litterbins within Namelok town- more needs to be done

•

Nearly 100 kg of honey for sale from the 2006 harvest.

[Source: D. Sitonik ] Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH Funding source(s) Maasai Settlement and Land-use, Landscape Mosaics, and the Spatial Patterning of Vegetation and Wildlife in East African Savannas Mission/Objective Three objectives: (1) to assess how fragmentation in the form of subdivision and sedentarization has affected the spatial and temporal patterning of Maasai settlements in the Group Ranches north of Amboseli NP; (2) to quantify the effects of settlements on local vegetation in order to understand the larger scale impacts of settlement change on vegetation heterogeneity at the landscape scale; (3) to assess the impacts of fragmentation on wildlife and livestock distributions in both the Group Ranches and the swamps of Amboseli Description Rangeland fragmentation through sedentarization, subdivision and the loss of key resources is rapidly emerging as a primary threat to the sustainability of livestock and wildlife populations in East African savannas. This is particularly true of the key wildlife dispersal areas of Amboseli National Park, where decades of water development and reductions in the scale of pastoral resource use has dramatically altered settlement and land-use patterns. The loss of flexibility associated with changes in the spatial and temporal pattern of settlement has increased the vulnerability of both wild and domestic herbivore populations to climatic variability and fundamentally altered the role of pastoral systems in the creation and maintenance of heterogeneity in savanna ecosystems. This project was designed to quantify the effects of subdivision and sedentarization on pastoral settlement patterns, livestock mobility and wildlife distributions in an effort to enhance our understanding of the role of pastoralists and their livestock in structuring savanna environments with the goal of informing conservation and management initiatives.

•

USAID CRSP Program through Colorado State University

•

National Science Foundation – Dissertation Enhancement Award

•

LUCID Project – GEF funds through Michigan State University and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

•

Reto-o-Reto Project – Belgian Government funds through ILRI

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: ILRI - International Livestock Research Institute Main Partners: Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University.

Contact Info Jeffrey S. Worden International Livestock Research Institute P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya 00100 Tel: 254-20-4223000 ext 4367 Fax: 254-20-4223001 Mobile: +254-733-333856 j.worden@cgiar.org Products Worden, J.S. (In prep). Maasai Settlement, Landscape Mosaics, and the Spatial Patterning of Vegetation and Wildlife in East African Savannas. PhD Dissertation, Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Colorado State University (to be completed in July 2006).

Sankaran, M., Hanan, N.P., Scholes, R.J., Ratnam1, J., Augustine, D. J., Cade, B.S. Gignoux, J., Higgins, S. I., Le Roux, X., Ludwig, F., Ardo, J., Banyikwa, F., Bronn, A., Bucini, G., Caylor, K.K., Coughenour, M.B. Diouf, A., Ekaya, W., Feral, C.J., February, E.C. Frost, P.G.H., Hiernaux, P., Hrabar, H., Metzger, K.L., Prins, H.T.T., Susan Ringrose, S., Sea, W., Tews, J., Worden, J., and N. Zambatis (2005) Determinants of woody cover in African savannas. Nature 438:846-849.

Boone,, BurnSilver,, et al. (2005) Quantifying.

Principal(s) Jeffrey S Worden Location The Greater Amboseli Ecosystem, with a special emphasis Amboseli National Park and Olgulului/Lolarashi, Eselenkei, and Osilalei Group Ranches Timing Field work was conducted from 1999 to 2002. Work currently in final stages of analysis and writing

BurnSilver, S.B., Worden, J.S., and R.B. Boone (In press) Processes of fragmentation in the Amboseli Ecosystem. Fragmentation in Semi-arid and Arid Landscapes: Consequences for Human and Natural Systems (Galvin, K.A., Reid, R.S., Behnke, R.H. and N.T. Hobbs, eds) Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands. Chapter 10.

Boone, R.B., S.B. BurnSilver, J.S. Worden, K.A. Galvin, and N.T. Hobbs. (In press). Large-scale movements of large herbivores: Livestock following changes in seasonal forage supply. Resource ecology: Spatial and temporal dynamics of foraging (H.H.T. Prins and F. van Langevelde, eds.).Wageningen University Resource Ecology Group and Frontis. Chapter 11.

Worden, J.S., R. S. Reid and H. Gichohi, (2003) Land-use impacts on large wildlife and livestock in the swamps of the greater Amboseli Ecosystem, Kajiado District, Kenya. LUCID working paper series number 27.

Rainy M.E. and J. S. Worden (2003) A preliminary report on a survey of predators in southern Kenya and northern Tanzania. Unpublished report for African Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi, Kenya.

[Source: J.S. Worden]

Back to Annex Contents

13

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Cheetah Conservation and Human Impact in Kenya Mission/Objective To evaluate the trends in cheetah populations in Kenya and develop programmes to reduce the impact of human conflict issues affecting the survival of the cheetah.

Description The Kenya Cheetah Conservation Project is an umbrella programme of the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF) Namibia using the successes in Namibia as models for developing research, education and community programmes. Census and cheetah monitoring activities aim to evaluate the changes in cheetah numbers while understanding the issues facing cheetah survival in Kenya.

Previous research in Kenya was focused in protected areas and game parks, yet it is estimated that as many as 90% of cheetah live on farmlands outside of protected parks and sanctuaries. Although viewed as a minimal threat to Kenyan livelihoods, predator conflict of any kind threatens livelihoods and produces negative tolerance for predators.

The cheetah is an example of a species under threat through conflict with man.

Reported cheetah sightings have decreased making it important to learn the reality and reason(s) for the apparent drop in numbers. The Cheetah Conservation Fund Kenya (CCFK) project is a satellite project under CCF Namibia. CCFK works within the communities and in affiliation with the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to develop initiatives aimed at reducing predator conflict. Together with KWS and in collaboration with other research and Non-Governmental Organizations we initiated a nation-wide census in 2004. This census provides information for long-term ecological and biomedical monitoring as well as information for use in policy development for predator management in mixed game and livestock regions. Policies for dealing with problem and orphan cheetah also rely on the collection of baseline information of habitat available for cheetah conservation initiatives.

This project conducts a nation-wide census of cheetah populations in Kenya using methods tested in 2005. As a part of the census study, specific ecological data is collected for habitat analysis. Information collected through census and monitoring programs aim to evaluate trends in cheetah population and includes analysis of issues of human/wildlife conflict. With this information a scientific approach can be taken in development of long-term study requirements and sites for the future survival of cheetahs in a healthy ecosystem. The information will be included in the overall database for the development of educational materials used in environmental education and awareness campaigns. The proposed aspects of the study work in conjunction with each other to form a long-term study of Cheetah Conservation and Human Impact in 14

Kenya. The three programs are: Cheetah Census with EAWLS and KWS; education and awareness campaigns; and telemetry and community development in Machakos and GPS to mobile phone tracking of ranch and park dispersal cheetahs.

Principal(s) Mary Wykstra-Ross (Kenya Programme Coordinator), Laurie Marker, PHD (CCF Founder and Namibia based advisor), Cosmas Wambua (Kenya Research Assistant).

Location CCFK operates from a base in Nairobi while conducting census activities. A case study of suspected problem cheetahs has been initiated in the Machakos Wildlife Forum near Salama.

Timing CCFK initiated studies in December 2001. Current research permits are secure through October 2007.

Funding source(s) Funding is channeled through the CCF international headquarters in the USA. Small grants and private donations supplement the CCF dedicated funding for the project.

CCF also receives support from UK, Canada and Japan ‘chapters’.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Cheetah Conservation Fund - Namibia Trust, a USA 501c(3) non-profit organization.

Main Partners: Kenya Wildlife Service, East African Wildlife Society, Machakos Wildlife Forum.

Contact Info Cheetah Conservation Fund - Kenya PO Box 1611 Nairobi 00606 254 (0)733997910 or (0)721631664 cheetah@africaonline.co.ke Products Cheetah Conservation Fund Newsletter (out of Namibia) [Source: Mary Wykstra-Ross]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

[Longido Elephant Research Project]

[Source: extractions from email correspondence ]

Back to Annex Contents

Mission/Objective xxxx Description [A graduate research programme based on following individually-known (some radiocollared) elephants in order to of which I tagged in order to identify corridors, habitats use and general ranging pattern for the Amboseli elephants occupying the Tanzanian portion of the ecosystem.

Principal(s) Alfred Kikoti Location Longido Game Control Area, West Kilimanjaro Ranch, Natron Game Control Areas: the southwestern portion of Amboseli ecosystem in Tanzania Timing On-going since 2001 Funding source(s) University of Massachusetts; AWF (Charlotte Fellow Graduate Study Program) Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: University of Massachusetts Main Partners: Tanzanian Game Authority, TANAPA, AWF Contact Info Alfred Kikoti University of Massachusetts Dept. of Natural Resources Conservation 160 Holdsworth Hall Amherst, MA 01003, USA (413) 546-5919 Cell: 413 687 2629 Email: akikoti@forwild.umass.edu

Products xxx 15

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

People-Wildlife Relationship in the Amboseli Ecosystem Mission/Objective The research aims to (1) characterise the different types of attitudes towards wildlife across a range of land tenure/use situations, in two different Maasai sections, with differential access to tourism and community-based conservation economic benefits; and (2) identify the cultural, socioeconomic and demographic factors that explain the different types of attitudes towards the local wild fauna.

Description [Field study based on interviews within sample frame.]

Principal(s) Joana Roque de Pinho (Ph.D. Candidate, Colorado State University) Location Research conducted in two swamps in Mbirikani Group Ranch (Namelok and Kalesirua), in Meshenani Ridge (Olgulului-Lolarrash GR) and in privates ranches of former Osilalei Group ranch (Matapato section).

