DOCSLIB.ORG

Wildlife Migratory Corridors and Dispersal Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wildlife Migratory Corridors and Dispersal Areas This report provides a vivid depiction of the state of Kenya’s conservation connectivity both within and outside protected areas, complete with maps and information on historical and recent wildlife migratory routes and corridors on the Kenya rangelands and coastal terrestrial ecosystems. The report is organized under seven major themes: an introductory overview, a brief treatment on the importance of biodiversity conservation for human well-being, and on the Kenya Vision 2030 flagship project on the environment; objectives and study areas; understanding animal movements and connectivity; the methodological approach to conservation connectivity, and the conservation connectivity framework (CCF); migratory routes and corridors for conservation (drivers, pressures, states, impacts, responses, constraints, opportunities, and strategies for securing habitats already interfered with by human activities); infrastructure development, and climate change impacts; and recommendations and a roadmap. Despite the crucial role of migratory routes and corridors in ensuring connectivity of core habitats with critical dispersal areas, these conservation linkages CORRIDORS AND DISPERSAL AREAS • WILDLIFE MIGRATORY continue to be degraded or lost to human activities, imperilling the integrity of ecosystems and increasing human-wildlife conflicts, hampering efforts to promote eco-tourism,, and impoverishing local communitys’ livelihoods, both of which reduce the speed to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This worrying situation can be attributed largely to multi-faceted anthropogenic pressures. The report also provides a set of options for securing conservation connectivity outside protected areas, based on harmonious co-existence between humans and wild animals, and on enabling people to benefit from the preservation of vital ecosystem goods and services. WILDLIFE MIGRATORY CORRIDORS It is envisaged that this report will serve as an importance reference tool for policy makers, legislators, wildlife managers, land-use planners, conservation stakeholders, development partners, pastoralist communities, and landowners residing in wildlife areas. AND DISPERSAL AREAS Kenya Rangelands and Coastal Terrestrial Ecosystems Rangelands and Coastal Terrestrial Kenya Kenya Rangelands and Coastal Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Terrestrial Ecosystems P. O. Box 30126-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 2730808/9; +254 20 2725707; +254 20 2725707 Email: [email protected]; Website: http://www.environment.go.ke WILDLIFE MIGRATORY CORRIDORS AND DISPERSAL AREAS: Kenya Rangelands and Coastal Terrestrial Ecosystems Kenya Vision 2030 Flagship Project “Securing Wildlife Migratory Routes and Corridors” WILDLIFE MIGRATORY CORRIDORS AND DISPERSAL AREAS This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR), Directorate of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS), and Kenya Wildlife Servise (KWS) would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this report as a source. This report will be updated continuously as new migratory routes and movement corridors are identified. No use of this publication may be made for re-sale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the MENR, DRSRS and KWS. ISBN: 978-9966-107-19-0 Copyright © 2017 Government of the Republic of Kenya All rights reserved For bibliographic and reference purposes, this publication should be referred to as: Gordon O. Ojwang’, Patrick W. Wargute, Mohammed Y. Said, Jeffrey S. Worden, Zeke Davidson, Philip Muruthi, Erustus Kanga, Festus Ihwagi and Benson Okita-Ouma (2017). Wildlife Migratory Corridors and Dispersal Areas: Kenya Rangelands and Coastal Terrestrial Ecosystems DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, the Government of Kenya or the institutions collaborating in this project. The map presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of collaborating institutions above concerning the legal status of any territory, county, or area of its authorities, or the delineation of its boundaries. Trademark names, logos, symbols and acronyms are used in an editorial fashion with no intention of infringement on copyright laws. All Correspondence: The Principal Secretary Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources P. O. Box 30126-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 2730808/9; +254 20 2725707; +254 20 2725707 Email: [email protected]; Website: http://www.environment.go.ke The Director Directorate of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS) P. O. Box 47146-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 6009013/27/79; Fax: +254 20 6009705 Email: [email protected]; Website: http://www.drsrs.go.ke The Director General Kenya Wildlife Service P. O. Box 40241-00100, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 6000800; Fax: +254 20 6003792 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.kws.go.ke Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VI MESSAGE FROM THE FIRST LADY VII FOREWORD VIII PREFACE IX ACRONYM AND ABREVIATIONS X PRODUCTION AND EDITORIAL TEAMS XI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XVI INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND XVIII CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 1.1. Global and Continental Biodiversity 1 1.2. Kenya’s Biodiversity 2 1.3.Relevance and Importance of Biodiversity 3 1.4. Trends in the Population of Wildlife in Kenya 4 1.5. Vision 2030 on Securing Wildlife Migratory Routes and Corridors 6 1.6. Study Approach and Report Organization 6 CHAPTER 2: OBJECTIVES AND STUDY AREA 8 2.1. Objectives 9 2.2. Study Areas 9 Southern Kenya Rangeland Ecosystems 9 2.2.1 (A). Nairobi National Park and Athi-Kaputiei Ecosystem 9 2.2.1(B). Masai Mara Ecosystem 10 2.2.1(C). Tsavo Ecosystem 11 2.2.1(D). Amboseli Ecosystem - West Kilimanjaro Area 11 2.2.1(E). South Rift Ecosystem 12 2.2.1(F). Eburu Forest Ecosystem and Lakes Naivasha-Elementaita-Nakuru Conservation Areas 12 Northern Kenya Rangeland and Coastal Terrestrial Ecosystems 12 2.2.1(G). Greater Ewaso Ecosystem 13 2.2.1(H). Turkana-Mt. Elgon Ecosystem 14 2.2.1(I). North-Eastern Rangeland and Coastal Terrestrial Ecosystems 15 CHAPTER 3: UNDERSTANDING MOVEMENTS AND CONNECTIVITY 17 3.1.Animal Movements - Dispersal and Migrations 17 3.2. Biological Significance of Animal Movements and Theory 17 3.3.Definition and Importance of Corridors 18 3.4. Wildlife and People: Conflicts and Conservation 19 3.5. Key Wildlife Species 19 3.5.1. African Elephant (Loxodonta africana, Blumenbach) 20 3.5.2. Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus mearnsi) 21 3.5.3. Burchell’s Zebra (Equus burchelli, Gray) 22 3.5.4. Grevy’s Zebra (Equus grevyi) 23 3.5.6. African or Cape Buffalo (Syncerus caffer) 25 3.5.7. Beisa Oryx (Oryx beisa beisa) & Fringe-eared Oryx (Oryx beisa callotis) 26 3.5.8. Topi (Damaliscus lunatus) 26 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH FOR CONSERVING CONNECTIVITY 28 4.1. Overview 29 4.2. Conservation Connectivity Framework (CCF) 29 4.2.1. Establishing the Context and Purpose – Need for Connectivity 29 4.2.2. Geographical Scope 30 4.2.3. Defining Goals and Objectives – Components of Connectivity (Species, Habitats and Processes) 31 III WILDLIFE MIGRATORY CORRIDORS AND DISPERSAL AREAS 4.2.4. Ecological Components 31 4.2.5. Data Needs and Requirements 31 4.2.6. Connectivity Mapping and Analysis 32 4.2.7. Conservation Connectivity Implementation Framework 33 4.3. Data Sources - Species Distribution and Movements 33 4.4. Geospatial Analysis and Modelling 34 4.4.1. Regional Species Richness and Densities 34 4.4.2. Species Distribution - Regional and Site (Ecosystem) Level 34 4.4.3. Dispersal Areas and Migratory Routes/Corridors 34 4.4.4. Threats to Conservation Connectivity 34 4.4.5. Current Interventions and Opportunities 34 CHAPTER 5: MIGRATORY CORRIDORS FOR CONSERVATION IN SOUTHERN KENYA RANGELAND ECOSYSTEMS 37 5.1.Migratory Corridors for Conservation in Southern Kenya Rangeland Ecosystems 37 5.1.1. Regional Species Richness 37 5.1.2. Regional Wildlife Densities 38 5.1.3. Regional Livestock Densities 39 5.1.4. Regional Wildlife Populations 39 5.1.5. Regional Distribution of Wildebeest 40 5.1.6. Regional Distribution of Burchell’s Zebra 41 5.1.7. Regional Distribution of Elephant 43 5.1.8. Regional Distribution of Giraffe 44 5.2. Ecosystem Patterns: Species Density Distribution 45 5.2.1. Population and distribution trends for Wildebeest in the Mara Ecosystem 45 5.2.2. Population and distribution trends for Burchell’s Zebra in the Mara Ecosystem 46 5.2.3. Population and distribution trends for Elephant in the Mara Ecosystem 47 5.2.4. Population and distribution trends for Giraffe in the Mara Ecosystem 50 5.2.5. Population and distribution trends for Buffalo, Burchell’s Zebra and Giraffe around Lakes Naivasha, Elementaita and Nakuru and in the Eburu Forest Conservation Area 51 5.2.6. Population and distribution trends for Wildebeest in the Athi-Kaputiei Ecosystem 53 