ABSTRACT

POLICY ISSUES AND HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICTS IN

by Billystrom A. Jivetti

Kenya’s conservation policies are based on strategies introduced during the colonial period and little has been done to make them consonant with contemporary conservation values. Protected areas, as the main instruments of conservation, are under increased pressure from human population growth. Competition for resources escalates human-wildlife conflicts. The human- elephant conflict is just a microcosm of larger, more complex issues facing protected areas. Kenya now must contend with feeding a growing human population while conserving wildlife. This study looks at the policy vacuums in wildlife conservation and offers recommendations. Data collection involved consultations with the key stakeholders in Kenyan wildlife conservation. Field observations were carried out at the Shimba Hills National Reserve. The findings reveal that human-elephant conflicts are a result of land use conflicts and that there is need for more consistent efforts in applying current policy and perhaps a need for a unified land- use policy throughout the country.

POLICY ISSUES AND HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICTS IN KENYA

A Practicum

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Science Institute of Environmental Sciences By Billystrom A. Jivetti Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2004

Advisor ______Dr. Adolph M. Greenberg

Reader ______Dr. Gene E. Willeke

Reader ______Dr. John K. Maingi

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One……………………………………………………………………………….1 Introduction ...………………………………………………………………………..…....1 Chapter Two ..………………………………………....……………………………..…...5 Research Approach, Study Area, and Field Observations...…………………………..…..5 Research Approach……………...…………………………………………….…..5 Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Surveys (DRSRS)………….…….6 World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) –African Elephant Specialist Group-Human- Elephant Conflict Working Group (HECWG)……………………………………6 Head of Kenya Wildlife Service Elephant Management Program..………...…….7 Central Bureau of Statistics………………….……………………………………8 Shimba Hills National Reserve……………………………………………………8 With the Senior Warden...…………..……………………………………..8 Research Scientist at Shimba Hills National Reserve ………………….….8 Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary (MES)...... …………...…………………9 Documentary Review at the Kenya Wildlife Service Library…………….9 Focus Area…………………………………………………...…………..10 Chapter Three...………………………………………………………………….………12 Issues and Literature Review…………………………………………………………….12 Land use, Agriculture, and Protected Areas………………………..12 Community Conservation………………………………………………………..15 Conservation Policies and Protected Areas……………………………………...17 Non-Governmental Organizations and Conservation…….……………………..19 Human-Elephant Conflicts………………………………….……………………19 History of the Kenya Wildlife Act /Conservation Policies………………………24 The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS)……………………………………………..26 Chapter Four...…………………………………………………………………………..28 Research Findings………………………………………………………………………..28 Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Surveys (DRSRS)………………28 Consultation at the IUCN -African Elephant Specialist Group Human-Elephant Conflict Working Group (HECWG) based in Nairobi…..………………………28 The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for Nature Regional Office in Kenya...……..29 Project Goal.……………………………………………………………..30 The objectives of the WWF Project…..………………………………….30 Findings with a WWF Officer/ Professor of Tourism & Wildlife Management at Moi University…………………..……………………...30 Census information from The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)………………………33 Consultation with the Chief Warden, Shimba Hills National Reserve…………………..34 Consultation with the Resident Research Scientist at Shimba Hills National Reserve….38 The Electric Fence……………………………………………………………….38 Before the Fence…………………………………………………………39 After the Fence…………………………………………………………...39 Ecological Impacts of the Fence…………………………………………40 Consultation with the KWS Head of Elephant Conservation and Management Program…………………………………………………………………………………..41

ii Management and Policy Issues…………………………………………………..42 Compensation Issues……………………………………………………………..42 Chapter Five……………………………………………………………………...……...44 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..44 Compensation Scheme…………………………………………………………...49 Chapter Six……………………………………………………………………………….50 Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………………………………..50 References………………………………………………………………………………..52 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………….61

iii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Shimba Hills National Reserve and the land use land cover map for Shimba Hills………………………………………………………………………………………10 Figure 2. A coconut tree growing in a homestead near Shimba Hills Reserve………….11 Figure 3. An elephant destroying banana plantation…………………………………….14 Figure 4. Assessing how agricultural and forest practices affect biodiversity………..…15 Figure 5. The world famous burning of ivory in Nairobi Park, 1989……………………20 Figure 6. Elephant dung in Shimba Hills Reserve………………………………...……..22 Figure 7. The plunder of Africa's wildlife by European settlers…………………………25 Figure 8. Human census statistics for Kwale District 1962-1999…………………….…34 Figure 9. An elephant grid in Shimba Hills Reserve to control elephant movements…...35 Figure 10. Number of tourists and revenue generated from Shimba Hills N. Reserve.....36 Figure 11. Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary electric fence ………………………...…...40 Figure 12. Vegetation transformed by elephants' feeding habits in Mwaluganje, near Shimba Hills Reserve ……………………………………………………………….…..41 Figure 13. A model showing how policy issues influence human-wildlife interactions in Kenya………………………………….……………………………………………..…..45 Figure 14. Livestock grazing in Mwaluganje, near Shimba Hills Reserve……………...47

iv Acknowledgements Many people came together to facilitate the success of this project. Without them, I would not have attained much. I appreciate having worked with Dr. Adolph Greenberg, my advisor. Thank you for your unwavering support, your wonderful comments, guidance, and above all having confidence in me and my work. Thank you for your time. It was an honor, also to work with Dr. Gene Willeke and Dr. John Maingi, my other committee members. I may never be able to quantify the help and support I received from them. Beyond the study project, I really cherish their counsel and advice. This study was funded through the Department of Botany and the Institute of Environmental Sciences, Miami University. Mr. Patrick Omondi, Elphas Bitok, and Moses Litoroh of Kenya Wildlife Service Elephant Management Program greatly supported the study. I first learnt about policy issues from Dr. Sandra Woy-Hazleton’s class at the Institute of Environmental Sciences; she inspired my interest on the same. Dr. Vincent Hand was always ready to help with computer concerns. Thanks to Chris Ingham and Betty Haven, of the administrative wing of the Institute of the Environmental Sciences, Miami University. Special mention goes to the Interlibrary Loan and Science Library Staff of Miami University Libraries for making documents available on time during the period of compilation. Many thanks to Dr. John Hughes, the Dean of Graduate School, Miami University; himself a very accommodating scholar. I can not forget Dr. Cheryl Evans and Cyndi Stevens of the Graduate School. I pay a glowing tribute to Dr. Allan Winkler of History Department Miami University who first knew me in Kaimosi, Kenya, and has remained instrumental to me in many ways. I remember the wonderful friends at Miami University whom I refer to as the “Miami Nation”. Keep up the spirit. My friend Edwin Akhusama, was so resourceful. Overall, I thank my family members for your prayers, support, and encouragement. You are special and mean a lot to me. My memory is full of the prayers of my loving Mama Rose. My Dad Joash has been an inspiration to me for his courage, steadfastness and diligence. Brother Sinjaa, thanks for the financial sacrifice and encouragement. Hallelujah to Jesus Christ, you saved me gave me a second chance.

v Chapter One Introduction Most protected areas in developing countries fail to provide sufficient space to sustain the extensive mobility of large mammals like elephants, yet the possibility of expanding existing protected areas cannot be envisioned. The competition among wildlife, humans and livestock for scarce food and water resources has escalated incidents of human-wildlife conflicts around protected areas (Georgiadis et al. 2003:125, Ogutu 1997). Although about 8% of the total land area is under protected area status (Akama & Kieti 2003, Inamdar et al. 1999, IUCN 1998, Kinyua et al. 2000:228), wildlife herds migrate outside protected areas and into areas that are highly dominated by humans and livestock causing damage to crops, property, death, and injury (World Bank, 2001). Human settlements and activities around protected areas due encroachment block dispersal or migratory corridors used by wildlife. It is at the interface between habitats and human settlements that conflicts emerge (Kinyua et al. 2000:229, Georgiadis et al. 2003, Allaway 1981, Newmark et al. 1994). To many conservationists, humans are a menace to biological conservation and a threat to the future of wildlife (Geisler, 2002), through habitat destruction, encroachment, logging, and poaching (Ervin, 2003). Such initiatives that attach a higher premium on wildlife over the needs of people only serve to increase resentment towards wildlife conservation at the local community level (Hackel, 1999). Although the subsistence demands of the local people are thought to be a threat to wildlife, the pressures associated with commercial development constitute the greatest threat (Negi & Nautiyal). As Mburu et al. (2003) affirm, local communities’ involvement in the management of protected areas is crucial and the survival of wildlife depends on them. Daniels & Basset (2002) propose the creation of conservation units like buffer zones, wildlife corridors, and community resource management territories as a system that synchronizes most land use practices with park or environmental management strategies. Poor planning process, insufficient budget, lack of monitoring procedures (Clarke, 2000) and lack of policies governing resources utilization are some of the attributes of protected areas in Africa (Oguge & Rogo, 2000). Balancing the ecological, tourism, and the local community goals has not been an easy task to wildlife managers (Inamdar et al. 1999, World Bank 2001). Indigenous people’s lives have evolved based on the sustainable use of local ecosystems mainly at the subsistence levels of production; this has bequeathed them with knowledge about their local areas called

1 ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ (James, 1984); that has been recognized by the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) to be a potential source of ideas for ecosystem management (Hughes 1996, Kimmerer 2002). Before independence in 1963 Kenya was teeming with unique wildlife. The elephant population was approximately 165,000. However this was short-lived since just two decades after independence, the herds declined to a paltry 16,000, largely due to poaching driven by the lucrative ivory trade. In 1989, Kenya along with other African nations ratified and became a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which banned trade in ivory and other elephant products. After the ban, the elephant population increased to 27,000 by 1996. Ironically, it has now become a management concern due to increasing human-elephant conflicts (Berger 2001, KWS 1989, Thouless & Sakwa 1994). Like many African countries (Osborn & Parker 2002, Hoare 1999), the conflicts between humans and elephants in Kenya have escalated to levels of concern, especially in areas where the habitats are being converted to farmland (Sitati 2003, Kiiru 1995a, Kangwana 1995). The reason is that most of the elephant range occurs outside the protected areas in areas that are laced with agricultural activities, thus the elephants and humans are always in contact and competition for space (Kiiru 1995, Omondi et al. 2001, Sitati 2003). Increasing human population, especially around elephant habitats causes reduction in elephant ranges due to continuous excisions and changes in land-use to pave the way for agricultural activities that attract elephant incursions because of their strategic location (Hoare 2000, Hoare & Du Toit 1999, Sitati 2003). Conventional elephant migratory routes and corridors have been decimated by the extension of people into areas originally considered as elephant ranges (Kangwana, 1995). Crop raiding, injury and death to people continue, and are the most common forms of conflict although elephants also damage property like farm installations, fences and even houses (Kiiru 1995a, Ngure 1995). Other impacts include injury to and killing of livestock and the competition for water or grazing resources, and shortened working times (Kangwana 1995, Sitati 2003, Hoare 2000). Many elephants have been shot by wildlife authorities while in some cases community members also kill elephants in circumstances of conflict (Kangwana, 1995). There is need for increased public awareness and appreciation of the origin, dynamic nature, and the ecology of human- wildlife conflicts so as to provide valuable insights for potential solutions (Bauer 2003, Messmer 2000, Weladji at al. 2003).