Timing Fieldwork took place between April 2002 and July 2004. Thesis currently being written up.

Funding source(s) The Fulbright Foundation - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (PRAXIS XXI Research Grant, Ministério da - Ciência e da Tecnologia, Portugal) - USAID - Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program - The Jim Ellis Graduate Mentorship Award (GL-CRSP) - The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: The Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA Main Partners: ILRI. Contact Info Joana Roque de Pinho 16

Av. Alvares Cabral, 28, 50 dto, 1250 Lisbon Portugal joana_rpinho@yahoo.com Products Galvin, K. A., P. K. Thornton, J. Roque de Pinho, J. Sunderland, and R. B. Boone. 2005.

Integrated Modelling and its Potential for Resolving Conflicts between Conservation and People in the Rangelands of East Africa. Accepted for publication in Human Ecology.

Roque dePinho, J. In progress. “Staying Together: People-Wildlife Relationship in the Amboseli Ecosystem, south eastern Kenya. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University Roque de Pinho, J. 2004. African Pastoralists: Interactions and Perceptions – An Annotated Bibliography. Pastoral Livelihoods and Wildlife Conservation Project, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.

Roque de Pinho, J. 2004. “Staying together”: People-Wildlife Relationship in the Amboseli Ecosystem, South Eastern Kenya. Research Brief for the Global LivestockCollaborative Research Support Program (USAID).

Roque de Pinho, J. 2004. “Staying together”: People-Wildlife Relationship in the Amboseli Ecosystem, South Eastern Kenya. Interim Report to Global Livestock-CRSP (USAID). 17 pp.

Roque de Pinho, J. (in prep) “Rhino Eaters”: contrasting and changing perceptions of wild animal meat as food in two Maasai section of south eastern Kenya and implications for conservation.

Roque de Pinho, J. (in prep) “Pleasing the Eye”: Maasai aesthetic and perceptions of wildlife in the Amboseli Ecosystem, south eastern Kenya.

[Source: Joana Roque de Pinho, Jan ‘06]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Amboseli Carnivore Monitoring Project Mission/Objective To monitor the carnivores, particularly lions and spotted hyenas in Amboseli National Park, to assess the relationships between these carnivores, and to implement basic ecological monitoring relevant to the carnivore populations.

Description The Amboseli Carnivore Monitoring project was initiated in order to address issues germane to carnivore biology and conservation. The project goals are to: 1. Undertake detailed monitoring of lions (Panthera leo) and spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) in Amboseli. General records of other large carnivores (e.g. cheetah and African wild dog) are also maintained.

2. Monitor and quantify interspecific competition between lions and hyenas, and thereby attempt to determine the extent to which each of these species affects the behavior, reproduction, stress physiology, and demography of the other.

3. Implement a program of basic ecological monitoring relevant to the carnivore populations, including records of prey density and biodiversity, tourist visitation to carnivores, and climate variables such as rainfall and temperature.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Michigan State University Main Partners: Kenya Wildlife Service.

Contact Info Dr. Kay Holekamp Dept of Zoology Michigan State University 203 Natural Science East Lansing, MI 48824-1115, USA holekamp@msu.edu Products Semi-annual reports were provided to Kenya Wildlife Service. A film was made for National Geographic Television by The Kratt Brothers Inc. We are currently preparing manuscripts for publication in scientific journals

4. Work collaboratively with Kenya Wildlife Service and other researchers in Amboseli in order to ensure that our project yields data useful to all stakeholders.

Principal(s) Dr. Kay Holekamp and Heather Watts, Michigan State University.

Location The project was based from a camp at the Public Campsite. Carnivore monitoring focused within the park boundaries, particularly in the central area of the park.

Timing July 2003 to July 2005. Currently funds are being sought to re-start the project.

Funding source(s) National Science Foundation, USA

[Source: Kay Holekamp]

Back to Annex Contents

17

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH Principal(s) Chyulu Hills Rhino Programme Mission/Objective To ensure the survival of rhinoceros in the wild, in this case, the remnant population in the Chyulu Hills.

Description Save the Rhino International (SRI) supports projects world-wide that address rhino conservation through:

David Stirling and Cathy Dean of Save the Rhino International, Richard Bonham (Ol Donyo Wuas/ Masailand Preservation Trust), Martin Mulama and Ben Okita (Kenya Wildlife Service).

Location Eastern Mbirikani Group Ranch.

Timing On-going since 2003.

•

Community conservation programmes that develop sustainable methods by which local communities can creatively manage natural resources;

•

Environmental education programmes that teach children and adults about the importance of preserving natural resources and reducing human-wildlife conflict;

•

Anti-poaching and monitoring patrols to detect and deter poachers and gather information about rhino ranges and numbers;

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Save the Rhino International

•

Translocations to reintroduce rhinos from established populations into former habitats;

Main Partners: Ol Donyo Wuas / Maasailand Preservation Trust, KWS, Lewa Downs Conservancy (secondment of rangers for training).

•

Research into survival threats to rhino and alternatives to the use of rhino horn;

•

Vet work, such as the implanting of transmitters into horns, or removal of snares.

Contact Info Save the Rhino International 16 Winchester Walk London SE1 9AQ United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 7357 7474 F: +44 (0)20 7357 9666 E: info@savetherhino.org

Richard Bonham of the Masailand Preservation Trust approached SRI in 2003 for urgent support to assist Ol Donyo Wuas' attempts to conserve the remnant population of black rhinos in the lava thicket foothills of the Chyulus. Forming a funding coalition with Chester Zoo, the International Rhino Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service and other donor agencies, SRI has facilitated the awarding of some £40,000 per year since then, paying for the purchase of a Landrover, water bowser and fuel and maintenance costs, salaries of the Mbirikani community scouts, camping and rhino monitoring equipment and improved radio communications between the KWS rangers at Kitia and Mbikirani base camp. With training provided by Lewa Downs Conservancy, and plans for enhanced GIS mapping and dung DNA analysis during 2006-7, the Chyulu Hills rhino population is looking much more secure: •

Rangers and scouts now are observing more regularly rhinos;

•

Patrols are able to stay out overnight rather than having to return to camp

•

The rangers and scouts are better able to conduct their anti-poaching patrols

18

Funding source(s) Save the Rhino International, the Chester Zoo, International Rhino Foundation, US Fish and Wildlife Service.

www.savetherhino.org Products A well-trained and equipped force of local rangers.

[Source: www.savetherhino.org; Cathy Dean]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Spatial-temporal distribution of African elephants and their interaction with humans in Kimana and Kuku area of Tsavo-Amboseli National Parks wildlife dispersal area Mission/Objective xxxx Description xxxx Principal(s) John Kioko Masila Location Oloitokitok region of Amboseli ecosystem Timing On-going since 2003 Funding source(s) University of Massachusetts; AWF (Charlotte Fellow Graduate Study Program) Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: x..

Main Partners: xxx.

Contact Info xxx

Products xxx [Source:

]

Back to Annex Contents

19

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project Mission/Objective The Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project is working to restore, conserve and manage viable populations of large carnivores by developing management techniques that foster coexistence of people, livestock and predators in areas bordering parks and other regions without formal protection.

Description Large predators have been eliminated from most of the world because they prey on livestock.

Only in the last few years has the public become aware that populations of African lions have plummeted while no one was watching. Recent continent-wide estimates suggest that roughly 23,000 lions remain, that most of these are in national parks, and that fully half are in one country, Tanzania. Few parks are large enough to ensure long term survival of these wide ranging species, and because conflict with livestock is by far the most serious threat to large carnivores, it is critical that we find methods to integrate predator conservation with realistic livestock management.

There has been extraordinarily little prior research on livestock depredation, the one factor overwhelmingly responsible for the extermination of large predators. This is one of the few integrated investigations into the ecology, management and conservation of large predators in human-dominated African landscapes.

The project is planning to undertake a Maasailand Predator Survey throughout southern Kenya.

Sand and dirt roads will be driven slowly with a person on the front of the vehicle looking for large carnivore tracks. The number of tracks found for each species is expressed in relation to the total length of road (transect) driven. This will give an index of the relative density of carnivores in different regions.

Principal(s) Laurence Frank (project director) Seamus Maclennan (lion biology and lion-livestock interface study)

Timing KLCP was established in March 2004. It is likely to run for at least another 2 years. The intention is to shut down the project after appropriate carnivore management and monitoring solutions have been formed.

Funding source(s) Entirely through individual donors, trusts and non-profit organisations, including: the National Geographic Society, the Wildlife Conservation society, the Bosack-Kruger foundation, private individuals and AWF. Institutional Affiliation Parent Body: Wildlife Conservation Society Main Partners: Mbirikani Predator Compensation Project, Amboseli-Tsavo game scout association, WCS international, AWF, African School for field studies, Ol Donyo Wuas Lodge.

Contact Info Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project PO Box 24133 Karen, 00502, Nairobi mobile: 0720857062 email: seamus@lion-research.org Products Article: No longer king of the jungle, Claire Footit, Times Online, 19 February 2005 Report: (unpublished) annual report 2004; Laikipia Predator Project and Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project

Shari Rodriguez (Mbirikani Predator Compensation Project evaluation)

Report: (unpublished) annual report 2005; Laikipia Predator Project and Kilimanjaro Lion Conservation Project

Ogeto Mwebi (investigation of herding strategies / methods of Mbirikani and Laikipia communities with reference to predation of stray animals)

Presentation: “The King is Dying” (a description of the evolution and necessity of Predator compensation). Audience: Explorer’s Club international, 2005; conservation International, 2005.