5.2.7. Population and distribution trends for Plains Zebra in the Athi-Kaputiei Ecosystem 54 5.2.8. Population and distribution trends for Giraffe in the Athi-Kaputiei Ecosystem 55 5.2.9. Population and distribution trends for Wildebeest in the South Rift and Amboseli Ecosystem 56 5.2.10.Population and distribution trends for Plains Zebra in the South Rift and Amboseli Ecosystem 58 5.2.11. Population and distribution trends for Elephant in the South Rift and Amboseli Ecosystem 59 5.2.12. Population and distribution trends for Giraffe in the South Rift and Amboseli Ecosystem 61 5.2.13. Population and distribution trends for Burchell’s Zebra in the Tsavo Ecosystem 62 5.2.14. Population and distribution trends for Elephant in the Tsavo Ecosystem 63 5.2.15. Population and distribution trends for Giraffe in the Tsavo Ecosystem 65 5.3.Wildlife Dispersal Areas, Migratory Routes/ Corridors 66 5.4. Conservation Connectivity Threats in the Southern Kenya Rangeland Ecosystems 67 5.5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kenya Soe Ch4 A
    PART 2 STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 61 CHAPTER BIODIVERSITY4 Introduction The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defi nes biodiversity as Kenya’s rich biodiversity Lead Authors ‘the variability among living organisms from all sources including, can be attributed to a number Ali A. Ali and Monday S. Businge among others, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and of factors, including a long Contributing Authors S. M. Mutune, Jane Kibwage, Ivy Achieng, the ecological complexes of which they are part [and] includes diversity evolutionary history, variable Godfrey Mwangi, David Ongare, Fred Baraza, within species, between species and of ecosystems.’ Biodiversity climatic conditions, and diverse Teresa Muthui, Lawrence M. Ndiga, Nick Mugi therefore comprises genetic and species diversity of animals and plants habitat types and ecosystems. Reviewer as well as ecosystem diversity. Kenya is endowed with an enormous The major biodiversity Nathan Gichuki diversity of ecosystems and wildlife species which live in the terrestrial, concentration sites fall within aquatic and aerial environment. These biological resources are the existing protected areas fundamental to national prosperity as a source of food, medicines, network (national parks, reserves and sanctuaries) which are mostly energy, shelter, employment and foreign exchange. For instance, managed by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). However, over 70 percent agricultural productivity and development are dependent on the of the national biodiversity occurs outside the protected areas. availability of a wide variety of plant and animal genetic resources and In spite of its immense biotic capital, Kenya experiences severe on the existence of functional ecological systems, especially those that ecological and socio-economic problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya 2012-2021
    Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya 2012-2021 Compiled by: Moses Litoroh, Patrick Omondi, Richard Kock and Rajan Amin Plate 4. Winds 2 Family crossing the Ewaso Ng’iro River, Samburu National Reserve - Lucy King, Save the Elephants ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, we thank the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) Director, Julius Kipng’etich and KWS Board of Trustees for approving this as a priority activity amongst the core business of KWS. Conservation and We also sincerely thank Keith Lindsay, Winnie Kiiru and Noah Sitati for preparing Management Strategy the background information and facilitating the eleven consultative for the Elephant stakeholder-workshops that were held across the country. This ensured the in Kenya views of as many stakeholders as possible were accommodated into this strategy document. Special thanks to all the stakeholders of the final strategy 2012-2021 development workshop, held at Mpala Research Centre, Nanyuki, which © Kenya Wildlife Service included representatives from United Republic of Tanzania; Uganda Government and the Government of Southern Sudan that finally formulated this National Elephant Management and Conservation Strategy. Our sincere gratitude also to the following individuals for reviewing the first draft : Munira Anyonge Bashir, Julian Blanc, Holly Dublin, Francis Gakuya, Ian Douglas-Hamilton, Ben Kavu, Juliet King, Lucy King, Margaret Kinnaird, Ben Okita, Lamin Seboko, Noah Sitati, Diane Skinner, Richard Vigne and David Western. Frontcover: We are greatly indebted to the following institutions for funding the formulation of this strategy : Born Free Foundation; CITES MIKE Programme; Darwin Initiative Plate 1. African Elephant. Samantha Roberts, Zoological / CETRAD; KWS; People’s Trust for Endangered Species; Tusk Trust; United States Society of London Fish and Wildlife Service; World Wildlife Fund (EARPO) and Zoological Society of London (ZSL).