2 The management of the human-elephant conflict (HEC) has become a major challenge to both managers of wildlife and local communities around protected areas across the African continent (Hoare 1999, IUCN 1998, Osborn & Parker 2002). Conservation policies tend to ignore the needs of the local communities by attaching a higher premium on wildlife over human needs hence the changing perception towards conservation (Hackel, 1999). An upcoming conservation dictum across Africa is that the future survival of continent’s mega- depends very much on the goodwill of the local communities (Lamprey & Reid, 2004). Musters, (2000) also asserts that land-use conflicts around wildlife protected areas are a result of pressure from increasing impacts of human activities. Omondi et al. (2004), consider human-elephant conflicts as land-use conflicts that started in the last three decades when large swathes of lands were subdivided into smaller pieces of land in the absence of a land zoning frameworks, hence the contact between wildlife and human became frequent. Kenya’s wildlife is greatly valued as a source of foreign exchange, employment and tourism attraction hence the need for protection and management policies that will effectively enhance the conservation of these wildlife resources (Kinyua et al, 2000). At the local level, these policies should discourage cultivation activities around elephant ranges as one way of minimizing damage due to elephant incursions. The policies need to proactively determine areas that can sustain high numbers of elephants without potential conflicts with humans. Dealing with the aftermath of the conflict should be an important part of the policies while specifying the responsibilities and appropriate actions to be meted. Development plans should account for key elephant areas inside and outside a protected area system (Kangwana, 1995). Despite the increase in conflicts, Kenya still lacks a national policy that addresses human-elephant conflicts, according to Omondi et al. (2004), which is also exacerbated by the absence of a clear policy on land use (Kock, 1995). It is against this background that I chose as a practicum the examination of the Kenya national conservation policy and its approach to human-elephant conflicts as well as the implications on the community and the elephant species. I also look at the history behind policy formulation process and the level of awareness by the local communities in the affected areas. The focus is also on the role played by among other stakeholders, the non-governmental organizations in mitigating the conflict. My goal was to determine the policy vacuums and how they contribute to the problem of human-elephant conflicts in Kenya. To better understand this

3 subject, I chose to examine the Shimba Hills national Reserve for two reasons: first, it is the only National Reserve in Kenya that is fenced completely; and secondly it has a high elephant density (Hoft & Hoft 1994, Litoroh 2002, Kiiru 1995b), and a translocation exercise of over 400 elephants is slated to take place in the near future (Omondi & Litoroh, personal com, 2004).

4 Chapter Two Research Approach, Study Area, and Field Observations Research Approach This study used qualitative research approach in which consultations, meetings, observations, and retrieval of documents were used in examining the national conservation policy, implications on the human-elephant conflicts, and elephant conservation in Kenya. Between May-July 2004, I held a series of consultations with the relevant officers: • The Director, Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Surveys (DRSRS) • Moi University Professor of Wildlife and Tourism Management involved in human-elephant research with the World Wildlife Fund East Africa region. • International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) African Elephant Specialist Group- Human-Elephant Conflict Working Group (HECWG) • Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) • Kenya Wildlife Service Elephant Management Program Head • Senior Warden, Shimba Hills National Reserve • Resident Research Scientist, Shimba Hills National Reserve • Local Community near Shimba Hills National Reserve • The Kenya Wildlife Service Library

I decided to consult these people because they have been directly involved in elephant conservation in Kenya in various capacities and are informed about policy issues affecting elephants and wildlife conservation in Kenya. The Central Bureau of Statistics provided the National Development Plan and human census statistics, while the Kenya Wildlife Service Library provided additional literature on the subject of study from earlier times to the present. I did not use any questionnaire to interview the respondents but I was guided by a set of topics for each respondent. At the Shimba Hills National Reserve, I held consultations with the Senior Warden, rangers, and the Research Scientist who then accompanied me to the field for observations and community consultations. The consultations were conducted in accordance with the ethics and protocol of ethnographic research, and were preceded by acquisition of permission from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology to conduct the fieldwork. Both English and Swahili (Kenya’s second national language) languages were used. The

5 information collected from the following places which I visited forms the backbone of this report. Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Surveys (DRSRS). July 8th 2004 We discussed various items touching on land use in Kenya and how the lack of a land use policy affects conservation of natural resources especially wildlife conservation in Kenya. This covered the various land uses with regard to biodiversity conservation, especially how agricultural activities affect conservation of wildlife. The functions of the DRSRS cut across various ministries in Kenya namely the Ministries of Tourism and Wildlife, Lands and Housing, Natural Resources, and Environment. It helps in maintaining an inventory of remote sensing and surveying databases of various natural resources in Kenya. It also uses appropriate technology such as Geographical Information Services, Remote Sensing in conducting aerial and census data for wildlife distribution and population estimates in Kenya. This information was vital in understanding human and wildlife census in the country, and the state of natural resources. Another issue was the land use land-cover changes over the last three decades relative to the functions of protected areas, as an impact of increasing human population on the meager land resources and what this means for the conservation of the country. We then looked at the available elephant census statistics and the dominant land-use practices for in Kwale District, the home of Shimba Hills National Reserve. The need for more land for farming, the extent of human settlements and zones, forms of economic livelihood for communities.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) –African Elephant Specialist Group-Human-Elephant Conflict Working Group (HECWG). July 9th 2004.

Local and international non-governmental organizations play a key role in conservation of Kenya’s wildlife species. There are two main agencies the WWF and the ICUN, both based in Nairobi, Kenya and are directly involved in the human-elephant conflict in Africa. In both stations, I was interested in understanding the magnitude of the HEC from the continental perspective, and the role such agencies can play in providing solutions to such a problem. We

6 began by assessing the role that NGOs play, if any in the HEC and how they go about it. This discussion also centered on how the agencies support elephant conservation through various strategies, how they help in the improvement of the human livelihoods in areas affected by HEC. Of interest was also the role the agencies play in supporting HEC related studies across the continent. We then discussed how they provide technical advice and expertise to state governments on the management of the HEC. Another item that was how Kenya’s conservation policy compares with the CITES treaty which lifted the ban on ivory trade. Finally, I was able to access the HEC database that is maintained by the IUCN, itself an authority on the HEC in Africa.

Head of Kenya Wildlife Service Elephant Management Program July 14th 2004 At the KWS Headquarters, I met with the head of the Elephant Program in Kenya. Of primary interest was the management of elephants in the country, elephant security, problem animal control and human-elephant conflict first for the country, then for the study site- Shimba Reserve. In the preliminary, we looked at the history of the Kenya Wildlife Act, its amendment in 1989 as a response to poaching that was ravaging rhino and elephant populations. We then assessed the successes of the KWS in curbing poaching and reverting elephant densities across the country. Further, we dwelled deeply on the management and policy issues for human- elephant conflicts. This touched on why Kenya adopted and supported the ban on elephant trade in the midst of opposition from neighbors, and issues to do with compensation of crops and lives or property destroyed by elephants. We then looked at the rise in elephant densities since the ban, and the problems associated with high numbers in terms of management and conflict resolution. Other issues included the effects of land-use practices (agriculture), and the lack of a clear land-use policy and their influences on conservation policies. This discussion also touched on the various options used in the management of the conflict like translocation and fencing, in relation to culling of problem animals. Rising human population, community conservation was also addressed in detail. We then discussed Shimba Hills Reserve as a special ecosystem.

7 Central Bureau of Statistics July 14th 2004 This arm of the government is mandated to collect and analyze data for policy planning and policy formulation. My interest at this Department was to access national human population census statistics for the last four decades for my area of study in Kwale District. It is here that I was able to access the National and Kwale District Development Plans which highlights the major land-uses and how they contribute to environmental degradation, the government’s commitment to fulfilling the plan in relation to wildlife resource in the district.

Shimba Hills National Reserve July 19th-July 22nd 2004 With the Senior Warden The Senior Warden is the senior Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and government officer for the Shimba Hills National Reserve. The Warden is in charge and responsible for the daily administration of the Reserve. We began by highlighting the history of the Reserve, its formation up to the present status. We addressed the issue of poaching in this particular reserve before and after the CITES ban of trade in ivory. The elephant density in relation to the government’s plan for relocation of some elephant herds also came into play. Reasons for choosing to relocate over other mitigation measures also emerged during this discussion. The discussion also dwelled on the various land-uses in the Shimba area and the role they play in the HEC. In line with this issue, was the role of and challenges of community conservation. We further looked at the popularity of the Reserve as a tourist destination by looking at the tourist inventory book for the past ten years. Tourism, compensation, and community attitude were also highlighted within the local and national context. The effectiveness of the various mitigation measures was also discussed. Research Scientist at Shimba Hills National Reserve Every national reserve or park has been assigned a resident research scientist according to the structures of KWS. Hence at Shimba Hills I met with a seasoned elephant specialist and my interview with him covered the history of Wildlife Act and the formation of the Kenya Wildlife Service as state agency in charge of wildlife resources. We assessed the ecological impacts of high elephant density at the Reserve, the consequences on the neighboring local communities,

8 the emergence of human-elephant conflicts, and the efficiency of the various mitigation measures that were being enforced. Our conversation on the effectiveness of the fence included the costs of fence construction and maintenance, the challenges posed by the elephants, and the ecological or biological implications of using an electric fence. We also talked about how conflicts had reduced with the adoption of the electric fence. Further, we discussed the local people’s perceptions to the mitigation strategies like fencing and translocation among others. We then explored the benefits of community conservation practices and how it has been perceived by the local communities, and the other land use practices in the areas surrounding the park and their role in the shaping the lives and perceptions of the Reserve.

Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary (MES) July 21st 2004 At the Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary, I was able to confer with community representatives on several issues touching the community’s role in the HEC. We looked at its history, why it was formed, and how it benefits the community in terms of jobs and prevention elephant-human deaths or generation of revenue for the community. We also discussed how the community views elephants in the conflict, as a resource to conserve, and as a source of revenue for both the community and the government. We then looked at how life within the community was transformed with the advent of the electric fence and some of the alternative land-use practices within the community and how they compare with proceeds from the project.

Documentary Review at the Kenya Wildlife Service Library July 24-26th The KWS library is a hub of documents on matters to do with the wildlife and the environment in Kenya. In this respect, I was able to retrieve and access previous studies on HEC in the country and in the Shimba Hills Reserve. I then examined the Wildlife Act as the prime law for wildlife conservation in Kenya. It is here that I also looked at the elephant policy framework document for KWS. Other items were the unpublished 1995 Task Force Report on Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Kenya. This information session served as a check and balance of my field experiences.

9 Focus Area

Figure 1. Shimba Hills National Reserve and associated land use land cover map for Kwale District

Shimba Hills National Reserve (Figure1) is found in the southwestern Kenya from 39017 to 39030 East and from 4009 to 4021 South. The area experiences a humid semi-equatorial climate of an average monthly temperature ranging from 24 0C to 280C and an annual precipitation of 1200mm (Hoft & Hoft, 1995). The area has a high elephant density approximately six elephants per square kilometer, hence the high number of human-elephant conflicts in the area (Litoroh, 2002). Mwaluganje area, around the reserve is a corridor for elephants migrating from Tsavo National Park, Taita Hills and Mkomani National Reserve in Tanzania (Cocheba & Ndirangu, 1998). Some of the world’s endangered flora and fauna of prime biological importance like the Sable antelope (Hippotragus niger harris) and Cyanometra trees that are destroyed by elephants (Cocheba & Ndirangu 1998, Kiiru 1995b) also occur here.

10 Subsistence farming and coconut cultivation (see figure 2) are the means of subsistence for the communities around the Shimba Hills Reserve. Elephant incursions into people’s farms have resulted in cases where farmers have abandoned their farms or been killed, thus the area experiences poverty and persistent food shortages (Muriuki 2003, USAID 2002).

Figure 2. A coconut tree growing in a homestead near Shimba Hills National Reserve.