Leela Hazzah (Mapping vulnerability, tolerance and risk factors of Maasai communities surrounding Chyulu Hills National Park, with reference to livestock depredation)

[Source: S. Maclennan]

Location The primary study area is Mbirikani Group ranch, between Chyulu and Amboseli National Parks.

Principal investigators mentioned above work out of a base camp near Ol Donyo Wuas lodge.

20

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Maasailand Ecological Research Mission/Objective Description The work is divided into several phases. The first phase which is now complete was to undertake a detailed ecological assessment of two Group Ranches, Merueshi and Mbirikani, including the abundance and distribution of people, livestock and wildlife, a survey of the vegetation (including grass) and soil characteristics, surface water monitoring and an analysis of human movement patterns.

Institutional Affiliation Parent Body: University of Bristol, UK Main Partners: The project works with ACC, KWS, MPT, the Group Ranch Committees and any land-use planning groups.

Contact Info Rosemary Groom <Rosemary.Groom@bristol.ac.uk>

The second phase will look at the impact of different settlement types on the environment and wildlife to assess the ecological impact of sedentarisation of previously nomadic people. This will commence in January 2006 and run for 6-8 months.

Products

The third phase, which will overlap in timing with phase 2, will be to construct an ecological economic model to assess the costs and benefits from wildlife, livestock and agriculture under different land use options. An economic balance sheet will be produced for three scenarios – continuing as a communal ranch, subdividing the entire ranch into equal sized plots, or subdividing part of the ranch whilst leaving a communal concession area.

[Source: R. Groom]

Back to Annex Contents

The fourth phase will ideally be to implement the findings of the study into the greater picture, and have the results used during the planning stages of the new land use policies.

Principal(s) Rosemary Groom Location Two Kajiado District Group Ranches, Merueshi and Mbirikani.

Timing The project commenced in August 2004 and fieldwork will continue until mid-late 2006 Funding source(s) University of Bristol, UK 21

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Kajiado Wild Dog Research Mission/Objective xxxx Description xxxx Principal(s) Dr. Mike Rainey Location Elangata Wuas & Meto Hills (northwest corner of Amboseli ecosystem) Timing xxx Funding source(s) xxx Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: x..

Main Partners: xxx.

Contact Info xxx

Products xxx [Source: [xxx

22

]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: AERP/SEVP. Mitigating Human-Elephant Conflict in the Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya

Main Partners: School for Field Studies, KWS, ACC, AWF.

Mission/Objective To limit escalating human-elephant conflict in the Amboseli ecosystem and to promote harmonious co-existence.

Contact Info Winnie Kiiru c/o Amboseli Trust for Elephants PO Box 15135 Langata 00509 Nairobi, Kenya

Description The HEC project was initiated by the Amboseli Trust for Elephants/Amboseli Elephant Research Project (ATE/AERP). The project strategy comprises investigating ways to encourage elephants away from agricultural areas, stimulating appropriate land use, understanding patterns of crop-raiding elephants, developing conflict mitigation tools and methods and empowering communities to use their own resources to manage human-elephant conflict.

In the first phase of the project efforts have been dedicated at mobilizing the community, developing and introducing deterrents to the field and seeking wider collaboration with the stakeholders working in the Amboseli ecosystem. In a series of public meetings, the project team presented the project goals and scope to organizations, local community groups and other stakeholders, all of whom have shown enthusiastic support for the project. The creation of local ownership of elephant mitigation efforts is a major achievement. Introduction and pilot testing of deterrents (chilli and oil tainted perimeter lines, noise-makers, lights) have already reduced the number of HEC incidents as well as reduced the pressure on (and costs to) the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) for more drastic intervention.

info@elephantrust.org winniekiiru@yahoo.co.uk

Products Practical, appropriate HEC solutions in place; research theses (in prep.)

[Source: AERP ]

Back to Annex Contents

Principal(s) Winnie Kiiru (through February 2006); John Kioko Location Southeastern ecosystem on parts of Kimana and Olgulului/ Ololarrashi Group Ranches Timing Originally 36 mo from August 2004, but funding for the third year had not been secured.

Funding source(s) US Fish and Wildlife/AECF, the Born Free Foundation and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

23

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

South Rift Association of Land owners (SORALO) Mission/Objective “…to spearhead the opening up of the southern tourism circuit and also promote the creation of conservation areas in the face of on-going sub-division of group ranches.” (http://www.conservationafrica.org/) Description The South Rift Association of Land Owners (SORALO) is a society comprised of of landowners from 14 group ranches between Namanga and and the Loita. SOROLO aspires to enhance wildlife conservation and management in the six group ranches of southern Kajiado through: • Improved security for tourists and wildlife • Reduced poaching, deforestation, wildfires and charcoal burning • Improved management of the environment and the natural resources • Reduced incidents of human/wildlife conflicts Principal(s) xxx Location Nominally spans the south rift from the Loita to Namanga, and hence the far western portion of the Amboseli ecosystem.

Timing Launched in September 2005 Funding source(s) EU has provided start-up funding.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: n/a.

Main Partners: ACC, EU. Contact Info xxx

24

Products n/a [Source: ACC website; ]

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Wings for Africa Mission/Objective To understand (‘l’étude diagnostique’) the interactions existing between animal migration routes, human settlements and vegetation cover.

Description Wings for the Earth (WFE) began in Kenya in 1999 originally as the Maisha Trust. It is an apolitical and non-denominational environmental NGO supporting projects and “working for the harmony between the people and their environment”. Its methods involve aerial survey complemented by a team-ground working on education and environmental sensitisation to leverage development in the social, economic and cultural life of the country. Presently in Kenya, WFE has a scientific, socio-economic, educational and cultural approach within the total strategy of the fight against poverty in the service of the natural patrimony of humanity (“Spécifiquement présente au Kenya , des Ailes pour la Terre a une démarche scientifique, socio-économique, éducative et culturelle qui s’inscrit dans la stratégie globale de lutte contre la pauvreté au service du Patrimoine naturel de l’humanité”).

WFE’s Human Conflict Elephant (‘Ngaissi’) component aims to protect the Amboseli elephant migration corridor by involving local communities in the management of the project with the aim to stopping the man-elephant conflict (“Protection du corridor de migration des éléphants d'Amboseli en impliquant les communautés locales dans la gestion du projet dans le but d'enrayer le conflit hommes-éléphants.”). Environmental information exchange through teaching workshops on biodiversity and hygiene for the Maasai community are key to this component.

Principal(s) Alexis Peltier, a professional bush pilot and photographer who has resided in Kenya for more than twenty years; Anne Wattebled; Pierre Lavagna.

Location Eastern Amboseli ecosystem at Amboseli Sopa Lodge Timing Ongoing since 1999.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: WFE. Main Partners: (as listed in the website) Diocèse de Monaco, Fondation 30 Millions d’Amis, Fondation Massimo Gaïa, Zonta Club de Monaco, University of Colorado, Kenya Wildlife Service, African Wildlife Foundation Contact Info Wings for Earth - des Ailes pour la Terre Monaco 8, Avenue des Papalins Galerie Princesse Stéphanie 98000 MONACO Wings for Earth - des Ailes pour la Terre France Villa Savana Lodge - Chemin de la Chapelle 2426 Avenue de Lattre de TassignySaint Laurent d’Eze, 06360 Eze France Wings for Earth Kenya - Maisha Trust Maisha Trust PO BOX 34304 Nairobi KENYA

Products Photographs.

(Documentation section of website under construction.)

[Source: http://www.wingsforearth.org/ & http://www.alexis-peltier.com] Back to Annex Contents

Funding source(s) Private donor.

25

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATION & RESEARCH

Amboseli Community Wildlife Tourism Project Mission/Objective • To reduce the poverty of the rural Maasai population • To secure the biodiversity of the Amboseli ecosystem • To engender sustainable conservation amongst the Maasai community landowners • To reduce the reliance on livestock by generating income from wildlife • To increase direct benefits for the community from wildlife tourism Description The Amboseli Community Wildlife Tourism Project (ACWTP) is run by local people from an office in Loitokitok, Kenya. It is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) with an administrator and a board of directors. External expertise is provided by a technical adviser. ACWTP is committed to saving the Amboseli ecosystem by encouraging the Maasai landowners to use the wildlife they have on their doorstep as a resource. to bring

an additional income through wildlife tourism, either directly or though generation of employment. At the same time ACWTP demonstrates that more wildlife on GR land will actually improve the grazing and thereby the value of livestock.

Wildlife tourism is the one viable enterprise that, if managed correctly: • is sustainable throughout the whole area • will help to return the arid land to productivity • will bring a much-needed second income to the landowners ACWTP facilitates the setting aside of such areas for wildlife tourism. Already it has helped a number of landowners to mark out viable areas and has introduced them to reputable tour companies who are renting the areas, paying bed-night fees, and employing the local people, and introduce a ‘land-holding rental’ scheme. It is planned to contribute to establishing two permanent water supplies.

The project operates a mobile video unit and for presentations to all 41 primary schools in the Amboseli area (funded by Drusillas Park, a zoo in Sussex). Daniel Morinke talks to the children and explains why wildlife is important to them and how it can even become the means by which they can continue their education through to secondary school and even to university. The video shows visitors paying to enter national parks to see and photograph animals. It explains why wildlife is a good thing and can be used as a resource.

26

Implications from the website is that ACWTP was involved in the establishment of Images on the website imply that ACWTP was involved in the establishment of Eselenkei and Kimana wildlife concession schemes; specific modalities are not reported.

[A link on the website http://www.amboseli.org/problem.htm asserts incorrectly that all wildlife population numbers in the ecosystem are declining exponentially.]