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Cover and Change for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya Circa 2000 to Circa 2010
    Forest cover and change for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya circa 2000 to circa 2010 Final report Karyn Tabor, Japhet J. Kashaigili, Boniface Mbilinyi, and Timothy M. Wright Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Biodiversity Values of the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests ....................................... 2 1.2 The threats to the forests ............................................................................................................. 5 1.3 Trends in deforestation ................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 The importance of monitoring ...................................................................................................... 8 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 study area ............................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Mapping methodology ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Habitat change statistics ..................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Map validation
    [Show full text]
  • Use and Conservation of Wild Medicinal Food Plants in Loita, Narok County Kenya
    USE AND CONSERVATION OF WILD MEDICINAL FOOD PLANTS IN LOITA, NAROK COUNTY KENYA KARIUKI, PERIS MWERU MSC. ENV SC (KU) BSC. ENV. SC (KU) A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN DRYLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY (LARMAT) UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI, KENYA DECEMBER 2018 DECLARATION This thesis on “Use and Conservation of Wild Medicinal Food Plants in Loita, Narok County, Kenya” is my original work and has not been presented for any research leading to a degree award in any other University. Signature ______________________________ Date ______________________ KARIUKI, PERIS MWERU (A74/80825/2010) Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology (LARMAT), Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nairobi, Kenya APPROVAL “This Thesis has been Submitted with our Approval as University Supervisors”. Signature ______________________________ Date ______________________ Prof. JESSE THEURI NJOKA Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology (LARMAT), Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nairobi, Kenya Signature ______________________________ Date ______________________ Dr. CATHERINE W. LUKHOBA School of Biological Sciences, University of Nairobi Signature ______________________________ Date ______________________ Dr. CECILIA M. ONYANGO Department of Crop Production and Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nairobi i UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI Plagiarism Declaration Form for Students Name of student: KARIUKI, PERIS MWERU Registration Number: A74/80825/2010 College: Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences (CAVs) Faculty: Agriculture Department: Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology Course name: Doctor of Philosophy in Dry Land Resource Management Title of the work: “Use and conservation of wild medicinal food plants in Loita, Narok County” DECLARATION 1. I understand what plagiarism is and I am aware of the University’s policy in this regard 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status of Kenya's Elephants
    The status of Kenya’s elephants 1990–2002 C. Thouless, J. King, P. Omondi, P. Kahumbu, I. Douglas-Hamilton The status of Kenya’s elephants 1990–2002 © 2008 Save the Elephants Save the Elephants PO Box 54667 – 00200 Nairobi, Kenya first published 2008 edited by Helen van Houten and Dali Mwagore maps by Clair Geddes Mathews and Philip Miyare layout by Support to Development Communication CONTENTS Acknowledgements iv Abbreviations iv Executive summary v Map of Kenya viii 1. Introduction 1 2. Survey techniques 4 3. Data collection for this report 7 4. Tsavo 10 5. Amboseli 17 6. Mara 22 7. Laikipia–Samburu 28 8. Meru 36 9. Mwea 41 10. Mt Kenya (including Imenti Forest) 42 11. Aberdares 47 12. Mau 51 13. Mt Elgon 52 14. Marsabit 