11 Chapter Three Issues and Literature Review Land use, Agriculture, Biodiversity and Protected areas In the last few decades, concerns about the role of land use change in driving losses in biological diversity have increased. Human population growth has been associated with habitat conversion into agriculture and other uses and hence, land-use/land cover changes (Reid et. al 2000). Many factors threaten wildlife, although habitat conversions to agricultural uses, urban development and human overexploitation are most common (Bultea & Horanb, 2003). In the developing world, conventional agriculture is failing to meet the expectations and needs of the people who depend on it as compared to biodiversity as an alternative land use (Walker, 1999). Some countries do not effectively manage their protected areas while providing for a rapidly growing population (Howard et al. 2000). Due to rapid human population growth, the primary conflicts between wildlife conservation and rural development is over land use; these conflicts translate into land conversion (Skonhoft, 1998). Most biodiversity resources are found in areas suitable for agricultural, revealing an intricate relationship between ecosystem function and biodiversity. As a result, habitat transformation to farmlands by human activities to agriculture has emerged as a threat to global biodiversity (Wessels 2003, Lockwood 1999). Poor and land-hungry people encroach on protected lands for wildlife in search of fuel wood, timber, poles and plots for land for cultivation (Darkoh, 2003). To pave the way for agriculture, large swaths of forests, prairies, and tropical lands have been cleared in an effort to feed rising human population (Lockwood, 1999). The type of land-use land cover in wildlife areas includes grassland or grazing land interspersed with cropland mosaic and woodland, all representing habitat for wild and domesticated herbivores where the rural people are agro-pastoral, combining small scale farming with livestock-keeping or specializing in herding (pastoralists) or farming. Other wildlife-based occupations include gathering and hunting wild resources, or tourism based on wildlife hunting or viewing (Homewood 2004, Seno & Shaw 2003). Changes in land use patterns have put agriculture and biodiversity conservation on a collision course. Though agriculture is a source of livelihood for many rural communities, it can easily lead to the loss of biodiversity if care is not taken (Srivastava, 1996).

12 About two-thirds of the land that supports wildlife in Africa has been disturbed or converted for subsistence or other economic uses. The economic and social forces behind transformation of the wildlife habitats of Africa cannot be easily stopped as most people toil to increase production of food for the growing population at all costs (Darkoh, 2003). In East Africa, establishing an appropriate balance between food security and conservation of natural resources that is concomitant with wildlife conservation and the people co-existing with wildlife is still an intricate endeavor (Thornton et al. 2003). Wildlife conservationists now have to devise ways and means to contain the spread of agriculture into protected areas whose boundaries are ever shifting (Srivastava, 1996). The fabric of biodiversity is still intertwined with human culture because the local people have co-evolved with their environments and have acquired considerable knowledge for harvesting and managing their resources. This knowledge, honed over millennia of working with nature rather than against it, is important in understanding how biodiversity can be better used and protected and should be incorporated in current agricultural research and development projects (Srivastava et al, 1996). Agricultural policies play an important role in habitat change and the loss of biodiversity (Darkoh, 2003), therefore the formulation and implementation of agricultural and conservation policies should directly involve local communities especially in decisions affecting biodiversity in their areas. Successful conservation needs to be integrated into land-use policies, particularly the agricultural policy (Solh et al. 2003). The land use and land tenure policies also contribute to changes in land-use and land cover (Reid et. al 2000, Seno & Shaw 2003); therefore the policies need an ecological framework to relate to the farming they influence (Eriksen et al. 1996). This is in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its proposals (Pienkowski et al. 1996). National parks have helped save biodiversity from development and land conversion, but some areas in the developing countries have been adversely affected by overprotectionist tendencies (Inamdar et al. 1999). Apart from unequal revenue sharing, the local communities have been displaced from their lands and their access to natural resources limited, and grazing land lost. Bias through sport hunting and tourism, prevention from eliminating problem animals that destroy crops and livestock also contribute to the negative attitude against wildlife conservation by the local people who bear the real cost of conservation without obtaining any significant benefits from it (Skonhoft 1998, Alcorn 1993).

13 Elephants are also potential obstacles to farming in most parts of Africa. Within the elephant ranges, agriculture can only flourish in areas that are well defended. Conflicts with farmers emerge when problem animals from the confines of parks and reserves surrounding private and communal lands that are under cultivation. The probability of contact between humans and elephants increases with the constriction in elephant habitat (Kangwana 1995).

Figure 3. An elephant destroying banana plantation (Hill et al. 2002)

In Kenya, over 90% of crop raiding incidents of wild animals involve elephants (Hoare, 1999). Pressure to convert elephant habitats to other developments that are not compatible with elephant conservation threatens the future of the African elephant. These pressures are driven by human population growth rates as well as in-migration in parts of east Africa. The rise in human population has been found to be an ecological constraint, especially in matters of human-wildlife interactions (Thornton et al. 2003). The impacts of rising elephant densities on the ecosystem pose great concerns because of their large and varied diet, physical impact on their surroundings, and high mobility (Mendelssohn 1999, Chafota 1998, Kiiru 1995a, Kangwana 1995, IUCN 1998, Smith & Kasiki 2000). In an attempt to provide an analytical tool to help in the assessment of how certain agricultural and forest practices influence biodiversity loss, the World Bank (1996) proposes various indicators (see figure 4).

14 Some preliminary performance indicators on biodiversity conservation and management in various agricultural production and forest extraction systems

Indicator Cause(s) Proposed Mitigation Action(s)

Natural Habitat Loss Encroachment by Intensify systems to agricultural production increase productivity and systems income generating options

Habitat Fragmentation Encroachment of Minimize fragmentation agriculture in [….] by providing uncoordinated manner wildlife corridors along “bridges” of natural habitat

Figure 4. Assessing how agricultural and forest practices affect biodiversity (World Bank, 1996).

Community Conservation Driven by the mounting impetus that local communities play a central role in the conservation programs and projects in areas adjoining protected areas, community-based conservation has now become the epitome of wildlife conservation policies in many regions in Africa (Westen & Wright 1994, Hulme & Murphree 1999). After a century of exclusionary laws and continuance of government ownership of wildlife property rights, many local communities have become cynical of government conservation policies (Gibson, 1999). African conservation policies have been shifting from state-centric activities to society-based at the local community while disparaging the view that local communities are degraders of the environment, and extolling the recognition of their rights and responsibilities over their resources (Hulme & Murphree, 1999). Purely protectionist policies of biodiversity conservation are no longer attractive at the global level because they expose local communities to numerous hardships and conflicts of resource use (Inamdar et al. 1999, Akama 1998).

15 The local communities are stakeholders who need to compete with other interest groups to have a “seat at the table” in matters pertaining to resource management. Indigenous peoples’ rights to ownership, management, and control of their lands are emphasized. This is the new paradigm of conservation that calls for a shift from stakeholders to rights-holders (Colchester, 2004). Traditional protectionist 'fines and fences' strategies have since become unpopular, because the economic returns of the fences and fines mode are costly to the local communities (Adams & Hulme 2001, Akama 1998). According to Negi and Nautiyal (2003), conservation concepts that preclude humankind from protected area management, also known as top-down management, often cause staid repercussions to the local people. These include relocation, hardship, and collapse of traditional systems of resource management and utilization. Consequently, in matters of policy formulation and adjudication, the local, national, and academic interests in the biodiversity resource conservation must be included (Colchester, 2004). Local communities are at the fulcrum of conservation because they incur direct heavy economic costs that arise from numerous conservation programs and projects; these losses can cause political unrest, sabotage of conservation efforts and programs or projects, and disregard of laws aimed at conserving biodiversity (Tisdell, 1995). People-park conflicts occur in many areas where people live close to protected areas because residents consider land ownership as their inherent right in places they have occupied for many generations, supported mainly by subsistence farming. However, most governments perceive this kind of livelihood as a potential threat to a national heritage and uses it as the prime reason for wanting to “protect or conserve” such an area from human activities (Hughes, 1996). Hulme & Murphree (1999) argue against such state coercion that alienates human and biodiversity in the pretext of conservation since such approaches denigrate the value of local resource conservation. Areas of prime biodiversity importance are also homes to many poor people (Inamdar et al., 1999). The dynamics of this conflict appear historical in the sense that land or forest and animal shortage puts human use of the landscape and conservation strategies into competition (Hughes, 1996). Development and conservation should be interdependent so that development conforms to the conservation principles of sustainability, whilst conservation measures are pursued in line with demands of the local populations. Even though subsistence demands pose the greatest threat to wildlife conservation, the pressures associated with commercial development constitute the biggest threat. It calls for the successful involvement of

16 the indigenous populations in matters pertaining to land-use policies that are also hinge on the conservation of resources (Negi & Nautiyal 2003, Colchester 2004).

Conservation Policies and Protected Areas Policy is taken to mean the de facto guiding principles which are implicit and evident in official planning, decision-making, and practice, even where these are not articulated and published as formal policy (Homewood, 2004).Wildlife, a significant resource in most African governments, has become a political commodity, and wildlife conservation policies are at the center of disputes between individuals, groups and governments. Even after independence, most governments continued to keep colonial wildlife laws that were draconian, colonial, unpopular and exclusionary, established in favor of the Europeans (Gibson, 1999). Conservation policies in Africa view local land use practices as detrimental to soil, water, vegetation and habitat conservation. Human population growth is perceived to be the greatest threat accelerating habitat conversion through agriculture and subsistence resource use like hunting which endanger species survival (Homewood, 2004). Guided by these concerns, conservation policies in many African states have sought to protect as spatially extensive a set of areas as much as possible. About 4.7% of total land area in Africa is dedicated to conservation. Tanzania for example has 27%, while Kenya has about 8% (Inamdar et al. 1999, Kinyua et al. 2000). This form of conservation that excludes residence and/or consumptive use by local people from protected areas is known as “fortress conservation” and utilizes paramilitary ranger style forces for enforcement, and prohibits local communities from consumptive use of natural resources like grazing livestock, honey hunting, firewood or timber gathering (Homewood, 2004). Fortress conservation commonly imposes heavy costs on local people without bringing commensurate benefits. Economic outcomes only represent one dimension: social institutions associated with conservation management may enhance representation and participation, on one hand, or foster exclusion and marginalization on the other. Community-based conservation initiatives are relatively new departures in the conservation sphere (Hulme & Murphree, 2001). With the main instruments of conservation now being protected areas, most national and international conservation strategies begin and end with the designation of protected areas (Howard et al. 2000). This approach is thought to be effective in biodiversity hotspots which are

17 small in area and are undergoing severe changes of human impacts and disturbances. However, as is the case in many areas, this approach can be flawed; it results in the loss of traditional property rights, and increased pressure on the resource as the locals resort to unorthodox means of harvesting resources, hence counteracting any conservation efforts (Perrings & Lovett, 1999). Protected areas are surrounded by local populations often seen as a menace to wildlife conservation. These areas are juxtaposed with chronic poverty and underdevelopment, and conflicts over resources are rampant because of the conflicting interests between wildlife conservation and rural livelihood (Homewood, 2004). Unequal revenue sharing, displacement or the loss of grazing land, limited access to natural resources, bias through sport hunting and tourism, prevention from eliminating problem animals that destroy crops and livestock also contribute to the negative attitude against wildlife conservation by the local people who bear the real cost of living around protected areas (Skonhoft, 1998). Policy makers occasionally fail to recognize the social and cultural impact of protected areas on the local populations who are poor and powerless, but need a voice and choice (Geisler, 2002). The policies that are created fail to protect the wildlife partly because the policy makers are not consonant with conservation, (Gibson, 1999). Akama et al. (1995) argue that although certain land uses threaten wildlife, it is possible to harmonize and make them compatible with conservation. Wildlife affects the decisions of rural residents in many ways; farmers contend with wild animals’ damage to crops, travel by day or night is threatened, they incur death or injuries, their choices where to build homes are affected, and even when or where to hold social or religious functions. This is the reason why rural residents are always challenging the wildlife policies to gain access to wildlife resources (Gibson, 1999). Perrings & Lovett (1999) propose four main elements in a conservation policy: a regulatory regime to protect key species, habitat and ecological services, including protected areas; an appropriate set of property rights in natural resources; a compensation mechanism; and incentives for the local communities. Boundaries of protected areas, the type of species protected by law, penalty for violating such laws, and access fees, are some of the aspects driving wildlife policy change but whose outcomes are varied. Some policies overprotect some species; others strip away income and food from the already impoverished, while generating revenues for governments, as some policies promote the destruction of particular species and enrich individuals (Gibson, 1999).