Principal(s) David Lovatt-Smith, Technical Advisor Daniel Morinke, Administrator and Lecturer Location Throughout the ecosystem from an office base in Oloitokitok.

Timing On-going?

Funding source(s) The Mayer Foundation of Liechtenstein, The Kenya Wildlife Trust, Drusillas Park, British Airways, The Irish African/Asian Conservation And Wildlife Trust Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: ACWTP Main Partners: (as above).

Contact Info David Lovatt-Smith acwtp@amboseli.org Products Video presentation for school children.

[Source: http://www.amboseli.org] Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Maasailand Preservation Trust (Ol Donyo Wuas) Description The Maasailand Preservation Trust (MPT) is the only privately-run, community-supporting, profit-making enterprise on the Mbirikani Group Ranch. At the centre of the operation is the exclusive Ol Donyo Wuas lodge. The owners have long wildlife conservation and management experience in Africa and are totally dedicate to making MPT work. Like many eco-friendly lodges, it is profitable – both to the owners and the community that hosts the operation – but not exploitative. Nothing is extracted from the ecosystem that is not replenished, even money, since the owners live full time on the property working hand-in-hand with staff from the immediate community.

The MPT annually injects some USD 181,000 directly into the GR economy, comprising: rents and conservation fees (40,000); wages, both trust and lodge (89.000); predator compensation project (30,000); bursaries (12,000); bird shooting/camping fees (5,000); local purchases (5,0000.

Overgrazing on the group ranch is a major threat. The area is currently overstocked by 500% according to estimates of stocking rate from the Ministry of Livestock Development (R. Bonham, pers. comm.). The conservation core around the lodge used to serve as a dry season ‘grassbank’.

After a particularly bad November 2005 rains, when the grass should be knee-high, it had already been eaten down to basal level. Annual grass fires that long contributed to the ecological patchiness of Maasailand have not occurred on Mirikani for the past five years, and Solanum, a Solanacaea held to be an indicator of disturbed grassland, is believed to more prevalent than in the past. The rains have not been exceptionally bad over the past five years, so the apparent vegetation change seems to be grazing-induced.

Well-off Maasai from other areas (as far afield as Namanga are moving their cattle into the foothill grazing and purchasing water for their |livestock at KES 1.50 to 2.00 per lire. There is clear indication of the emergence of a powerful elite: 30% of the people own 70% of the cattle on Mbirikani, with some individuals running 1500-2000 head (a figure of 10,000 has been attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to one MP).

Even ‘though all Maasai know that all it takes is water to invade and overexploit a refuge grazing area, there is a plan to put an 8 km pipeline spur from the mainline at Mbirikani to just below the Oldonyo Wuas lodge. Everyone -- except the pipeline spur developer and, unbelievably, AMREF that seems to have funded the feasibility study – knows the permanent water there will attract huge numbers of livestock, exacerbate the overgrazing and spoil the attractiveness of the site for tourists.

Another sign of overgrazing on the Ranch is the year-round invasion by herds of the Chyulus and Tsavo West National Parks. In the past, such incursion only occurred in the worst dry seasons.

The British Army built two dams on the ranch in the past and then the Group Ranch committee established a grazing policy stipulating that the dams were only to be used in the short rains (November). The Committee found it could not manage the grazing of the strong-willed herders, so it was agreed that the dams should be breached to avoid overuse of the areas.

27

APT and the Community are discussing functional Subdivisions the ranch into ca. 20,000 ha management flocks for controlled grazing regimes as well as matching with the current zones for predator compensation, each one of which has a game scout (see below).

Community outreach. The APT is supporting a number of school children: 20 in the past and currently 21 plus 13 more being supported by Anne Laurie, a founding donor of APT and row the benefactor of the will-affronted and much-appreciated Mbirikani Clinic.

Revenue Sharing. KWS gave KWS 850,000 in 2004 to each Group Ranch as part of the Bursary Fund.

Principal(s) Richard and Tara Bonham; Tom Hill, Trustee Location Mbirikani Group Ranch, with a designated conservation core, nestled in the lower western slopes of the Chyulu Hills; S -2.526980, E 37.731930.

Timing On-going since xxx Funding source(s) Funded from commercial operations of he lodge.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Richard Bonham Safaris Ltd..

Main Partners: : Neighbouring community-based activities (such as Campi ya Kanzi), NGOs such as ATGSA.. Mbirikani Group Ranch Mobile Health Clinic

Contact Info Richard Bonham Safaris Ltd P.O.Box 24133 Nairobi 00502 Kenya Tel: +254 (0) 20 600457 or 605108 or 609745 or 609699 Fax: +254 (0) 20 605008 Mobile: +254 (0) 733 347189 or +254 (0) 721 464477

[Source: R. Bonham; http://www.richardbonhamsafaris.com/]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Selenkay Conservancy and Porini Camp Mission/Objective Preservation of Africa’s unique wildlife and landscapes and support of local communities through sustainable ecotourism that benefits the local communities and gives visitors a rewarding experience.

Description The Selenkay Conservancy and the Porini eco-camp operate on Eselenkei Group ranch North of Amboseli National Park. The exclusive eco-friendly tented Porini Camp is owned and run as a profit-making business by Gamewatchers Safaris that works in partnership with rural landowners and communities to run a viable business that enables the community to derive benefits in return for conserving wildlife and its habitat. Porini Group of Camps is a practical model that implements principles of sustainable eco-tourism. It is dedicated to providing clients with exemplary personalized service.

Porini accommodates a maximum of 12 guests. The six spacious tents under Acacias are comfortably furnished, lighted with solar power, with water-saving safari showers and flush toilets. All staff (apart from the camp manager, head chef and head guide) are from the local community, and guests have the opportunity to interact and learn about them and their culture.

There are no other tourists or vehicles in the conservancy, allowing guests to enjoy a unique experience compared to traditional mass-tourist lodges and camps.

The income from visitors is used to manage and improve the conservancy and to pay the lease, tourist entry and bed-night fees and salaries of the camp staff, conservancy rangers and workers.

Porini has an exclusive lease for the conservancy and pays an annual rental that increases 10% annually.

The local community benefits directly from natural resources and now does not have to rely exclusively on livestock. Previously job opportunities in the area were almost non-existent; now the project is the biggest employer on the Group Ranch, employing over 50 people. The hiring policy takes on people proportional to the numbers represented in the three main clans in the area.

Representation is rotated among the clans. Three is a problem ofTake-home wages of individual members are over KES 8,000 ($110) per month for the most junior staff; and over KES 5m ($70,000) in cash is flowing into the community in the form of wages. In total, the project is now generatesn annually increasing cash flow of over KES 7m ($98,000) a year directly into the community with no direct cost to the community. The members see the wildlife as a resource which belongs to them and are enthusiastic about encouraging wildlife to move into their

Conservancy.

Principal(s) Jake Grieves-Cook, a Kenyan citizen who has been involved in tourism and wildlife conservation in Kenya for over 30 years Location The 7000 hectare Selenkay Conservancy is located within the 74,795 hectare Eselenkei Group Ranch in Kajiado District. Amboseli Porini Camp (S02-28-386, E037-18-275) is located within the Selenkay Conservancy.Timing Funding source(s) Funding entirely by Gamewatchers Safaris with initial assistance from IFAW in providing waterhole for wildlife and in employing game scouts and commencement of project prior to establishing tourist safari camp Timing On-going since May 1997 Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Gamewatchers Safaris in Nairobi runs and manages both the Amboseli Porini Camp and the Selenkay Conservancy..

Main Partners: In Amboseli: Eselenkei Group Ranch and Amboseli-Tsavo Game Scouts Association .

Contact Info Gamewatchers Safaris PO Box 388 Village Market 00621 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 7123129, 7122504 jake@wananchi.com www.porini.com Products Contribution to public awareness through, for example, interviews on the BBC website, citing as good practice in textbooks, lectures to eco-tourism groups and inclusion in the World Tourism Organisation’s Directory of Best Practice in Ecotourism.

[Source: Mohanjeet Brar]

28

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust (Campi ya Kanzi) Mission/Objective To protect and preserve the Maasai wilderness, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Amboseli/Tsavo ecosystem through community-based conservation projects.

Description The Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust (MWCT) provides the legal and institutional basis for community-based conservation on Kuku Group Ranch. The principal has a management contract with the GR to operate Campi ya Kanzi (CyK) on the basis of a lease for the space and collection and disbursement of a per capita Conservation Fee of USD 40 paid by each visitor.

MWCT and CyK provide some KES 20m (just over USD 285,000) per annum directly to the community. That amounts to roughly KES 5,000 per GR member per year, about the same that a family can earn sharecropping around the Orbasare springs near Iltalal village. The amounts of the periodic payments and to whom they were paid are posted publicly so all GR members are aware of monies generated and payments made. Campi ya Kanzi aims to provide a close-to-nature eco-tourism experience coupled with a friendly introduction to the Maasai community. The operation is indeed eco-friendly, using solar voltaics, water conservation and recycling, composting and cooking on coffee-husk charcoal.

MWCT supports direct development on the GR, for example, by refurbishing at its own cost the Iltalal borehole in exchange for an agreed-upon no grazing zone immediately around the lodge. The borehole will provide an attractor for cattle herds and hopefully reduce the growing pressure on the spring and woodlands around Orbasare. MWCT is negotiating the establishing of a 10,000 acres conservancy to create a black rhino sanctuary. and training to the community-run Motijanji Wildlife.

