1

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

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

2

Frontmatter Foreword Acknowledgements Disclaimer Executive Summary:

Backmatter Annexes: 1. Summaries of contemporary conservation and research 2. Summaries of wildlife concession activities 3. Persons contacted 4. Acronyms 5. Payment for Ecosystem Services 6. Literature Cited

Foreword 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.

Acknowledgements 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.

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.

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 on-going 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

2

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. 2 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.

3

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. 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 de-gazettement 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 non-protected 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 human-

wildlife 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.

The Daily Nation

4

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 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 well-managed 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.

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., re-zoning 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, Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs), Intergovernmental Organisations and Bi-lateral Donors.

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

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

5

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). The District also has a steep North-South ‘sociological gradient’, from the peri-urban areas of Nairobi at 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,

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’.

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).

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

Source: UNESCO MAB, Paris

6

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

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 salt-loving 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.

Ecozone Topography & Drainage Dom. Veg. Structure

Main Ecosystem

Athi-Kapiti A distinct high undulating plateau, bound by Rift wall to West and upper valleys of Selengei drainage to South. Drainage: east and north into Athi River system

Grassland, bushed-grassland

Migratory herbivore-defined; congruent with ecozone

Rift Valley Bounded by Rift Valley escarpment to west and east, by administrative and international boundaries to north and south, respetively. Large numbers of north-south step faults. Drainage: south, except in northern part where predominantly to north.

Wooded and bushed-grassland, bushland and grassland

Ewaso-Ngiro migratory defined ecosystem only 40% of ecozone due to water limitation.

Central Hills

Highly dissected, conspicuous ranges of basement system hills. Drainage: southeast.

Woodland and bushland.

No migratory-defined ecosystem

Ilkisongo Undulating low basement (northwest) and lava (southeast) hills increasing in height to recent volcanic structures to south (Kilimanjaro) and east (Chyulus). Drainage: predominantly east and south; all directions into closed basin of Pleistocene lakebed

Bushland, grassland, bushed-grassland

Amboseli: Migratory-defined ecosystem congruent with ecozone; historical evidence of sub-populations.

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

7

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

8

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.

Currently the Core is in the former phase with relatively extensive swamp and swamp-edge 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.

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).

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

9

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 life-blood 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)

10

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 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:

• 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

occupancy; • 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.).

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

11

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 ‘over-population’ 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 tree-dependent 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.

12

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 Pond-herons, 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 bellicosus, (resident in small numbers).11

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 trade-offs do not appear to be simple. For example, AERP researchers noted the re-appearance 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). Clearly investment in an updated bird census and studies of bird species assemblages would be extremely informative.

Land Use 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

10 IBAs are designated if the area in question is home to globally-threatened, restricted-range or restricted-biome 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

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.

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. 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).

Maasai Pastoralism 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

LANDUSE NAMALOKSWAMP

KIMANA SWAMP

LEINKATISWAMP

NOLTURESHRIVER

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)

13

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.

14

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:

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.

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

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.

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’. 14 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

% saying strategy very important Strategies 1997 2001 Relying on famine relief 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).

15

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). 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).

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.

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

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 ofGroup Ranches (Jan. 2006),

Poverty in the Ecosystem

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.

16

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.)

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.

17

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’.

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

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.

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

18

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 AWF Heartlands programme nominally covers over 10,000 km2 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, socio-economics and poverty. ILRI, one of the main LUCID sponsors, has other activities, sub-programmes and co-sponsored 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

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

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

19

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.

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

Wildlife Concession Areas 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

conservancies increase household welfare? Are conservancies pro-poor? And, do non-participants 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 ‘eco-friendliness):

• Amboseli Sopa Lodge • Amboseli Serena Safari Lodge • Ol Tukai Lodge • Kimana Lodge (including plus associated camps) • Amboseli Lodge (and Kilimanjaro Safari Camp) • Tortilis Camp

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.

20

• 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

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.

21

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; • represent and negotiate on behalf of all the GRs with District and central

government, and with KWS; • provide a forum for community self-regulation and enforcement of appropriate

wildlife conservation behaviour; • 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

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).

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 • Reduce poaching, deforestation, wildfires and charcoal burning • Improve management of the environment and the natural resources • Reduce incidents of human/wildlife conflicts

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 well-established 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.

22

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

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 human-wildlife 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.

23

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 can be seen to be generating obvious and concrete benefits20 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).

ELEPHANTS '93-'05 Total Annual Mean

Annual Range Max. Yr.

People Killed 18 1.4 0-6 1999 Injured 18 1.4 0-4 1999

Cattle Killed 32 2.5 0-9 2000 Injured 5 0.4 0-5 1999

Shoats Killed 18 1.4 0-6 2004 Injured 0 0.0 n/a n/a

LIONS '94-'04 People Killed 4 0.3 0-2 1999

Injured 9 0.8 0-3 1994/95 Cattle Killed 82 6.8 0-20 1996

Injured 1 0.1 0-1 2002

Shoats Killed 484 40.3 3-94 1998 Injured 6 0.5 0-4 1997

ALL PREDATORS '94-'04 People Killed 4 0.3 0-2 1999

Injured 11 0.9 0-3 1994/95 Cattle Killed 106 8.8 3-20 1996

Injured 1 0.1 0-1 1998

Shoats 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.

24

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. 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.

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).

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

25

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

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.

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

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

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.

Lion CompensationThe 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 two-month 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.

26

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 co-resident 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

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.

27

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 sub-contracting. 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.

28

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.

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.

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.