18 Non-Governmental Organizations and Conservation Some of the institutions that influence biodiversity include community groups, local and national government structures, and international organizations. Wildlife is an important part of relationships amongst African countries, developed countries, and international NGOs. It is a source of foreign exchange, increased bilateral and multi-lateral aid flows to wildlife conservation programs. Many conservation-oriented NGOs in Africa ascribe growing importance to the fate of wildlife in Africa (Gibson, 1999). In Kenya, like in many other African states, many wildlife conservation projects are initiated and supported by western conservation and international development organizations which recognize Kenya’s wildlife to be a world heritage that should not be left to disappear but be protected for the posterity (Wells, 1998). International organizations and local NGOs with interests in wildlife conservation seek to influence both national policy and local decisions on wildlife management (Campbell et al. 2000). The main ones are International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF). International conservation NGOs have been at the forefront of biodiversity conservation initiatives. Their roles in biodiversity conservation includes: setting management policies, implementation of the policies, resource use, monitoring, provision of financial and human resource, and lobbying for changes (Wells, 1998). International organizations include bilateral agencies, foundations, and other philanthropic groups whose support is channeled to the conservation projects, wildlife research, parks development, anti- poaching, and wildlife training programs. They operate autonomously with the government support by providing scholarships, leadership training, equipment and vehicles for use in the parks, and funds for protection of wildlife species.

Human-Elephant Conflicts In 1989, parties to the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) banned all international trade in ivory and ivory products by moving the African elephant (Africana loxodonta) to Appendix I-threatened with extinction or may be affected by trade (Berger 2001, KWS 1990, Dobson 1992, Mendelssohn 1999, Mcpherson & Nieswiadomy 2000). In the previous decade, Africa’s elephant population had reduced from more than a million to less than 600,000 animals due to trade in ivory. Kenya’s elephant population had drastically been reduced from an estimated 165,000 in 1963 to less than 20,000 in the decade preceding the 1989 ivory

19 ban (Berger 2001, KWS 1989, Kangwana 1995). Following the ban and other world-wide campaigns, poaching, the demand and price for ivory reduced, while KWS tightened its anti- poaching measures in the country’s national parks and game reserves, gradually the elephant population has increased to approximately 27,000 elephants by 1996 (Berger, 2001).

Figure 5. The world famous burning of ivory in Nairobi Park, 1989 (From KWS, 1996). Most herbivores, especially the elephants, compete for space and resources with people because high human population has resulted in habitat fragmentation; thus the rate of elephants coming into conflict with people has increased, and now the elephants are perceived as pests (IUCN 2000, Sitati et al. 2003). Human-wildlife conflicts are prevalent in virtually all parts of Kenya, but are much more pronounced in agricultural areas where farms are adjacent to forested parks or reserves; an attribute to the fact that three quarters of wildlife population occurs outside protected areas in Kenya (Muriuki, 2003). High populations of large herbivores have significantly altered ecosystems in East Africa through migration and search for forage and water. This is why elephants and people compete for space, water and vegetation (Hoft & Hoft, 1994). Most farms according to Allaway (1981) are found situated near watering points that are also used by elephants and are easily invaded by elephants. Agricultural activities around wildlife habitats are prone to raids by herbivores such as elephants which destroy most of the crops causing conflicts around protected areas (Muriuki 2003, Hoare 1999). Changes in land-use practices by local communities are also linked to the

20 rise in human-elephant conflicts; for instance, due to immigration, communities that were once obligate pastoralists have now resorted to sedentary farming in areas that are also shared by elephants, subsequently subdividing and reducing elephant ranges (Kiiru, 1995a). Other factors that bring elephants in close proximity with human settlements include poaching in the interior of the parks that makes elephants seek refuge on the peripheries of the parks where there is a high concentration of human activity (Ngure 1995, IUCN 1998). Ambuster (1993) observes that communities living around protected areas regard it as their right to harvest wildlife resources; otherwise it is pointless helping conserve a resource whose benefits do not help offset the cost of living with them. However, the ownership of wildlife resources in Kenya is a preserve of the government (KWS, 1990). Unless the benefits from tourism are also allocated to local communities, conservation of wildlife is viewed as a foreign idea, while elephants are regarded as government cattle (Lindeque 1995, O’Connell- Rodwell 2000, Ngure 1995). Levels of co-existence with people indicate the relative abundance of elephants and this helps in measuring human-mammal interactions (Hoare & Du Toit, 1999). Most Kenyan communities have co-existed with the elephants for a long time because of the high value of wildlife to the communities. However, local communities that once co-existed with elephants now resent them and regard them as pests (Dapash, 2002). Human-elephant interaction in elephant ranges depicts increasing levels of human activities near protected areas although the outcomes of this interaction impact negatively to the local people (Omondi et al. 2002). Changes in land use practices around the protected areas (PAs) have altered habitat use and migration routes of herbivores; thus elephants stray into farmsteads causing heavy losses to farmers (Koch et al.1995). The most common form of human-elephant conflict is crop raiding where there is an interface between elephants’ range and agricultural land. Problem animals destroy food crops and sometimes kill farm owners who try to protect their crops (IUCN 1998, Smith & Kasiki 2000, Hoare 1999, Kangwana 1995, Kiiru 1995a). Maize, bananas, cashew nuts, pumpkins, sugarcane, carrots and onions are some of the preferred food crops by elephants, and the pattern of crop depredation parallels the crop-growing season (Hoare 1999, Kiiru 1995a). Elephants also kill livestock and destroy farm structures such as grain stores, water reservoirs and other barriers like fences they encounter (Hoare 1999, Thoules & Sakwa 1994, Newmark et al. 1994). There have been cases also where social

21 functions like schools, markets, and religious functions have been disrupted by elephants (Thoules & Sakwa 1994, Newmark et al. 1994). Elephants damage biodiversity by browsing mature trees, debarking and toppling them and such browsing inhibits regeneration of some endemic species (Litoroh, 2002). In some areas, the elephants have been able to transform woodlands into grassland through such foraging behavior (Mulkey et al. 1984, Leuthold 2003). Debarking and toppling mature trees inhibits the regeneration of some endemic species (Litoroh, 2002). Mulkey et al. (1984) and Leuthold (2003) present evidence on how elephants’ foraging behavior has transformed woodlands into grasslands. The most vulnerable genera have been found to be Acacia spp, Commiphora spp and Adansonia spp and the conversion is exacerbated by fire regimes in such ecosystems; and the ability to withstand elephant damage is curtailed by poor soils due to prevailing arid conditions (Chafota, 1998). Elephants’ broad diet and volume of forage, limited mastication, and poor digestion enables to them to contribute to seed dispersal of various plant species that have a high viability in new areas, thus elephants are good seed dispersal agents (Cowling & Kerley, 1999).

Figure 6. Elephant dung in Shimba Hills Reserve Farmers use traditional methods to scare away elephants but this has not helped protect the crops and other farm structures from attacks, and in many instances people have been killed while trying to protect their farms from invasion (Thouless & Sakwa, 1995). In 1993, a total of 108 human deaths caused by elephants occurred in Kenya (Kangwana 1995, Kiiru 1995a).

22 Elephants can become defiant and continue to cause immense damage; such problem animals may be shot and killed to ease human tempers, for instance between 1990 and 1993 ten elephants were killed during controlled shooting (Kiiru, 1995a). Electric fences have been constructed as barriers although the fences have not served the intended purpose. The main challenges to this option are uprooting by elephants, vandalism and theft by local residents in search of grazing lands, and higher construction and maintenance costs (Kangwana 1995, Ngure 1995, Thouless & Sakwa 1995). Fencing confines elephant densities to their habitats; thus biodiversity destruction is likely to increase (Litoroh, 2002). Elephant translocation is used to reduce food competition, curb habitat destruction, and restock existing or new wildlife areas. In the year 2000, ten elephants were culled from Laikipia which has the highest incidences of conflicts and taken to , and three from Shimba Hills National Reserve were taken to Tsavo East National Park (Litoroh 2002, Hoft & Hoft 1994, IUCN 1998). There is evidence that with the removal of the problem animals, destruction of fences, crop raids and subsequent conflicts effectively went down. However, it is tedious and difficult to identify the target problem animal, time consuming, expensive and requires an expert in administering veterinary care (Litoroh et al, 2001). Apart from the problem persisting, it is also possible to export the problem with the elephant to the new location, since elephant problems are behavior-oriented (IUCN 2001, Hart & O’Connell 2003). Until 1989, the Kenyan government could compensate for damage to crops, loss of life for humans or livestock, and destruction to property. Currently, compensation is only awarded for loss of human life; lack of compensation for crop damage causes resentment among local communities who feel the government places a higher premium on elephants than humans (Ngure, 1995). The United States Agency of International Development (USAID) has been spearheading a project known as Conservation of Biodiverse Resource Areas (COBRA) aimed at assisting KWS to develop and implement ways for working in conjunction with communities sharing space with wildlife. The Mwaluganje Community Elephant Sanctuary is an example of a community-based conservation initiative that has been enacted for the aim of reconciling community attitudes towards elephants in the Shimba Hills National Reserve (Cocheba & Ndirangu 1998, USAID 2002).

23 History of the Kenya Wildlife Act /Conservation Policies Kenya was opened to the outside world during the times of slave and ivory trade as early as 110 AD. Burnt houses, destroyed crops, kidnappings, and broken family ties were some of the sufferings the native Africans were exposed to (Lusigi, 1981:88). For a long time, the mode of life was centered upon subsistence forms of living like nomadism, pastoralism, hunting, gathering, and shifting cultivation; this was based on their cultural understanding and terrestrial perception of their social landscape that had been attained after continuous use and interaction with their environment (Akama, 1998:104). In the early 1890s, the British East African Protectorate was formed, and the colonization period began. The European settlers came in large numbers, and among them were amateur, professional hunters, and trophy seekers who plunged into massive habitat destruction and wanton killing of wildlife species (see figure 7), drastically reducing their numbers and almost driving some into extinction (Akama 1998:105, Lusigi 1981:88). Some of the meat killed was used in feeding the soldiers in both World War I and World War II in 1914-18 and 1939-45, respectively. Soon after the two wars, the concentration was shifted to agricultural production and all game was regarded and treated as vermin or pest. There was no law to control the killing of animals, heavy rifle and trophy hunting continued to thrive due to uncontrolled hunting (Akama 1998:105, Lusigi 1981:88, Kinyua et al. 2000:228). In 1888, the East African Game Regulations had been enacted and became the basis of wildlife conservation in Kenya (Shete, 1997). It was until 1898 when a wildlife regulation was enacted to curb the indiscriminate loss of wildlife through hunting and trade in wildlife products in Kenya (Kock, 1995). Even though the laws were in place by 1898, they still lacked a philosophy for wildlife conservation (Kinyua et al. 2000), by favoring game hunting by Europeans to thrive unabated while ignoring the local peoples’ needs and aspects of resource conservation and wildlife protection (Shete, 1997). Against this backdrop, the Society for the Preservation of Fauna of the Empire was formed in 1903 in Britain and it quickly demanded some control over the killing of wildlife in the Empire and the establishment of national parks or reserves using the American experience of national parks.