Water, particularly the management of the major streams the flow into Kuku and Rombo Group Ranches is a major issue. Campi ya Kanzi is creating a waterhole near the lodge to keep the elephants around for longer in the season (there are ca. 400 on the GR during the rain; a group of 120 has been observed), but are weighing the potential benefits of diverting elephant attention from cultivation at Ilchalai, a wetland NE of Kimana against the potential costs of increased impacts on local vegetation. MWCT is studying alternative paradigms to the interpretation of overstocking and overgrazing, using concepts developed in Zimbabwean rangelands.

Campi ya Kanzi is a member of the Ecotourism Kenya (Bronze rating) and is a member of The International Ecotourism Society. Has won several awards: Conservation Award 29

Winner 2006 in Tourism for Tomorrow; Skål International Ecotourism Award 2005; finalist for World Legacy Award 2004.

Employment. MWCT and CyK employ a total of 108 persons from the community; 45 work for the Camp, the rest for the Trust, including support to 30 scouts, all member of ATGSA. Principal(s) Luca and Antonella Belpietro, Samson Parashina Location Kuku Group Ranch, in foothills of Chyulu Hills; S -2.775530, E37.891660.

Timing MWCT was registered in 2000.

Funding source(s) Revenues from the operations of Campi ya Kanzi; donations to MWCT. Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust in Kenya. In the USA, the Maasai Foundation of East Africa, a 501( c) 3 not-for-profit organisation. Maasai Wilderness Onlus, a not for profit Italian organisation Main Partners: MWCT has an agreement of collaboration and common policy with Maasailand Preservation Trust, operating in neighbouring Mbirikani Group Ranch.

NGOs such as ATGSA. Contact Info Luca Safari Ltd PO Box 236, 90128 Mtito Andei Tel: +254-045 622516 or +254-734-461300 email: lucasaf@africaunlimited.co.ke www.maasai.com www.maasaifoundation.org [Source :Luca Belpeitro, Dec-06 ]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Kitirua Conservation Trust Mission/Objective To advance the education and relieve the poverty of the members of Olgulului/Ololarrashi Group Ranch through the preservation and management of its wildlife and natural habitat.

Description The Kitirua Conservation Trust was formed established and registered under the Trust Acts of Kenya by Kimbla-Mantana and Ker & Downey to directly help the people of the Olgulului/Ololarrashi GR to set up and operate up-market safari tourism in the form of a private mobile safari camp is pitched in a stand of Acacia tortilis trees with direct views of Kilimanjaro.

The trust agreement defined a 147,013 hectare trapezoidal area in the southwestern part of the GR that should be dedicated to wildlife based tourism, both from the mobile safari camps and from the clients of Tortilis Camp.

It was explicitly stated that benefits to the community should include, apart from negotiated concession fees establishing an maintaining road boreholes bridges clinics and schools.

It appears that as of mid-2006, the agreement between the GR and the concessionaires is in danger of breaking down.

Principal(s) n/a Location Southwest of Amboseli National Park, between Kitirua Hill and the international border.

Timing Trust established in 1999 Funding source(s) Annual concession fee generated from up-market tourism revenues.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: n/a.

30

Main Partners: Kerr & Downey, Kimbla-Mantanax, Cheli & Peacock (Tortilis Camp), (Ambercrobe & Kent was part of original agreement, but have now withdrawne from the partnership).

Contact Info Ker and Downey Safaris info@kerdowney.com Products n/a [Source: C. Moss ]

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Amboseli/Tsavo Game Scouts Association

Timing On-going (conceived in 1989, registered under the Kenya Societies Act in April, 2003)

Mission/Objective To enhance wildlife conservation and management in the group ranches of the Amboseli/Tsavo ecosystem.

Funding source(s) Equipment and training have been provided by NGOs and KWS. Operations funded by contributions from ecosystem-based lodges and concessions..

Description The Amboseli/Tsavo Game Scouts Association (ATGSA) works in the six Group Ranches of Loitokitok Division, Kajiado District: Eselenkei, Kimana, Imbirikani, Olgulului/ Ololarrashi, Kuku and Rombo Group Ranches. .

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: self

Each Group Ranch employed community game scouts to provide security to wildlife outside protected areas of Amboseli/Tsavo. The strength of these units vary its size, efficiency, resources. They rely mainly on the support of the private sector companies or concessions operating within individual ranches for finance and coordination.

Contact Info Jackson Parmeteu Kirruti PO Box 84 Loitokitok 00209 Kenya tel 0724 650721

In June 2001 the then 59 Maasai Community Scouts of the GRs called a meeting to form their own Association in order to expend and improve their capacity to address wildlife issues on their respective ranches. It was resolved to establish and registered a new association. The Maasailand Preservation Trust and the Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary attended the meeting and were asked to assist and advise in registration and fund raising.

The immediate beneficiaries will be the 80 Game Scouts and the ATGSA eco-tourism enterprises in the community areas, as well as tour operators working in Amboseli, Tsavo and Chyulu National Parks, The Group Ranch members who share the financial benefits of wildlife/tourist will also benefit.

ATGSA has achieved considerable success, with the arrest of nearly 100 poachers and confiscation and destructions of some 700 snares. In addition, numerous confiscations of poachers’ equipment have included: bows and arrows, hunting spotlights, pangas, poachers’ bicycle and vehicles used in transporting game meat. Charcoal rings have been busted and the dealers arrested, and numerous trophies – elephant tusks, cheetah and leopards skins – have been seized and returned to the government authorities. .

Principal(s) Jackson Parmeteu Kirruti, Coordinator Location ATGSA Headquarters are at Imbirikani.

31

Main Partners: KWS, AWF, ATE/AERP, ACC, KIFAW.

Products n/a [Source: http://www.conservationafrica.org/conservation-projects/projectdetails.php?pid=1 Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Ol Kanjau Mission/Objective Ol Kanjau aims to reveal in very special way the ecological, behavioural, and conservation patterns of animal lives to a visitor that can take a few days to appreciate, observe and wonder about – the accumulation of natural history information that the principals have taken decades to build.

Description Ol Kanjau, the “Camp of the Elephants”, is a traditional style eco-friendly tented camp, exclusive to 12 or less visitors. In addition to close elephant watching, Ol Kanjau offers day and night game drives through the Amboseli grasslands, bush walks, and bird watching in the swamps and woodlands. The principals have a special relationship with the Maasai allowing for visits to neighbouring Maasai settlements.

Principal(s) Mike and Judy Rainy Location Three kilometres east of Amboseli National Park.

Timing 1993 – on-going.

Funding source(s) Funded from client fees.

Institutional Affiliations Parent Body: Owner operated.

Main Partners: Ol Kanjau is a member of the Bush Homes consortium. See http://www.bushhomes.com/.

Contact Info Bush Homes of East Africa 9 Village Lane, Santa Fe, NM 87505 USA tel: +1 505.795.7710 fax: +1.505.795.7714 travel@unchartedoutposts.com +1 888 995-0909 32

Products n/a [Source: http://www.bushhomes.com/webpages/camps/ol_kanjau.php] Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Sopa Lodge

Amboseli Serena Safari Lodge

http://www.africa-reps.com/sopa/amboseli.htm Location. 35 km SE of Amboseli airstrip on road to Kimana (S02.816680, E37.508350).

http://www.serenahotels.com/kenya/amboseli/home.asp Location. Southern edge of Enkon’gu Narok swamp, just inside park boundary.

Basics: Operated by the Serena group of hotels based in Nairobi. 96 rooms considered sufficient for the site and atmosphere; no expansion planned. Large driver accommodation with canteen and shop. Garage and petrol station. The lodged is leased on a royalty basis from KWS.

Basics: Owned and operated by the Sopa Lodges group headquartered in Arusha, Tanzania, on a 112 Ha (277 A) freehold plot. 47 rooms.

Community Outreach. Currently negotiates access to surrounding GR land for game walks and drives. Employment provided.

Community Outreach. Although the lodge draws water from the large spring on site, it also provides free access to water to the Group Ranch members.

Eco-pluses. None noted.

Eco-pluses. Operates a six-point biological filtration sewage treatment facilty to return neutralised water to the swamp. Within the electric fence surrounding the compound has planted to date 250 Acacias with corporate sponsorship and participation from guests.

Eco-minuses. None noted.

Management Comment: Concerned that on-going subdivision will impact on lodge’s access to surrounding area.

Eco-minuses. The whole lodge is orientated north, facing the swamp. Although this provides good game viewing, Kilimanjaro is totally out of view from most places on the premises.

Management Comment: Serena has been approached to take on the management contract of the Elerai community lodge. Management believes there are more opportunities to market the Park: clients are generally overwhelmed by the wildlife, but would like diversity, for example, night game drives, donor-sponsored reforestation.

Greatest threats: not enough revenues getting to the community from gate takings and poorly maintained park infrastructure.

33

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Ol Tukai Lodge www.oltukailodge.com/ Location. Ol Tukai, on the eastern end of the OCC land within the Amboseli Core.

Basics: Operated by Amboseli Wildlife Resorts Ltd on land leased from OCC. 80 rooms plus Kibo Villa, a stand-alone VIP lodge with three ensuite rooms: 170 beds in all. In addition, has quarters for 20 tour drivers and accommodation for 120 hotel staff.

African Safari Club (including tented camps, such as Leopard Lodge, Zebra Lodge, Cheetah, etc.; and Kimana Lodge) http://www.africansafariclub.com/html/safarilodges.php Location. Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary, just off Oloitokitok-Emali pipeline road (S02.755290, E37.522410), 32 km ESE of Amboseli airstrip.

Eco-pluses. Attempts to conserve water through metering at outlets. Three-quarters of rooms have energy-saving lightbulbs (not 100% due to ‘high cost’). Solar water heating throughout.