54 15. Nasolot–South Turkana–Rimoi–Kamnarok 58 16. Shimba Hills 62 17. Kilifi District (including Arabuko-Sokoke) 67 18. Northern (Wajir, Moyale, Mandera) 70 19. Eastern (Lamu, Garissa, Tana River) 72 20. North-western (around Lokichokio) 74 Bibliography 75 Annexes 83 The status of Kenya’s elephants 1990–2002 AcKnowledgemenTs This report is the product of collaboration between Save the Elephants and Kenya Wildlife Service. We are grateful to the directors of KWS in 2002, Nehemiah Rotich and Joseph Kioko, and the deputy director of security at that time, Abdul Bashir, for their support. Many people have contributed to this report and we are extremely grateful to them for their input. In particular we would like to thank KWS field personnel, too numerous to mention by name, who facilitated our access to field records and provided vital information and insight into the status of elephants in their respective areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenya Country Report
    RURAL TRANSPORT SERVICE INDICATORS: Kenya Country Report Kenneth Odero and Paul Starkey in collaboration with Peter Njenga, Musyimi Mbathi, Guy Kemtsop and Shedrack Willilo September 2012 African Community Access Programme (AFCAP) Project AFCAP/GEN/060 Developing Indicators for Rural Transport Services The views in this paper are those of the author(s) and they do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD) or the Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations Ltd for whom the report was prepared International Forum for Rural Transport and Development UK Office: Can Mezzanine, 49‐51 East Road, London N1 6AH, UK Kenneth Odero Email: [email protected] Skype: kenneth.odero Paul Starkey Team Leader, Rural Transport Services Indicators 64 Northcourt Avenue, Reading RG2 7HQ, UK Tel: +44 118 987 2152 Skype: paulstarkey Email: [email protected] and [email protected] Peter Njenga Executive Director, IFRTD Project Manager, Rural Transport Services Indicators PO Box 314, 00502 Karen, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 722360860, +254 707899916 Email: [email protected] and [email protected] Cover photo Rural taxis, motorcycle taxis and pedestrians on the . Cover photo and other photos © Paul Starkey 2 | Page Rural transport services indicator project: Kenya country report. September 2012 This project was funded by the Africa The International Forum for Rural Transport Community Access Programme and Development (IFRTD) in conjunction (AFCAP) which promotes safe and with Paul Starkey was awarded a research sustainable access to markets, contract by the African Community Access healthcare, education, employment Programme (AFCAP) to develop and test indicators that can be used to assess how and social and political networks for good rural transport services are at rural communities in Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenya SAFARI OVERVIEW
    CHEESEMANS’ ECOLOGY SAFARIS 555 North Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030-4336 USA (800) 527-5330 (408) 741-5330 [email protected] cheesemans.com Kenya Migration and Predation August 1 to 17, 2021 Wildebeest Herd © Cheesemans’ Ecology Safaris SAFARI OVERVIEW Timed at the peak of the Great Migration into Kenya’s Masai Mara National Reserve, you’ll search for huge wildebeest and zebra herds making river crossings while optimistic predators wait to attack. Experience being in the midst of and photographing the incredible predator/prey action. Observe the abundance ofarid- adapted wildlife in the Great Rift Valley’s Nakuru National Park, Ol Pejeta Conservancy, and Samburu and Buffalo Springs National Reserves with more opportunities to see Africa’s Big Five: lion, leopard, elephant, buffalo, and rhinoceros. Explore habitats from woodlands to arid plains, rivers, and lakes, and take in sweeping views of highland and lowland landscapes. Experience top-quality lodging, knowledgeable guides, and a safari adventure that Cheesemans’ has perfected over 30 years visiting Kenya. HIGHLIGHTS • Engross yourself in huge herds of wildebeest and zebras during a full week in Kenya’s Masai Mara. • Explore the Rift Valley landscapes of Nakuru National Park with flamingos and Rothchild’s giraffes. • Travel to northern Kenya to arid lands in the rain shadow of Mount Kenya. • Encounter species not found elsewhere, including endangered Grevy’s zebras, gerenuk, beisa oryx and beautiful birds specialized for arid lands along the Uaso Nyiro River. LEADERS: Grephus Ingati, Titus Imboma, Tom Wairegi, and Zach Waithaka. DAYS: 17, including estimated travel time. Cheesemans’ Ecology Safaris Page 1 of 9 Updated: October 2020 GROUP SIZE: 15.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charcoal Grey Market in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan (2021)