24

Figure 7. The plunder of Africa's wildlife by European settlers (KWS, 1996).

For the first time, game reserves were established across the country and any killing of wildlife was preceded by the acquisition of a permit (Lusigi 1981, Akama 1998). A Game Department was set up in 1907 with hunting blocks and concessions under the auspices of the British Administration (Kock 1995, Kinyua et al. 2000:228). Regulations started being enforced and for the first time all hunting activities were to be preceded by the acquisition of a permit. In the 1930s, the search for areas fit for protection began with a view of setting up national parks. In 1946 Nairobi Park became the first one to be established and was followed by Tsavo National Park in 1948 (Kock 1995:242, Shete1997:139, Lusigi 1981).

25 No human settlement or hunting was allowed in these areas, and the needs of the local people never received major attention. Initially the colonial settlers had displaced them, and now came the national park laws that rendered their subsistence forms of livelihood, like hunting, illegal. Now with the creation of the national parks, even more land was taken from the local people. The national parks, according to the natives, were instruments of dispossession and park laws more insensitive to their survival needs (Lusigi, 1981). The common thread in the establishment of national parks was the banning of human settlement, displacement and land was appropriated for the creation of national parks, and the outlawing of subsistence practices (Steinhart, 1994). These experiences triggered a culture of negative attitudes towards wildlife which have persisted to date. Although Kenya attained independence in 1963, these colonial conservation policies prevailed and some aspects of the policy were made more stringent; for instance, hunting is still outlawed. Consequently, the national parks are surrounded by more hostile populations that have little regard for the park system or conservation projects (Lusigi, 1981). In 1976, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department was established to replace the Game Department; these two did little to conserve wildlife or stop poaching activities (Akama, 1998). In 1977, trade in wildlife products was banned by the parliament in order to curb poaching, which was threatening to wipe out the populations of the elephants and rhinos. However, the killing of problem animals that posed threats to crops, domestic animals or human life was allowed while commercial hunting continued even into the 1980s (Akama 1998, Kock 1995). This situation adversely affected the economy, mainly through acts of wildlife mismanagement. Due to poaching, there was an appreciable decline in densities of endangered mammals, especially the African elephant. The elephant population that stood at 130,000 in the previous decades was merely 16,000 in 1989 due to decades of poaching (Kock 1995, Kiiru 1995, KWS 1990, Berger 2001, Kangwana 1995). If care was not taken, elephant populations would soon become extinct (KWS 1990, Kock 1995, Akama 1998).

The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) was formed in 1989 by the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (Amended 1989) to replace the former Wildlife Conservation and Management Department that had been inept since its inception. The WCMD had failed to

26 manage the national parks and curb poaching of elephants and rhinos (KWS 1990, Leaky & Poole 1996, Western 2003, Leaky 1991). KWS was then mandated to conserve the natural environments in Kenya; its fauna and flora, for the nation’s economic development and for the people living in wildlife areas, and to protect people and property from injury or damage by wildlife. The government board of trustees oversees KWS (KWS 1990, Kinyua et al. 2000, Akama 1998). Its organizational structure involves eight main departments namely, parks and reserves, technical services, finance, scientific services, personnel and administration, commandant (security), internal auditor, marketing or commercial services, legal office, plus the director and the board of trustees. It is under the Ministry of Tourism of Wildlife (KWS 1990). As of now, there are about 40 national parks and reserves in Kenya (KWS, 1990). The main challenge for KWS is how to contain conflict between humans and wildlife due to the proliferation of agricultural activities in wildlife areas and increase in human population around protected areas (Baskin 1994, Appendix 3).

27 Chapter Four Research Findings Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Surveys (DRSRS) July 8th 2004 Both human and wildlife populations have increased since independence as per the wildlife and human census databases available. Land as a resource has become scarce. Most of the country is arid, and only a section can support agricultural production. There is scramble for land to settle and cultivate crops. This scramble is also felt in the wildlife habitats, and over the recent past, conflicts have become rampant. Also, land use/land cover changes have adversely affected the state of habitats. This is because most land uses around protected areas are incompatible with wildlife conservation. Available data confirms the drastic reduction in elephant populations since independence, due to poaching activities. Migration among the herbivores is common, especially during prolonged dry spells when food and water resources become scarce. Despite having many natural resources, Kenya still lacks a coherent policy on land use. In the absence of policy guidance on the kind of development around protected areas, logging, deforestation, charcoal production, and encroachment into habitats have become common. There is no rule to precede the kind of land conversions in the country. Under these circumstances, it becomes difficult to control activities outside protected areas, where conflicts are prevalent. Agricultural expansion into protected areas is a major concern of the managers of wildlife in Kenya. Rural-rural migration has also contributed to the increased encroachment into wildlife areas. Elephants and other mammals are easily attracted to the crops on private farms, where the farmers have limited control. It is possible to have some agricultural land uses compatible with agriculture only if a land use policy that conforms to conservation is in place.

Consultation at the IUCN -African Elephant Specialist Group Human-Elephant Conflict Working Group (HECWG) based in Nairobi. July 9th 2004.

Through the HECWG, the IUCN strives to search for and provide effective measures to deal with human-elephant conflict and challenges for viable elephant management. It was formed in 1997, as the African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG) with a five-member Human-Elephant

28 Conflict Task Force. It was renamed the Human-Elephant Conflict Working Group (HECWG) in 2002 to suit the nature of its activities:

• Helping to reduce HEC by developing mutually beneficial strategies for elephant conservation and improvement of human livelihoods. • Providing technical advice and expertise on elephant range to state governments or other conservation support agencies on the management of HEC • Linking people with an interest in, and co-ordinating activities with respect to HEC • Fulfilling a catalytic role in getting HEC related studies underway

From the numerous studies, activities and projects of involvement, the IUCN has helped foster: • Comparative analysis of elephant damage levels versus losses from other pest species in subsistence agricultural communities. • Identification of factors contributing to rural peoples' negative attitudes to elephants. • Improved understanding of human-elephant conflict dynamics in tropical forested areas. • Recognition of the importance of problem elephant sub-populations and insights into their social ecology. • Identification of policy vacuums in problem elephant management at the national level. • Formulation of principles for the management of problem elephants.

The numerous reviews and case studies have provided valuable insights into critical aspects of human-elephant conflict. They have contributed to increase the knowledge on which to base strategies for conflict mitigation. Pachyderm is a journal in which the studies and reviews are published. The HECWG works with site managers, wildlife authorities and other parties involved in the management of human-elephant conflict.

The World Wide Fund for Nature Regional Office in Kenya (WWF) July 9th 2004. The activities of the WWF project in Kenya are aimed at saving lives and livelihoods. In full, the goal and objectives of this project are detailed below.

29 Project Goal: To mitigate human-elephant conflict (HEC) in the Mara area of Kenya, through a program of monitoring, research, mitigation and capacity-building activities that will provide long-term, sustainable benefits to elephants and local communities.

The objectives of the WWF project include: 1. Build local and government capacity in monitoring and mitigating human elephant conflict. 2. Implement an HEC monitoring and research program to identify trends, causal factors and predictor variables. 3. Identify, test and implement successful short-term HEC mitigation strategies. 4. Test and refine an HEC decision support system for practical use at all levels. 5. Identify means to provide benefits for local communities from elephants in conflict areas by exploring alternative land-use practices to those currently being promoted. 6. Raise local, national and international awareness of HEC issues and solutions. 7. Support the development of an HEC policy for Kenya, which will contribute to the development of a national elephant conservation strategy.

Findings with a WWF Officer/ Professor of Tourism & Wildlife Management at Moi University The wildlife management involves multiple stakeholders. The stakeholders may include: o Local wildlife associations o Individual owners o Group land owners o Trustees of communally owned land o District wildlife forums o o Kenya Wildlife Service o Forestry Department o Geology and Mines Department o District Development Committees o Local authorities/county councils

30 o National reserves and national parks o Hoteliers and tour operators o Beach operators o Women’s groups o Community enterprises o Game farmers o Local NGOs o International NGOs o International Community

The legal ownership of wildlife resources or land in protected areas is by the central government. In some areas where wildlife is occurring, land ownership is communal, but most areas have individual land tenure systems. In areas with communal land ownership, understanding property rights, in the case of wildlife conflicts, becomes a complicated issue. However, even in areas with individual land ownership systems, it is still a challenge when it comes to the distribution of wildlife benefits since some people feel compensation should be awarded to the affected victims, but others want to benefit whether they are affected or not, because of living near protected areas and having only limited access to the wildlife resource. This is a clear indication that ownership of wildlife and property rights is an issue that is still not well understood by the local people in protected areas. The consultation revealed that Kenya utilizes over-protectionist strategies to conserve wildlife resources. National parks or national reserves are used as the main areas for protecting wildlife, and human use of the wildlife habitats is strictly prohibited by the laws protecting wildlife. Hunting, livestock grazing, and cultivation in protected areas is strictly prohibited and access to the protected areas is limited and has to be preceded by acquisition of a permit which the local people find unaffordable. Fences are used to demarcate park boundaries and a breach of these laws results in fines or long prison terms to the victims. Due to overprotection, local subsistence needs can no longer be met satisfactorily and a lot of resentment to national parks and wildlife species is escalating. However, due to an increase in the wildlife populations in the parks, wildlife cannot be sustained by the shrinking habitats and they migrate long distances in search of food or water, and competition with humans for the same resources becomes

31 inevitable. This has been the foundation of human-wildlife conflicts in most places around the country. Custodial management of wildlife has for a long time been associated with western conservation concepts that tend to preclude the human component from the ecosystem. It is also linked to the adoption and implementation of some international treaties, for example the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which banned international trade in ivory products and was ratified by most African countries, including Kenya. Kenya’s elephant populations started recovering upon the adoption of this ban. As is the case in most regions, elephant ranges are also experiencing human encroachment and conversion to agricultural activities, thus greatly reducing in size. It is at the interface between elephant ranges and farmlands that cases of human-elephant conflicts are most likely to occur. There is need, therefore, to revisit the wildlife conservation policy and specifically the national elephant conservation strategies in the light of high human population and elephant density. Culling and sport hunting need to be re-introduced as a way of reducing the elephant density of some areas, but with a lot of care to avoid cases of poaching re-emerging. The main mitigation measure is the translocation of elephants from one area to another. But this method is still unpopular for several reasons. First, it is a costly exercise with daunting procedures especially the veterinary requirements before an elephant is finally translocated. Secondly, it spurs some heated antagonism in the areas where the elephants are taken, because the local communities at this point feel uncomfortable living in an area where problem elephants have been re-introduced, while still some of the people at the source also feel like losing a resource to another area. Finally, monitoring the elephants at the final destination after translocation exercise is not easily conducted to establish their survival rates and how they adapt to the new environment without much impact to the community. Therefore, it’s difficult to justify the success of this strategy. The fencing of the Shimba Hills National Reserve to confine elephants in a small range without regard to elephant high mobility and forage behavior has resulted in some serious ecological setbacks. High elephant densities have greatly accelerated the rate of habitat destruction, ultimately reducing the vegetation cover, and what remains can not sustain many elephants. This is the reason elephants move outside their range and stray into people’s farms, destroying crops and property or causing fatal injuries to humans, even death, while defending their crops or working on their farms. Even though the electric fence has helped reduce human-

32 elephant conflicts in the area, it is an expensive endeavor, which also requires regular maintenance to remain functional for long times. This is an additional cost born by the Kenya Wildlife Service, already stringent budgetary constraints. Although crop destruction by elephants is so rampant, compensation of crop damage was abolished in 1989, on the grounds of corruption by some of the officers in charge, and insincere claims by the local people. Since then, this decision has also been responsible for negative attitudes by the local people and the subsequent failure to support conservation activities around protected areas. Most human-elephant conflicts involve the destruction of crops for the local people who are dependent on subsistence farming as their mainstay. Only the loss of human life can be compensated, but it is compounded by the often arduous procedures for awarding compensation claims. To the local communities, wildlife needs are paramount while human needs are secondary in terms of government priorities. Apparently, more concern is attached to the loss of elephants than to the loss of human life or crop destruction. These are the reasons community conservation is yet to make an impact in the lives of the local communities living adjacent to protected areas. The elephant is a keystone species to the tourism industry of Kenya and a lot of revenue is generated from tourism activities. However, little or no actual benefits accruing from tourism are shared with the local communities. These areas, despite being homes to wildlife and other prime tourist facilities, continue to have dilapidated infrastructures and other signs of underdevelopment. Now the predominant question for the local communities is whether conservation without benefits is worthwhile.