Basics: A cluster of stays strung along the western edge of Kimana – Zebra Lodge, 38 beds; Kilimanjaro Camp, 20 beds; Twiga Camp, 20 beds; and Leopard Lodge, 108 beds – on 60 km2 of land leased from the Kimana/Tidondo group ranch on a ten-year lease (1999-2009). Operated by the Swiss-based African Safari Club, one of the largest operators on the Kenyan coast with interests in eight hotels having some 2,000 beds, plus an Indian Ocean cruise ship, the Royal Star, with transport from Europe on the affiliated African Safari Airways Airbus A310-308 and internal Kenya transport in company-owned Twin Otters base at Bamburi (to service Mara Buffalo Camp and Crocodile Camp in Tsavo East). All in all ASC accounts for some 60% of coastal tourism, of which about one-quarter visit the Club’s up-country facilities.

Eco-minuses. No greywater management. Solar voltaic installation still under consideration. Sewage effluent from staff/driver quarters runs into Lonkinye Swamp (this needs urgent attention).

Community Outreach. 90% of a staff of 170 in total are hired from the surrounding community. Lodges and camp guests are charged KES 250 per night for the community, which accrues to a monthly rent of some KES 245,000 (USD 3,400).

Management Comment: Implementation of a bed tax supplement for additional conservation activities would be considered, but would need clarification of mechanism.

How could the supplement be charged without impacting on the hotel’s income tax burden? Contract rates are already published for 2007, so no scheme could begin until 2008.

Eco-pluses. Contributes to the management of Kimana Wildlife Sanctuary by hiring a Senior Warden and 20 rangers.

Community Outreach. Offers a number of benefits to Maasai, such as: subsidised treatment at medical clinic (full-time orderly on duty); access to borehole water in time of drought; a one-off grant of 5,000 litres of diesel for GR borehole; donation of food, clothing to local hospital and school; donation of retired hotel line to four community centres. No explicit hiring policy.

Eco-minuses. There are currently three lions being held in a caged enclosure for visitors to view. There were five, but two died. The lions were ‘rescued’ ostensibly from less salubrious situations, and the intention appears to release them into the sanctuary. Adult lions that have habituated to the proximity of people are extremely risky free additions to the fauna in a high-density tourist area in Maasailand.

Management Comment: Although there are inevitable conflicts with the community and their herds (even without the lion), as a private venture the concession perceives that it has more direct contact with and understanding from the community than a government body might enjoy.

34

ANNEX 2 – SUMMARIES OF WILDLIFE CONCESSION ACTIVITIES

Amboseli Lodge and Kilimanjaro Safari Camp Location. Ol Tukai, in the south-centre of the OCC land within the Amboseli Core.

Tortilis Camp http://www.chelipeacock.com/camps/tortilis.htm

Basics: Operated by Kilimanjaro Safari Club Ltd (1968) on land leased from OCC. Lodge has114 rooms of which 85 operational. Safari camp has 80 rooms, all derelict.

Small VIP Kibo House abandoned to baboons. Employs 3-400 staff.

Basics: Operated by Cheli and Peacock on concession basis to Olgulului/Ololarrashi GR. 34 beds in 17 tents; one family room. Employs all local staff from community.

Community Outreach. Provides KES 40,000 per annum to ATGSA.

Community Outreach. Contributes financially to ATGSA and intellectually to actively to ecosystem management committees and planning processes.

Eco-pluses. Solar water heaters in all rooms. Plans for installation of contemporary waste management system. Cleanup of the Safari Camp and renovation of Kibo House ‘planned’; demolishing of old rooms begun.

Eco-pluses. Solar water heaters for each tent. Grey water management and bio-cleaning of sewage. The camp won the British Airways Regional Award for Ecotourism.

Atmosphere of rustic simplicity and unobtrusive design that blends into the ecosystem..

Eco-minuses. The derelict Kilimanjaro Safari Camp is an aesthetic eyesore and environmental hazard. Poor control of solid waste disposal. Generator has poor sound attenuation. Numerous Acacia xanthophloea trees bulldozed along the main road, ostensibly to open up the closed canopy. Result is a mess and an eyesore blamed by visitors and the popular press on elephants.

Eco-minuses. None noted.

Management Comment: Alleged to be in litigation with the OCC for long history of rent arrears. Believes that cash handouts to community are counterproductive; prefer to see an investment trust established for and by the community with proper financial management. Doubts that other hotels will agree to additional bed-night tax for renting wildlife easements. Believes if (international) money should be raised to provide a water pipeline grid from the swamps to defunct waterpoints around the park, it would be possible to negotiate a 20km buffer around the Core.

35

Management Comment: Very concerned that unresolved stewardship of the national park on the one hand, and the turbulent debate underway concerning operation in the Kitirua Conservation Trust on the other will both potentially alienate the ecosystem and compromise the revenues getting back to the community.

The lodge was closed in January 2006 pursuant to a court order base on a complaint lodged by the OCC for non-payment of rent. The soft fixtures were subjected to public auction. Several large corporations are said to be vying for access to the concession.

ANNEX 3 – PERSONS CONTACTED Surname

First Name

Designation

Affiliation

Tel

email

Persons Contacted Amboga Awori Belpietro Billow Blanc Buzzaard Chen Dean Desai Dhall Guillet Hatfield Hill Kaanki Kaka Kanai Kapaito Kashmiri Keturai Kio Kioko Masila Kidemi Kipaa Kipng’etich Kitasho Kiti Koseren Kyula Lekanayia Lerapa Leturesh Lever Makenzi Masinde Mayienda Mboganie Metui Miaron Moonka

36

Gideon Patricia Luca Mohamed Julian Robert F. Yoav Cathy Sandeep Kumar Dr. Alfredo Richard Tom Samuel Ole Dr. Ali Emmanuel Muyentet Dr. Zahoor Babu Natali John Susan Stephen Dr. Julius David Silas Stephen June Jonathan Stephen Daniel Bart Paul Godfrey Rose M. Peter Kurdumi Joseph James

Senior Park Warden Director Owner/Manager District Officer Manager Gen. Dev. Officer Head Contractor Director Director Operations Manager Ref. for Environment Sen. Prog. Officer Trustee Member Executive Director Chairman Chairman Vet. Surgeon Secretary UNSECO Focal Point MSc student Adjudicator of GRs Treasurer Director Sen. Warden Manager Community Officer Manager Ag. Coordinator Treasurer Chairman Manager Member Programme Officer GIS Technician Manager Chairman (former Coordinator) Secretary

Amboseli National Park Kenya Wildlife Coalition Campi ya Kanzi Kajiado District IUCN/SSC African Elephant Database USAID-Kenya Elerai Community Lodge Save the Rhino International Amboseli Lodge & Kilimanjaro Safari Club Ltd. Ol Tukai Lodge Ltd Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Italy AWF-Kenya Maasailand Preservation Trust Imbirikani GR Committee East African Wildlife Society ATGRCA & Kuku Group Ranch Eselenkei GR Thorn Tree Ranch Eselenkei GR KWS SFS, AERP Min. Lands and Settlements Olgulului GR Kenya Wildlife Service Porini Kilimanjaro Lodge (Africa Safari Club) KWS – Amboseli Nat. Park Amboseli Serena Hotel ATGRCA Imbirikani GR Olgulului GR Tortilis Lodge Kenya National MAB Commission ACC AWF-Kenya Porini Camp Kuku-A GR (ATGRCA; now at Kenya Meat Commission) Olgulului GR

0722 6450000 +265 (0)20 4348648

ganboga@kws.org lucasaf@africaonline.co.ke

567461 0722 333514 0734 655385

julian.blanc@ssc.iucn.org robuzzard@usaid.gov desertrose@uuplus.com cathy@savetherhino.org

0721 363163 +39 06 36946215 0723 506331

kdhall@manrikgroup.com Alfredo.guillet@esteri.it rhatfield@awfke.org tomhill@uuplus.com

+254 20 574145

suetapapul@yahoo.com

072 410470

kashmiri@africaonline.co.ke

020-603793 0456 22170

kiokostar@yahoo.com

0722 411291 0722 775008

kipngetich@kws.org

0722 821730

Jlekanayia@yahoo.com

045 622195

tortiliscamp@chelipeacock.co.ke pmakenzi@yahoo.com

2710367 0721 703583

rmayienda@awfke.org info@porini.com

0722 282981

jmiaron@yahoo.com

ANNEX 3 – PERSONS CONTACTED Surname MpeteKitipai Munyapera Muruthi Muthtua Mwangi Mwinzi Nackoney Natarajan Ndeereh Ndirangu Ndonye Ndung’u Ngutu Niskanen Nkitimpa Ntiati Ojany Ojwang Ole Kamuaro Ole Nkuraiyia Ole Seno Olitipitip Olitiptip Oluchina Kirruti Pannevis Salaasen Sankey Sankale Stringer Tapapul Tsori Van der Linden Wankiku Wanyama Wayumba

First Name Daniel Sambu Philip Raphael Godfrey Dr. A. Muusya Janet Ishwaran Dr. David James Daniel James Peter Leo Issac Paul Prof. Francis F. Gordon Amb. Peter O. Dr. Simon Kenyatta Richard Charles Jackson Nico David Trevor Joseph Dr. Randy Suzanne Julius Eric Lillian Boniface Gordon O.

Designation Treasurer Chairman Sen. Programme Director Project Manager Planning & Research Ag. Dir. Gen. GIS Associate Director Vet. Surgeon Chairman Dep. Director Assist. Manager Programme Officer Chairman Kilimanjaro Hearthlands Chairman GIS Expert Policy Impact Coord’r Perm. Secty.