    COMMODITY REPORT BLACK GOLD The charcoal grey market in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan SIMONE HAYSOM I MICHAEL McLAGGAN JULIUS KAKA I LUCY MODI I KEN OPALA MARCH 2021 BLACK GOLD The charcoal grey market in Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan ww Simone Haysom I Michael McLaggan Julius Kaka I Lucy Modi I Ken Opala March 2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank everyone who gave their time to be interviewed for this study. They would like to extend particular thanks to Dr Catherine Nabukalu, at the University of Pennsylvania, and Bryan Adkins, at UNEP, for playing an invaluable role in correcting our misperceptions and deepening our analysis. We would also like to thank Nhial Tiitmamer, at the Sudd Institute, for providing us with additional interviews and information from South Sudan at short notice. Finally, we thank Alex Goodwin for excel- lent editing. Interviews were conducted in South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya between February 2020 and November 2020. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Simone Haysom is a senior analyst at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC), with expertise in urban development, corruption and organized crime, and over a decade of experience conducting qualitative fieldwork in challenging environments. She is currently an associate of the Oceanic Humanities for the Global South research project based at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. Ken Opala is the GI-TOC analyst for Kenya. He previously worked at Nation Media Group as deputy investigative editor and as editor-in-chief at the Nairobi Law Monthly. He has won several journalistic awards in his career.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Pastoralists' Willingness to Pay for Artificial Insemination in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya
    Vol. 10(8), pp. 262-270, August 2018 DOI: 10.5897/JDAE2018.0920 Article Number: EB2E94D57948 ISSN: 2006-9774 Copyright ©2018 Journal of Development and Agricultural Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/JDAE Economics Full Length Research Paper Estimating pastoralists’ willingness to pay for artificial insemination in arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya Dickson Nangabo Khainga1*, Gideon Obare2 and John Nyangena1 1Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis, P. O. Box 56445-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. 2Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management, Egerton University, P. O. Box 536 -20115, Egerton, Kenya. Received 10 January, 2018; Accepted 28 June, 2018 Effective promotion of artificial insemination (AI) by private providers in pastoral areas requires stakeholders’ opinion in shaping the direction of their adoption. A structured questionnaire was administered to 384 pastoralists in Kajiado and Narok counties, Kenya to elicit data on willingness to pay for AI services. Double bounded contingent valuation methodology was adapted in computing their willingness to pay for AI services. Results revealed that 90% of farmers were aware of AI of which 51.7 and 50.5% were willing to pay for the services in Kajiado and Narok counties respectively, for an average of Kenya Shillings 1, 853, reflecting a premium of 23.6% placed on AI by pastoralists with reference to the base price of Kenya Shillings (KES) 1,500 offered for exotic breeds in Kenyan highlands. Awareness, herd size and access to extension services significantly increase farmers’ willingness to pay unlike farm income. The study recommends utilization of existing extension networks of community animal health workers to ensure relevant information about AI is disseminated among pastoralists and perform free AI trials on lead pastoralists’ animals to earn others’ confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT for the PROPOSED NGONG HILL ECO-LODGE Situated at Ngong Hills Forest