Census information from The Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) July 14th 2004 From survey and census results data available at the CBS, there has been a general upward trend in human population growth in most parts of the country since independence. This information is displayed in the Figure 8.

33 Census Population Trends for Kwale District 1962-1999

Population

600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 Population ('000s) 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year

Figure 8. Human census statistics for Kwale District from 1962-1999.

Consultation with the Chief Warden, Shimba Hills National Reserve July 19th-July 22nd 2004 Since the 1989 adoption of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and the ban on elephant poaching along with “shoot to kill poachers” policy, poaching incidents in many national parks, including Shimba Hills National Reserve has significantly reduced. After the ban, elephant population nationally has greatly increased, and, in the case of Shimba Hills Reserve, the numbers almost doubled beyond the carrying capacity. The Shimba Hills reserve is a forest ecosystem that cannot withstand the impacts of habitat destruction by elephants. This situation was exacerbated with the introduction of an electric fence around the entire park. The fence implementation program did not anticipate and make plans for excess elephant population in a habitat too small to sustain a high elephant population without straining the ecosystem. However, the decision to fence the entire park from the earlier times was timely, and has helped reduce crop destruction and human deaths due to elephant incursions.

34

Figure 9. An elephant grid in Shimba Hills Reserve to control elephant movements.

Due to population growth across the country, areas that could support agriculture are overpopulated and fragmented. Wildlife refuges, which were once considered unsuitable for farming, are now experiencing an influx of people from other parts of the country whose livelihood is supported by small scale farming. According to these immigrants, such ‘idle land’ should be converted to human use, mainly agriculture and settlement. Consequently, encroachment by agricultural and human settlements has reduced elephant ranges. Local migration from other places has also contributed to a change in the land use practices in elephant areas through farming and other land uses that are not compatible with wildlife conservation. The absence of a clear national land-use policy stipulating the recommended types of land uses around protected areas has made it difficult to completely eliminate human-elephant conflicts. The Kenya Wildlife Service has no control over the various land uses outside the parks or reserve or on private property. Such land uses now threaten the future of Shimba National Reserve and elephants, given that the human population is increasing along with increased subsistence needs. Elephants are cunning and intelligent animals, as is observed from their crop raiding activities. Most elephants stay in family units, ranging from 20 and above, with a dominant bull. Moreover, most incidents of crop raiding occur during the night times. Based on these factors, it

35 becomes an intriguing task to identify the problem animals whenever a complaint has been raised and the KWS is responding. The elephants also have a preference in their diet; they will always go for the easily digestible crops like maize, onions, tomatoes, and paw paws which are the common choice of local farmers. Data available at the Shimba Hills National Reserve (Figure 10), suggest a significant number of visitors and revenue generated from the Reserve over the last decade. Despite this, the amount that is directly allocated for the operation of activities at the Reserve is very minimal. Most of the revenue is taken to the KWS head office for national budget expenditures, some of which are not directly related to the Reserve’s activities, which, like many parks and reserves across the country, is under funded.

Tourists and revenue for Shimba Hills N.R 1992-2002

Revenue Tourists

25000000 35000 30000 20000000 25000 15000000 20000 10000000 15000

10000 Tourists ('000s) 5000000 5000 Revenue (000'000s) 0 0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year

Figure 10. Number of tourists and revenue generated from Shimba Hills N. Reserve. The community’s level of awareness on ownership of wildlife is still below par. Few people are able to make a distinction between the role of the central government and that of the Kenya Wildlife Service. Most people think that KWS owns wildlife; yet this is a preserve of the central government. This is manifested when people come to lodge claims or reports of elephant damage; they often direct their claims to the KWS, not knowing that KWS has only been entrusted with the responsibility of taking care of wildlife, but not ownership. As a result, it is sometimes difficult for the local people to believe that the two have different roles. The residents are also not aware that crop compensation was outlawed by the government several years back, and they still lodge compensation claims when their crops have been destroyed. In this case,

36 KWS only facilitates the compensation issues by directing them to another ministry. The Kenya government, through the Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism, is responsible for compensation, but not the KWS. Information contained in the Kenya National Development Plan and District Development Plan for Kwale District (1979-1983, 2002-2008) identifies about five different land uses in the area, namely, agriculture (crop lands) 15%, marginal lands, rangelands, Shimba Hills National Reserve 4.2%, and marine or beach environment. These Plans also support and promote the protection and conservation of wildlife in the district. They identify poor farming methods, deforestation, and charcoal production, all driven by increasing human population as causes of habitat degradation in the area. District Environmental Committees have been instituted to help in the administration of environmental resources within the country at the district level. Community conservation has been incorporated into the KWS strategy plan since a policy shift in the early 1990s. Through this plan, about 25% of the total revenue is earmarked for the local community. This is seen as a way of easing the tensions and negative attitude of the local community. If implemented, it is bound to transform the human-wildlife conflicts in most parts of the country. Also envisaged in the community wildlife service are plans to re-introduce game hunting as a means of helping the communities harvest a local resource. The Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary was created in response to the numerous incidents of human-elephant conflicts in the area. Mwaluganje is a dispersal corridor for elephants that migrate from other elephant ranges like the Tsavo and into Mkomari in neighboring Tanzania. Since human settlements are located along the migratory routes of the elephant in Shimba Reserve, they have become perfect sites for elephant raiding activity into farms. During the creation of the sanctuary, people’s land title deeds were issued according to acreage. The KWS has some ex-officio members on the board overseeing the activities of the Sanctuary. Upon marketing, the sanctuary has attracted high numbers of visitors who come to see the elephants. From the gate fee collection, they help generate income for the locals. Since its creation, farming in the Mwaluganje area has been stopped, as most of the land is set aside for the elephants. The local people earn their living from the revenue generated. Indeed, the Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary has transformed communities in the area. The local people, who once resented elephants, are actively supporting their conservation, because the project has proved viable. With a donor-funded electric fence in place, a sense of

37 security has been bestowed to the local community. There is little fear of attack by the elephant on the road or while working on the farm. The sanctuary has also provided jobs like clerks, managers, and security guards in charge of the daily activities of the park.

Consultation with the Resident Research Scientist at Shimba Hills National Reserve July 22nd 2004 Conservation of wildlife in Kenya is guided by the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act of 1976 {Amendment} 1989. The Act still has some aspects that are outdated, and which were meant to serve previous colonial interests. For a long time now, it has not been revised to suit the changing times in contemporary conservation. It emphasizes overprotection of wildlife, with little regard for the human component. From the colonial times, conservation of wildlife among most rural communities has remained unpopular. Due to the discriminatory strategies in the Wildlife Act Amendment (1989), human-wildlife conflicts have since become rampant in many parts of the country. The solution lies, to a great extent, in repealing the Wildlife Act to make it commensurate with current conservation values that espouse the involvement of the local communities in development projects and programs around various protected areas. This involves developing ways and means of dealing with high elephant densities in areas with high human population growth. Because of ecological reasons, areas with wildlife habitats are more arid and do not support sound major agricultural activities. The areas are marginalized, dry, and receive little rainfall to support good crop production, although livestock grazing is also practiced in some areas (Figure 14).Vast wildlife habitats appear suitable for the farming needs of the local people; that’s why the nature and intensity of conflicts varies, with some areas experiencing livestock depredation while others are prone to crop depredation. KWS conflict resolution also differs from place to place in response to the magnitude of the conflict. In some areas, culling is done; in others translocation; while electric fencing is practiced in other areas. These measures reflect the different dynamic dimensions in the magnitude of human-elephant conflicts in the country.

The Electric Fence Shimba Hills is the first protected area in Kenya to be completely surrounded by a fence, and this has caused an artificial concentration of elephants into a small area. This action was

38 prompted by the fact that surrounding communities are involved in intensive agriculture that attracts elephants into people’s farms, causing injury or even killing people.

1. Before the Fence There were many human-wildlife conflicts and the elephant accounted for the majority of the conflicts. Elephants disrupted the social lives of people. For instance, children could not go to school for fear of running into elephants, and property was being destroyed by elephants in areas around the reserve. Between the 1980s and early 1994, about 2,171 cases of conflict involving crops raids, human death or injury, property and livestock damage had been reported. Over 45 human lives were lost during this time and the majority were inflicted by elephants. The only available short term mitigation measure by KWS was killing problem elephants. Thirteen problem elephants were killed during this period. However, a more viable long term solution to the conflict was needed, if elephants were to be conserved in an area with high human population influence. In 1992, electric fencing was adopted as a long term solution to elephant menace, and was completed in 1998. The Shimba Hills National Reserve also covers about 23 km of the Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary. Funding for the fencing projected has been provided by various donors, including KWS, Eden Trust (UK), the European Union, and the World Bank (Litoroh, 2003). 2. After the Fence Farms that had been abandoned due to elephant dangers were cultivated, and human- elephant conflicts reduced by 33% between 1995 and 2001. Human deaths and injury were also reduced by 70%, while fewer elephants were killed by KWS rangers. The fencing of the Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary also reduced human-elephant conflicts. It is now a source of tourist revenue for the local people whose farms were continually being raided by elephants. The construction of the electric fence around both the Shimba Hills National Reserve and the Mwaluganje Elephant sanctuary was expensive, but was undertaken with the goodwill presence of support from the aforementioned agencies. The fence requires regular maintenance to function properly, but lack of technicians is threatening the efficiency of the electric fence (Litoroh, 2003, pers. com 2004).

39

Figure 11. Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary electric fence staff describe their work.

3. Ecological Impacts of the Fence Though the fence helped in reducing conflicts, confining many elephants in a small habitat has resulted in a rapid damage of vegetation, some of which are endemic and of high biological value. Habitat degradation by elephants is severe, affecting the composition and structure of species in the ecosystem. A number of trees have been destroyed due to the elephant foraging behavior of debarking trees. The regeneration rates and succession processes of the habitat have been destabilized and the forest ecosystem is poised to become grassland. Recent elephant density surveys reveal a population of about 700 elephants in the Shimba Hills National Reserve. This exceeds the number that can be ecologically sustained in the reserve. Unless elephant density is cut down, there is a potential for increased species extinction due to high elephant density. Although the concern was to curb human-elephant conflicts by restraining elephant mobility, high elephant density and habitat destruction are an added dimension to the human- elephant conflict which KWS needs to address (Litoroh 2003, pers. com, 2004).

40

Figure 12. Vegetation transformed by elephants' feeding habits in Mwaluganje, near Shimba Hills Reserve.