Centre Director Trustee Sen. Chief Prog. Mgmt. Specialist Director Treasurer Prog. Specialist Env. Sci Project Coordinator Chief PhD. student Assist. Manager Amb. & Hd of Delegation Assist. Prog. Off. Member Senior Lecturer

Affiliation Kuku-A GR Rombo GR African Wildlife Foundation Amboseli Baboon Research Project NEMA NEMA World Resources Institute UNESCO - MAB KWS Mobile Vet. Unit USAID-Kenya KWS Board ACC Amboseli Sopa Lodge IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group Kuku GR AWF Kenya National MAB Commission DRSRS ILRI Min. East African and Regional Cooperation School for Field Studies Olgulului/Olitipitip Trust USAID-Kenya Sant’Antonio Suites, Siena, Italy Eselenkei GR UNESCO Kenya Office BEADS FAO Comparative. Agric. Dev. Service Kibo Camp Ltd. EU – Kenya EAWS – Wetlands Kenya National MAB Commission Dept. of Survey, University of Nairobi

Tel

email

2710367 /8

PMuruthi@awfke.org

0722 898214

godfrey_mwangi@yahoo.com.nz amwinzi@nema.go.ke nackoney@wri.org n.ishwaran@unesco.org

+1 202 729 7759 0722 556380 0722 757234 4441344 891360 3750183 3876461

jndirangu@usaid.gov dndonye@deloitte.co.ke james.ndungu@acc.or.ke info@sopalodges.co.ke Leo.niskanen@ssc.iucn.org

0722 235366 0722 308527 630743 x 4816 0721 485019 +254 45 622170

ojany@bidii.com o.kamuaro@cgiar.org nkuraiyia@skyweb.co.ke oleseno@africaonline.co.ke

0722 331273 0724 650721 +39 0578 799365

nice@santantonio.it trevor.sankey@unesco.unon.org

+39 065 7056624

Randy.stringer@fao.org suetapapul@yahoo.com

2713020 3874145 0721 434057 0722 775168

eric.van-der-linden@cec.eu.int lillian@eawlidlife.org bwwekesa@yahoo.com

Back to Annex Contents 37

ANNEX 4 – ACRONYMS BR BEADS ABP ABR ACC AERP AEfSG AMREF ANP ARMP ASAL ATGRCA ATGSA AWF AWS KARI CBS CGIAR CMS CORE CORP DRSRS ESOK EU FA0 GEF GIS GMP IFAW GR ILRI IUCN KTF KTP KWS 38

Biosphere Reserve Beads for Education, Achievement & Development for Success Amboseli Baboon Project Amboseli Biosphere Reserve African Conservation Centre Amboseli Elephant Research Project African Elephant Specialist Group African Medical Research Foundation Amboseli National Park Amboseli Research Management Project Arid and Semi-Arid Lands Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association Amboseli/Tsavo Game Scouts Association African Wildlife Foundation Athi Water Services Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Central Bureau of Statistics Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research Convention on Migratory Sepceis Conservation of Resources through Enterprizes (USAID) Community-Owned Resource Person Department of Resource Survey and Remote Sensing Eco-Tourism Society of Kenya European Union Food and Agricultural Organisation Global Environmental Facility (World Bank, UNDP, UNEP) Geographical Information Systems General Management Plan International Fund for Animal Welfare Group Ranch International Livestock Research Institute (CGIAR institute) The World Conservation Union (orig. International Union for the Conservation of Nature) Kenya Tourism Federation Kenya Tourism Police Kenya Wildlife Service

LUCID NEMA NGO NMK OCC SFS SORALO UNDP UNEP/GEF USAID WHS WRI

Land Use Change, Impacts and Dynamics National Environment Management Authority (of Kenya) Non-Governmental Organisation National Museums of Kenya Ol Kejuado County Council School for Field Studies South Rift Association of Landowners UN Development Programme UNEP office of the Global Environment Facility US Agency for International Development World Heritage Site World Resources Institute

Back to Annex Contents

ANNEX 5 – PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Extract for Project Concept for Medium-Sized Project Problem: Loss of ecosystem and biodiversity services in the arid/semi-arid ecosystem of Amboseli The livelihoods of the people of southern Kajiado are at risk. The reasons include: lack of rational land use planning, private greed and public corruption, inequitable distribution of benefits, unplanned and uncoordinated exploitation of natural resources, and, last but not least, the inherently variable nature of the resource base.

The Search for Solutions: Improved incentives for providing ecosystem services The Project Objective is to provide new or alter existing incentive structures to restore and maintain world-class biodiversity and in so doing achieve measurable progress in poverty reduction, food security and individual welfare.

Project Outcomes will include:

With the growing size and sedentarisation of the population, traditional pastoralism is increasingly challenged as a sustainable enterprise for alleviating human poverty in the region: Kajiado District was the subject of a Famine Early Warning in March, 2005.

Livelihoods. Improved welfare, including reduced poverty and food insecurity among local communities, households and individuals, through providing direct and indirect public and private incentives to encourage sustained use of biodiversity services.

Amboseli has unique potential. The absence of large-scale intensive agriculture and the relatively low population density encourages and provides refuge to a magnificent array of biodiversity, including large and small mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and plants, some of which are rare or threatened.

Ecosystem Biodiversity. Ecosystem-wide management plans and organizational structures for effective participation, coordination and conflict resolution in decision-making for natural resource management and biodiversity conservation;Rehabilitation of degraded parts of the ecosystem;

At the heart of the ecosystem is Amboseli National Park, the Core Area of a UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Reserve that protects only 392 km2 (ca. 5%) of the wildlife dispersal area. As a prime attractor to both overseas and domestic visitors, the Park is fundamental to Kenya's tourist industry and typically ranks number two among parks in annual gate takings, some USD 3.5m in 2004. However, the Park’s central swamps provide water and dry-season grazing to both wildlife and livestock and are a perennial source of tension between park managers and pastoralists.

Over the past three decades, the traditional tolerance of the Maasai to the presence of wildlife has worn thin as the people continue to suffer the opportunity costs of wildlife presence on their land – for example, from physical conflict, loss of crops, competition for grazing – without sharing in much of the benefits. It is estimated that in 2004, community benefits from the Park’s gate takings amounted only to about USD 10,000.

Maasai landowners have sub-let most of the non-protected swamps in the ecosystem to sharecroppers from other tribes who, with their backers, are reaping large returns from gardening produce for urban centres. Water quality has degraded beyond acceptable quality standards, and soil salinisation threatens to reduce even commercial profits to zero in a very few years.

Meanwhile, ‘young elder’ cohorts within the Maasai social structure are lobbying for subdivision of the rangelands and demanding title deeds to gain bargaining power in the scramble for benefit sharing.

It is not too late to put in place appropriate plans, projects, infrastructure and informed community participation in order to benefit fully from the ‘wildlife estate’ in a sustainable manner. The proposed project will aspire to develop and implement innovative guidelines and mechanisms for creative planning and funding, and thereby develop enterprises for managing and sustaining ecosystem services.

Mechanisms in place to identify land use managers who provide ecosystem services, to measure the value of those services, and to provide incentives to maintain and improve the services; Reduced conflict between humans and wildlife, inter alia, through increased availability of wildlife corridors, dispersal areas, water sources and habitats at appropriate sites throughout the ecosystem.

Production Systems. Improved range management, farming and ranching skills, agriculture and irrigation practices, including appropriate technologies for mitigating human-wildlife conflict; Higher productivity, higher value-added and increased employment, while using less land, for cropping and irrigation within the ecosystem.

Management & Welfare. Development and adoption of decision support tools by policy makers, local administrations and project implementers, contributing to improved ecosystem management and participatory conservation of biodiversity; Flexible and sustainable institutional and financial mechanisms that conserve and increase ecosystem services.

Financing. Development and introduction of a range of innovative financing mechanisms to capture and share the rewards of ecosystem services with those proving the benefits; Engagement of bilateral donors for targeted programme areas.

Outreach. Raised awareness and improved knowledge management at the local, national, and international levels, including the adoption of global lessons from Amboseli on biodiversity payments and incentives into other similar projects around the world.

Back to Annex Contents

39

ANNEX 6 – LITERATURE CITED Altmann, J., S.C. Alberts, S. Altmann, and S.B. Roy. (2002) Dramatic Change in Local Climate Patterns in the Amboseli Basin, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 40, no. 2 248-51.

Frank, L., S. Maclennan, L. Hazzah, R. Bonham and T. Hill (2006). Lion Killing in the Amboseli -Tsavo Ecosystem, 2001-2006 and its Implications for Kenya’s Lion Population. Unpub. report, 18 May 2006. 9 pp.

Altmann, S. A. (1998). Foraging for Survival: Yearling Baboons in Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Githaiga, J. M. and A. N. Muchiru (2003). Survey of Water Quality Changes with Land Use Type in the Loitokitok Area, Kajiado District, Kenya. Nairobi, ILRI/UNEP/GEF/University of Nairobi: 32.

Behrensmeyer, A. K. (1993). The taphonomic record of ecological change in Amboseli Park, Kenya. Research & Exploration 9(4): 402-421.

BirdLife International (2005) BirdLife's online World Bird Database: the site for bird conservation. Version 2.0. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. Available: http://www.birdlife.org Boone, R. B., S. B. BurnSilver, et al. (2005). Quantifying Declines in Livestock Due to Land Subdivision. Rangeland Ecology and Management 58: 523–532.

Born_Free (2004). A survey on the availability of bushmeat in 202 urban butcheries in Nairobi. Nairobi, Born Free Foundation UK, Youth for Conservation, Kenya Wildlife Services. 21 pp Campbell, D. (1978). Coping with drought in Kenya Maasailand: Pastoralists and farmers of the Loitokitok area, Kajiado District. 54. Nairobi: Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi.