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED NGONG HILL ECO-LODGE Situated at Ngong Hills Forest This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Project Report is submitted to Kenya National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) in conformity with the requirements of the Environmental Management and Co-ordination (Amendment) Act, 2015 and the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003 July 2018 LEAD EXPERT: PROPONENT Kefa M. Wamicwe Secure Homes limited P.O. Box 76826 - 00620, P O Box 1855-00502 Nairobi Nairobi, Kenya NEMA Reg. No. 9438 i ii Table of content Summary......................................................................................................................................vi Acronyms..................................................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1: Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 background .........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project objectives................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Project justification .............................................................................................................................2 1.4Objective and Scope of Study ..............................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Cop16 Prop. 69
    Original language: English CoP16 Prop. 69 CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ____________________ Sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties Bangkok (Thailand), 3-14 March 2013 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT OF APPENDICES I AND II A. Proposal Inclusion of Osyris lanceolata Hochst. & Steud. (1832), East African Sandalwood in Appendix II of CITES in accordance with Article II, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention and Resolution Conf.9.24 (Rev.CoP), Annex 2 a, paragraph B. The Genus Osyris is currently known to contain the single species Osyris lanceolata. B. Proponent Kenya*. C. Supporting statement 1. Taxonomy 1.1 Class: Angiospermae 1.2 Order: Santalales 1.3 Family: Santalaceae 1.4 Genus, species or subspecies, including author and year: Osyris lanceolata Hochst. & Steud. (1832) 1.5 Scientific synonyms: Osyris quadripartita Decne (1836) O. abyssinica Hochst. ex A. Rich (1850) O. wightiana J. Graham (1839) O. arborea A.DC. (1857) O. pendula Balf.f. (1884) O. rigidissima Engl. (1895) O. tenuifolia Engl. (1895) O. parvifolia Baker (1910) O. urundiensis De Wild. (1925) O. oblanceolata Peter (1932) O. densifolia Peter (1932) O. laeta Peter (1932) O. compressa sensu auct., non (Berg.) (1954) 1.6 Common names: English: East African Sandalwood; African sandalwood French: * The geographical designations employed in this document do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the CITES Secretariat or the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The responsibility for the contents of the document rests exclusively with its author.
    [Show full text]
  • In Water Composition Due to Abstraction of Soda Ash. Impact
    Chapter 6 - Lake Natron Soda Ash ESIA 6 - 8 in water composition due to abstraction of soda ash. Impact: Introduction of animal pests and pathogens to the Lake system Impact No. B/E 3 Changes in disease vector populations Ranking: Negative slight Characteristics: Domestic waste attracting pests. Abandoned borrow pits providing mosquito breeding sites. Increase in introduction of vectors through increased human and vehicle movement. Impact: Loss of fresh water habitats in the Lake due to dry season abstraction Impact No. B/E 4 Changes in aquatic biota Ranking: Negative slight Characteristics: Abstraction of surface water from the Wosi Wosi River Impact: The Cyperus laevigatus sedgelands surrounding the semi sodic springs in the southern and eastern sides of the Lake form critical late dry season grazing for domestic stock and wildlife. Increased pressure or disturbance could deplete the remaining wildlife populations Impact No. B/E 5 Changes in terrestrial plant populations Ranking: Negative moderate Characteristics: Access road along east side of the Lake would threaten the use of 400 ha of dry season grazing. This area has a stocking rate of at least 2.5 LSU/ha during he dry season Impact: Introduction of alien invasive plant and animal species Impact No. B/E 5 Changes in terrestrial plant (and animal) populations Ranking: Negative slight Characteristics: Concerns relating to construction activities, the development of domestic gardens, the introduction of brine shrimp into the process Impact: Illegal hunting activities will increase with human immigration into the area Impact No. B/E 6 Changes in terrestrial wildlife populations Ranking: Negative slight Characteristics: There is a present decline in rare wildlife species such as gerenuk and Coir bustard and local extinction of rhino and Oryx due to increased pressure on grazing resources and increased poaching.
    [Show full text]