Consultation with the KWS Head of Elephant Conservation and Management Program July 14th 2004 The Wildlife Act (1976), and the Amendment (1989) paved the way for the creation of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), a government agency responsible for the conservation of the wildlife of Kenya. Before then, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WCMD) had been incompetent, and rampant poaching had decimated wildlife populations to critical levels. The elephant populations were most hit by poaching. The future existence of the elephants was bleak, and both wildlife and the tourism industry were endangered. As of 1963,

41 there approximately 165,000 elephants; yet by 1989 only 16,000 were remaining. Crucial measures were needed to help elephant populations recover. The creation of KWS was thus aimed at controlling the poaching of elephants and rhinos. Since then, poaching was controlled, and the current elephant populations are a testament to the diligent mitigation efforts on the part of KWS. The bulk of this success is attributed to the international ban that was slapped on trade in ivory through the ratification of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) treaty in 1989. The decision to ratify the treaty was compelled, in part, by Kenya’s geographical location among warring nations which made the porous borders conduits of unabated poaching activities. There are approximately 28,000 elephants now, although Kenya has the potential of holding up to 50,000 elephants, much like the southern Africa nations with high population levels and minimum cases of human-elephant conflicts.

Management and Policy Issues Kenya’s elephant population is still recovering from the staggering figures of the last two decades. These elephants are spread all over the country, with Tsavo National Park having the highest elephant population. The primary management challenge the KWS has to contend with is the lack of a clear land use policy governing various land uses in the country, specifically around protected areas. Areas meant for wildlife conservation are experiencing a proliferation of agricultural activities. As much as both the human and elephant population increases, pressure is continually being exerted no wildlife habitats whose sizes are also shrinking. The Amendment of the Wildlife Act of1976 (1989) still lacks a clear conservation philosophy. Wildlife buffer zones, and migratory or dispersal routes for elephants are being converted to agricultural use also, due to the lack of a land use policy. Wildlife habitats, once vast and teeming with wildlife species, are being fragmented by human activities. This is the case with the Shimba Hills National Reserve, where Mwaluganje has been a migratory corridor for elephants crossing from nearby Tsavo into other areas. At the interface between the protected area and human settlement, human-elephant conflicts are inevitable. Compensation Issues Crop compensation was abolished by the central government in 1989, and only the loss of human life is compensated. Fraud and corruption were rife in most of the claims. So far, the

42 government has set a standard figure of 30,000 Kenya Shillings (1 US dollar =Ksh 75.78) for loss of human life. Even though there is such an allowance, the level of bureaucracy one has to follow before finally getting compensation is overwhelming, often taking several years. Moreover, local people are not allowed to kill problem animals they encounter on their property, because all wildlife outside protected areas is owned by the Kenyan government. Serious and heavy penalties are imposed for breaking this law. To the local people, elephants are viewed as ‘government cows’, because of the meager returns to the local people living around protected areas. There are plans underway to amend this Act, but government legislation is taking too long. Even though the KWS is supposed to be sovereign in its operations, pursuant to fulfilling its mandate of conserving and managing the wildlife of Kenya in national parks and reserves and private sanctuaries, this has not been the case. External political influence has been interfering with the agency’s quest of meeting its goals and objectives. Politics take a center stage whenever it comes to a time of appointing directors. Since its creation in 1989, directors have been appointed for political patronage. In a span of 12 years since its creation, nine persons have served as directors of KWS. Some of the directors have come with different conflicting management styles in their terms of office. Such practices have continually been eroding the mission of KWS to conserve the nation’s wildlife resources.

43 Chapter Five Discussion This study reveals how policy and law issues influence conservation in Kenya and many other African countries which are relying on the western conservation approach to protected areas (see figure 13). It is evident from Kenya’s context that not all foreign conservation strategies can be imported successfully. African countries have continued to rely on laws that were enacted to suit colonial interests. These laws, as this study found out, need to be revised to fit the dynamics of wildlife conservation. However, this has not been the case with Kenya. Since independence in 1963, little has been modified in the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (1976) amended 1989. The amendment created the Kenya Wildife Service (KWS) and also abolished compensation for crops on the grounds of fraud and corruption. This Act was formulated in the colonial times and has been in use since then. Because the Act is the primary tool in the conservation, it comes in various forms such as institutional policy frameworks, ministerial statements, sessional papers, and national development plans, few of which are revised accordingly. Wildlife policy is influenced by related laws from other departments like the Forest Department, the Lands Commission, and various agricultural laws, among others. These factors represent the various issues affecting wildlife resources in Kenya, and also present a management predicament because of the various regulating factors. Pioneer wildlife conservation policies and programs in Kenya were aimed at protecting wildlife from perceived destructive human forces. Perceiving the local use of resources to be primitive is the precedent for top-down management of wildlife resources (Akama, 1998). Mugabe et al. (1998), Juma (1991), and Marieka, (1991) help define a national park in the context of western conservation as a place under public control, the boundaries which shall not be altered or any portion be changed except by the competent legislative authority; set aside for the preservation of wild animal life and wild vegetation, and for the preservation of objects of aesthetic, geological, pre-historic, historic, archeological or other scientific interest for the benefit, advantage, and enjoyment of the general public; and in which the hunting, killing or capturing of fauna and destruction or collection of flora is prohibited except by or under the direction and control of the park authority. A national park system, as has been the case in Kenya, can become detrimental to the species

44 HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICTS SOCIO-ECONOMIC DYNAMICS ECOLOGICAL DYNAMICS o Human Population Growth o Fragmentation Increasing Wildlife Populations INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS/CAUSES o o Small-scale farming Environmental Parameters o Law Enforcement/ Public Image o o Economic Loss/Poverty o Seasonality Changes o Community Awareness o Insufficient Personnel/Equipment o Political Influence

Pressures on Protected Areas Encroachment, Resentment, Logging, Grazing, Pollution Mismanagement, Habitat Destruction Stakeholders Issues POLICY & LAW ISSUES o Who are they? o Land uses o Property rights o Consumptive Use-Trade, o Responsibilities Hunting, Types of Conflicts o What are their concerns? o Property Rights o Human Deaths/Injuries o Participation (Top-Down o Livestock Loss Management) o Crop Damage o Responsibilities of Stakeholders o Property Destruction o Compensation o Social Disruptions o Land Tenure o Poaching o Tourism Development Mitigation Strategies o Avoidance-Inaction (Protectionism) Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) o Prevention-Minimize Risk (fences/barriers) o Compensation o Reduction-Minimize Conflict o Traditional Ecological Knowledge o Elimination-Total Removal (Translocation, o Research & Education Culling, Killing ) o Coordinated Decision making o Community Wildlife Service o Promote consumptive utilization o Better Infrastructure & Management

Minimal Human-Elephant Conflicts

Figure 13. A model showing how policy issues play a central role in human-wildlife interactions in Kenya. Specific actions from different stakeholders influence decision-making process in wildlife conservation.

45 being protected and the communities living around protected areas. It is evident from this study that without community goodwill, conservation of wildlife cannot achieve much. There are three categories of wildlife conservation in Kenya: 1) National parks defined as relatively large areas where several ecosystems are not materially altered by human exploitation and occupation, where plant and animal species, geomorphologic sites and habitats are of special scientific, educative, and recreative interest or which contain natural landscape of great beauty; 2) Game reserves which are run by local county councils that hold the land in trust for the people in particular districts, especially the pastoralists who lead nomadic lives; and 3) National Reserves which are conservation areas with an allowance for varied degrees of human activities, and conservation measures of special areas being practiced. Most national reserves are vulnerable to land-use conversions. A country with a rapid population growth requires more land for food production and human settlement. In Kenya, this is still a dilemma; as Yeager & Miller (1986) confirm, wildlife is being confined into smaller and drier areas. The expansion of agriculture, though aimed at feeding the nation through food production for local and international consumption, is threatening the wildlife resources in Kenya. Land cultivation, charcoal burning, deforestation and burning of grasslands are some of the practices which transform wildlife habitats, creating a center-stage for human-wildlife conflicts. The government’s policy favors the production of food to meet local needs and export to foreign markets. However, Kenya has been experiencing a high population growth rate. The scarcity of land in potential agricultural areas is the cause of migration, encroachment, and settlement in wildlife habitats, consequently escalating social conflicts. Due to limited size and the seasonality of ecosystems, wildlife populations are forced to migrate in and out of protected areas in search of water and grazing resources. Once outside, the animals enter private or communal farms where human life, crops, and livestock become threatened and property is damaged. Even though the animals stray onto their farms, they are still owned by the government and they cannot be killed without government intervention. Ownership rights are still a contentious issue in wildlife conservation in Kenya. Moreover, the wildlife managers, or the KWS rangers are regarded with a lot of apprehension because of excessive use of force in handling wildlife-related problems (see Shete, 1997). Conservation programs and projects need to conform to dynamic needs of society; this includes the involvement and accommodation of local communities and other land uses in the

46 program goals. The establishment of parks should incorporate the management of the surrounding areas so as to minimize management problems. Apart from the primary goal of conservation, parks should be culturally and economically viable for the local population. In this regard, a three-tiered land use approach consisting of the national park, the protected area, and a multiple use area is recommended. These multiple use areas accommodate the grazing, residence, hunting, and tourism organized by the local residents (Lusigi, 1987). This approach can only be supported by a land-use policy which allows for only ecologically viable land-use practices.

Figure 14. Livestock grazing in Mwaluganje, near Shimba Hills Reserve

Managing wildlife resources in Kenya is still one of the controversial land uses in Kenya. Utilization of land by wildlife is a key land use issue because tourism is the largest earner of foreign exchange. Since tourism is a leading source of foreign revenue in Kenya, most national plans extol the rapid development of tourism (Appendix 4); coupled with high population growth, there is a growing pressure to develop every piece of land to the maximum, and some of the pressure is vented on protected areas. However, the policy on tourism still has some flaws. The desire for quicker profits has seen an upsurge in tourist facilities in wildlife habitats without regard to the ecological impacts to the habitats and the species. The emergence of human-

47 wildlife conflicts clearly reflects the gravity of the pressure being exerted on the resources either through land uses that are incompatible with wildlife conservation, illegal use of protected areas, and land use practices adjacent to protected areas affecting wildlife interest both inside and outside the protected areas. However, an integrated land use policy with zones for multiple use is still absent. Encroachment into wildlife areas is still prevalent and some of the resultant land uses affect wildlife routes. According to policy proposals by the Kenya Wildlife Service, twenty five percent of the source income from wildlife and tourism is to be apportioned to the local communities as a direct benefit of living close to the wildlife resource. By virtue of bearing the most cost of conservation projects and programs, this proposal is noble. This is the only way through which to ease tension between wildlife managers and the local communities. Unless the local communities, who bear the most cost of wildlife conservation, benefit from the revenue, then the conflict will never fade, and the future of Kenya’s wildlife remains bleak. Revenue sharing steps taken by KWS will make a good contribution to community development (Yeager & Miller, 1986) and foster Community Wildlife Service (KWS 1990). Wildlife dispersal areas and buffer zones for migratory animals are vulnerable to human encroachment, as is the case with Mwaluganje area around Shimba Hills National Reserve. It is then difficult to deny the locals the ability to earn a livelihood from these areas or hunting for subsistence needs. Usually the community’s consensus is to kill any animal that threaten their crops and livestock (Yeager & Miller 1986, Litoroh 2003, Litoroh 2004, pers.com). Sharing revenue from tourism and other conservation projects is thus crucial to the future of the wildlife. Also still shrouded in controversy is the right to ownership of wildlife resources in Kenya. This is the easiest way of ensuring that wildlife benefits accrue to legitimate stakeholders. As per the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (1976) amended in 1989, wildlife ownership is a state preserve. However, as this study found out, state ownership through the over-protectionist mode of conservation is deficient and only serves to brew more social conflicts. The ban on hunting and other forms of consumptive utilization of resources support the notion that state ownership is repressive. Ownership is complex, because wild animals are mobile, and relying on enclosures compromises the ecological parameters of habitats. State ownership has helped in a way to cut down on the loss of animals, but it is time the various

48 stakeholders are granted user rights in accordance with the law. This will be an alternative incentive to local communities to conserve animals in their areas.