Campbell, D. J., Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A. and Chege, L. (2000). Land use conflict in Kajiado District, Kenya. Land Use Policy 17: 337-348.

Campbell, D. J., Lusch, D. P., Smucker, T. and Wangui, E. E. (2003). Root causes of land use change in the Loitokitok area, Kajiado District, Kenya. In LUCID Working Paper:. East Lansing, Michgan, Nairobi, Kenya: LUCID, Michigan State University, ILRI, UNEP/GEF. 37p.

Campbell, D. J., Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A., Chege, L., Ogol, E. and Sawen, T. (2003).

Interactions between people and wildlife in S.E. Kajiado district, Kenya. In LUCID Working Paper: 21. Nairobi: ILRI, Michigan State University, UNEP/GEF. Croze, H. (1978). Aerial surveys undertaken by the Kenya Wildlife Management Project: Methodologies and Results. Nairobi, Wildlife Conservation and Management Dept., UNEP/FAO Wildlife Management Project KEN/71/526: 61 + appendices.

Croze, H. and Lindsay, K. (in press). Amboseli Ecosystem context, past & present. In Amboseli Elephants: A Long Term Perspective on a Long-lived Mammal. Moss, C. J. and Croze, H. (Eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dahl, G. and Hjort, A. (1976). Having herds. Pastoral herd growth and household economy. Stockholm: Univ., Stockholm.

IFID (2001) Poverty-environment indicators. Draft Report 40

Githaiga, John M., Robin Reid, Andrew N. Muchiru and Sandra van Dijk (2004) Survey of Water Quality Changes with Land Use Type in the Loitokitok Area, Kajiado District , Kenya. LUCID Working Paper 35. Nairobi: ILRI (UNEP/GEF, MSU, Univ.

Nairobi) Government of Kenya (2001). 1999 Population and Housing Census Vol.I: Population Distribution By Administrative Areas and Urban Centers. 448. Nairobi: Central Bureau of Statistics.

Government_of_Kenya (2006). Draft National Land Policy October 2006. In Sunday Nation: I-XVI. Nairobi: Ministry of Lands Kenya Land Alliance.

Grandon, B. E. (1991). The Maasai: Socio-historical contect and group ranches.

Analysis of the Livestock Production System of Maasai Pastoralists in Eastern Kajiado Distruct Kenya. Addis Ababa, International Livestock Centre for Africa.

Hill, T & R. Bonham (2005) Living on Borrowed Time. Swara. April.

Kenya Wildlife Service (1991) Amboseli National Park Management Plan, 1991 – 1996.

Planning department, KWS, Nairobi, Kenya Kioko, J., (2004). Spatial-temporal distribution of African Elephants (Loxodonta africana africana, Blumenbach) and their interactions with humans in Kuku–Kimana area of Tsavo-Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya. MSc thesis, University of Greenwich, UK. Kiyiapi, J.L. (2004) Elerai Natural Resource Management Planning. Nairobi: AWF. May-June 2004. 85pp.

Lambrechts, Christian, Bongo Woodley, Andreas Hemp, Claudia Hemp, and Paul Nnyiti. Aerial Survey of the Threats to Mt. Kilimanjaro Forests. 33 + 3 maps. Dar el Salaam, Tanzania: Africa 2000 Network / GEF Small Grants Programme / UNDP / UNEP / KWS / Universtiy of Bayreuth, 2002.

Lindsay, W. K. (1982). Habitat selection and social group dynamics of African elephants in Amboseli, Kenya.: 200. University of British Columbia.

Lindsay, W. K. (1994). Feeding ecology and population demography of African elephants in Amboseli, Kenya. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

ANNEX 6 – LITERATURE CITED Manegene, S. and J. Bernard (2004). Scoping report for the development of the Amboseli ecosystem General Management Plan Nairobi, AWF, KWS, ACC, ATE, ATGRCA, SFS. 15PP. Mburugu, J. M. (2002). The Amboseli Biosphere Reserve. AfriMAB Technical Workshop for Anglophone Countries12-15 September 2000, Nairobi, UNESCO. 27-27

Reed, D. and P. Tharakan (2004). Developing and Applying Poverty-Environment Indicators. Washington DC, WWF Macroeconomics Programme Office: 14 pp.

Reid, R. S., D. Campbell, et al. (2004). Linkages among changes in land use, biodiversity and land degradation in the Loitokitok area of Kenya. Nairboi, ILRI/LUCID Michigan State University/KARI/NMK/AWF/ACC: 29.

Mitchell, D. (2005). In the Shadow of Mount Kilimanjaro. In Travel News.

SINCAT (1988). Engineering and design services for the implementation of the Nol Turesh Pipeline Water Project. Nairobi, Kenya, Ministry of Water Development / SINCAT s.r.l.: 51 + appendices.

Mumiukha, P. W. (1976). The vegetation of Kajiado District. 60 + plates. Nairobi: Wildlife Conservation and Management Dept.,

SINCAT (1988). Hydrological Field Study at Nol Turesh Srings. Nairobi, Kenya, SINCAT s.r.l. / Groundwater Survey (Nairobi) Ltd.: 69.

UNEP/FAO Wildlife Management Project KEN/71/526.

Sitonik, D. K. and J. M. Kioko (2005). Elephant Movements within the Amboseli Ecosystem: A Case Study for the Development for the Amboseli Ecosystem. Nairobi, Amboseli Elephant Research Project & School for Field Studies: 30pp.

McNaughton, S. J., R. W. Ruess, et al. (1988). Large mammals and process dynamics in African ecosystems. BioScience 38: 794-800.

Ndegengy, G. (2003) Geographic Dimensions of Human Wellbeing in Kenya: Where are the Poor? From Districts to Locations. Vol.1. Nairobi, Central Bureau of Statistics.

164 p.

Niamir-Fuller, M. (2002). Non-equilibrium theory of African arid ecosystems: designing for monitoring and evaluation. Implementing Sustainable Development:. H. Abaza and A. Baranzini. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar for UNEP.le Saitoti, T. and C. Beckwith (1980). Maasai. London, Elm Tree/Hamish Hamilton.

Shyamsundar, P. (2001). Poverty-Environment Indicators. Washington DC, World Bank: 44 pp.

Sombroek, W. G., H.M.H. Braun, and B.J.A. Van der Pouw. (1982) Exploratory Soil Map and Agro-Climatic Zone of Kenya, 1980 . Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Kenya, 1

Nicholson, S. E. (1999). Historical and Modern Fluctuations of Lakes Tanganyika and Rukwa and Their Relationship to Rainfall Variability. Climatic Change 41(1): 53-71.

Struhsaker, T. T. (1976). A further decline in numbers of Amboseli vervet monkeys.

Biotropica 8: 211-214.

Ntiati, Paul. (2002) Group Ranches Subdivision Study in Loitokitok Division of Kajiado District, Kenya. In LUCID Working Paper. Nairobi: ILRI, UNEP/DGEF, 2002.

Thompson, L. G. et. al. (2002). Kilimanjaro ice core records: evidence of Holocene climate change in tropical Africa. Science 298: 589-593.

Ojwang', G. O., Wargute, P. W. and Njino, L. W. (2006). Trends and spatial distribution of large herbivores in Kajiado District (1978-2000). 40. Nairobi: DRSRS - Dept. of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing.

UNDP/FAO (1980). Wildlife Management in Kenya: Project Findings and Recommendations. Nairobi, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife.

Ole Saitoti, T. and Beckwith, C. (1980). Maasai. London: Elm Tree/Hamish Hamilton.

Pennycuick, L. (1975) Movements of the migratory wildebeest populations in the Serengeti area between 1960 and 1975. E.AFr.Wild.J. 13:65-87.

Pimm, S.L., (1991) The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London.

Pratt, D. J., Greeneway, P. J. and Gwynne, M. D. (1966). A Classification of East African Rangeland, with an Appendix on Terminology. Journal Applied Ecology 3: 369382.

Pratt, D. J. and M. D. Gwynne, Eds. (1977). Rangeland Management and Ecology in East Africa. London, Hodder & Stoughton.

41

UNESCO (1999). Biosphere Reserves for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in Anglophone Africa (BRAAF): Project Findings and Recommendations.

Paris, UNESCO. German Funds-in-Trust, Fed. Min. for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ): 98pp UNESCO/MAB (2003). Periodic Review Form for the Amboseli Biosphere Reserve.

Nairobi, Kenyan National Man and the Biosphere Committee: 20pp.

Warinda, E. (2001). Socio-economic survey and land use options analysis: Imbirikani Group Ranch, Kajiado District, Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya, Ford Foundation, African Conservation Centre.

Western, D. (1973). The structure and dynamics of the Amboseli ecosystem. In Zoology. Nairobi: Univeristy of Nairobi.

ANNEX 6 – LITERATURE CITED Western, D. and Ssemakula, J. (1981). The future of the savannah ecosystems: ecological islands or faunal enclaves? African Journal of Ecology 19(112): 7 -- 20.

Western, D. (1994). Ecosystem conservation and rural development: The case of Amboseli. Natural connections. D. Western, R. M. Wright and S. C. Strum. Washington, DC, Island Press.

Western, D. and D. L. Manzolillo-Nightingale (2005). Environmental Change and the Vulnerability of Pastoralists to Drought: A Case Study of the Maasai in Amboseli, Kenya. Africa Environment Outlook Case Studies: Human Vulnerability to Environmental Change. Nairobi, UNEP. 35-50 Western, D. and C. Van Praet (1973). Cyclical changes in the habitat and climate of an East African ecosystem. Nature 241: 104-106. ñ avariceness

Back to Annex Contents

42