Compensation Scheme Among the alternatives used to offer solutions to human-elephant conflicts in many parts of Africa has been the financial compensation for loss of life, injury and crop damage. This approach, though noble, has not achieved the expected results, mainly because of corrupted and bureaucratic procedures. Since it has not worked, compensation is viewed as a treatment of the symptoms but not as a cure to human-elephant conflicts which still persist (Ngure 1995, Tchamba 1995, Hoare 2000). In one study, only 5% of the total crop damage claims were compensated in a span of a 12-year period in Kenya (Ngure, 1995). A claim for loss of life or injury has to be verified by the claimant’s doctor and then forwarded to the District Committee which comprises the District Commissioner, the Divisional Officer of KWS, the officer in charge of the Police Division, the District Medical Officer, the area Member of Parliament, the Local County Council Officer, and three members of the public. This process is not just tedious but too expensive for the local people who can barely afford the costs of medical attention. Such long steps make it prone to abuse and corruption at the different levels. When the locals are forced into other alternative practices without incentives, they likewise change their attitudes towards their habitats and themselves. Over cropping, overgrazing, and wanton killing of wildlife are likely to emerge. Land-use is intense in areas where farmers are intensely settled near parks and reserves. Due to competition between farmers and wildlife, the park boundaries cannot provide sufficient protection to wildlife that is endangered but alternative measures of control, like shooting “excessive numbers” are needed. Fencing a protected area is costly and is also not a good choice due for ecological reasons. The future of the fenced Shimba Hills National Reserve is bleak as are the prospects of subsistence farming in Kwale District against a backdrop of increasing human population.

49 Chapter Six Conclusions and Recommendations This study reveals a growing competition among the conflicting development objectives and programs in agriculture, forestry, energy, lands, and wildlife conservation in Kenya. As this study found out, there is need for a cross-sectoral co-ordination in policy-making because of the various environmental issues that influence the conservation of wildlife resources in Kenya. Agriculture has a major influence on wildlife conservation in Kenya. Disputes over land use, revenue and political influence slow the implementation of conservation projects. Competition from other government sectors which control a good part of local resources also places wildlife conservation at stake. They are the Ministry of Lands and Settlement, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources among others. Since most management decisions are tied to the central government, the local managers of resources may not contest influential political decisions in the system. The wildlife conservation policy pronouncements do not, however, effectively address the issue of competition for land use in wildlife areas, and particularly buffer zones and migration corridors. The problem is twofold. First, the policies are focused on wildlife conservation at the potential expense of community needs and priorities. Second, they do not recognize communities as equal and genuine partners with government and other stakeholders in wildlife management. Solutions to the multiple problems facing wildlife conservation in Kenya will be provided by the involvement of the multiple stakeholders in decision making processes. Human population increase since independence has placed a lot of pressure on habitats for wildlife. Kenya lacks a land use policy to guide land conversions. People and wildlife are in competition for space, through these interactions, human-wildlife conflicts are inevitable. An important agenda item is how we use our land. Amid competing land uses, especially food production, protected areas continue to be under threat of being converted to other land uses. This calls for compatible uses between the protected areas and the surrounding areas. Protected areas should contribute to the welfare of the surrounding populations, and the surrounding populations should support the survival of protected area in the long run. The state needs to promote the two interests which will contribute to the welfare of the nation. If the law is used to impose conservation upon people, it is likely to remain unpopular. It is not easy to

50 reconstruct a natural system after a disturbance, as is the case with the elephant populations and conflicts. It calls for immediate action(s) using some of the recommendations exhibited here: 1. Develop a good policy framework for resource management involving all the stakeholders. 2. Substantial capacity building and support for local areas to implement the projects through community wildlife conservation. 3. Empower the local community with rights over property resources use and land uses. 4. Increase the level of awareness on the part of the local communities on how to implement the various designs of conservation projects. 5. Enact a land use policy that designates various development activities and recognizes wildlife as an important form of land use. This will provide clear zonation, setting aside areas for human settlement and agriculture that are far removed from dangerous wildlife. 6. Promote public education of wildlife on the values of wildlife to cultivate a culture of public responsibility towards conservation and protection. 7. Coordinate decision-making among the various government ministries and departments to harmonize wildlife conservation with other land uses. In this regard, decision making should be decentralized where possible. 8. Integrate universities and their research into wildlife management through organizing joint courses on conservation with KWS to train technical staff in wildlife management (University of Nairobi, Kenyatta University, Moi University, Egerton University). 9. Set up an insurance scheme for compensation of crops under the following guidelines: 9.1 Different amounts for injury and death 9.2 Payment of hospital bills 9.3 Insurance company rates be used 9.4 Special Court arbitration in cases of doubt 9.5 Shorten the time taken to process the claims to no more than 3-6 months 10. Integrate traditional ecological knowledge in policy, education, and conservation aspects.

51 References

Adams, W. M. and Hulme, D. 2001. If community conservation is the answer in Africa, what is the question? Oryx 35 (3):193-200.

Akama, J. S. 1998. The Evolution of Wildlife Conservation Policies in Kenya. Journal of Third World Studies. 15 (3): 103-116.

Akama, J. S., Lant, C. L., & Burnett, G. W. 1995. Conflicting attitudes towards state wildlife conservation programs in Kenya. Society and Natural Resources 8: 133-134.

Akama, J. S., Lant, C. L., & Burnett, G.W. 1996. A Political-Ecology Approach to Wildlife Conservation in Kenya. Environmental Values. 5: 335-347.

Akama, J. S.1997. Tourism Development in Kenya: Problems and Policy Alternatives. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research. 3: 95-105.

Akama, J. S., & Kieti, D. M. 2003. Measuring tourist satisfaction with Kenya’s wildife Safari:a case of Tsavo West National Park. Tourism Management. 24: 73-81.

Alcorn, J. B. 1993. Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conservation Biology. 7 (2): 424-426.

Allaway, J. 1981.The African Elephant's Drinking Problem. Natural History. 90. 4:30-35.

Armbuster, P. & Lande, R. 1993. A Population Viability analysis for African Elephant (Loxodonta africana): How big should reserves be? Conservation Biology. 7 (3):602-610.

Baskin, Y. 1994. “There's a new wildlife policy in Kenya: Use it or lose it.” Science. 265 (5173): 733-734.

Bultea, E. H., & Horanb, R. D. 2003. Habitat conservation, wildlife extraction and agricultural expansion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 45:109- 127.

Campbell, D. J, Gichohi, H., Mwangi, A., & Chege, L. 2000. Land use confict in Kajiado District, Kenya. Land Use Policy. 17:337-348

Chafota, J. 1998. Effects of Changes in Elephant Densities on the Environment and Other Species. How Much Do We Know? Cooperative Regional Wildlife Management in Southern Africa.

Clarke, J. E. 2000. Protected area management planning. Oryx. 34(2): 85-89.

52 Cocheba, D. J., & Ndirangu, J. 1998. The Golini-Mwaluganje Community Elephant Sanctuary: A Community Conservation Poised for Success but Plagued by an Elephant Management Dilemma. Available from http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/Final/cocheba.pdf Accessed June 16th, 2003.

Cowling, R., & Kerley, G. Impacts of elephants on the flora and vegetation of Subtropical thicket in the Eastern Cape. Available from http://zoo.upe.ac.za/teru/Elephants/Impacts%20of%20elephants.pdf Accessed December 23rd 2003.

Daniels, R. & Basset, T. J. 2002. The Spaces of Conservation and Development around National Park, Kenya. The Professional Geographer. 54 (4):481-490.

Dapash, M. O. 2002. Coexisting in Kenya: The Human-Elephant Conflict. Animal Welfare Institute quarterly. 51:10-12.

Darkoh, M. B. K. 2003. Regional perspectives on agriculture and biodiversity in the drylands of Africa. Journal of Arid Environments. 54: 261–279.

Dobson, A. P. 1992. Ivory: Why the ban must stay. Conservation Biology. 6 (1):149-151.

Eriksen, S., Ouko, E., & Marieka, N. Land tenure and wildlife management. In In land we trust: Environment, private property and constitutional change. Juma, C. & Ojwang, J. B. (eds). Initiatives Publishers: London. 1996. 199-227.

Ervin, J. Protected Area Assessments in Perspective. Bioscience. 2003. 53 (9): 833-841.

Geisler, C. C. 2002. Endangered Humans: How global conservation efforts are creating a growing class of invisible refugees. Foreign Policy. 80-81.

Georgiadis, N., Hack, M., & Turpin, K. The influence of rainfall on population dynamics: implications for management. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2003.40: 125-136.

Gibson, C. C. Politicians and poachers: The political economy of wildlife policy in Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press.1999.

Government of Kenya. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. The Kenya National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. March 2000.

Government of Kenya. National Development Plan and Distict Development Plan, Kwale District, 1979-1983; 2002-2008.

Hackel, J. D. 1999. Community Conservation and the future of Africa’s Wildlife. Conservation Biology. 13 (4): 726-734.

Hill, C., Osborn, F., & Plumptre, A. J. 2002. Human-Wildlife Conflict: Identifying the

53 problem and possible solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Report Series Vol. 1. Wildlife Conservation Society.

Hoare, R. E. 1995. Options for the control of elephants in conflict with people. Pachyderm. 19:54-63.

Hoare, R. E. 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. Journal of Applied Ecology. 36:689-700.

Hoare, R. E. 2002. Update on the study and management of human-elephant conflict in Africa. Pachyderm. 33:91-93.

Hoare, R. E. & Du Toit J. T. 1999. Coexistence between people and elephants in African Savannas. Conservation Biology.13: 633-639.

Hoft, R. & Hoft, M. 1995. The differential effects of elephants on rain forest communities in the Shimba Hills, Kenya. Biological Conservation.73:67-79.

Homewood, K. M. 2004. Policy, environment and development in African rangelands. Environmental Science & Policy 7: 125–143.

Howard, P. C., Davenport, T. R. B., Kigenyi, F. W., Viskanic, P., Baltzer, M. C., & Dickinson, C. J. 2000. Protected area planning in the tropics: Uganda’s National System of Forest Nature Reserves. Conservation Biology.14 (3): 858-875.

Hughes, D. M. 1996. When Parks Encroach Upon People: Expanding National Parks in the Rusitu Valley, Zimbabwe. Cultural Survival Quarterly. Issue 20.1.

Hulme, D. & Murphree, M. 1999. Communities, Wildlife and the ‘New Conservation’ in Africa. Journal of International Development. 11:277-285.

Hulme, D., & Murphree, M. African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation. Oxford. James Currey. 2001.

Inamdar, A., De Jode, H., Lindsay, K., & Cobb, S.1999. Capitalizing on Nature: Protected Area Management. Science. 283: 1856-1857.

Internatioinal Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).The African Elephant Database 1998. Ocassional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No.22.

James, C. 1984. Conservation and Indigenous Peoples. Cultural Survival Quarterly. Issue 8.4.

54 Juma, C. Sustainable Development and Economic Policy in Kenya. In Gaining Ground: Institutional Innovations in Land-Use Management in Kenya. Amos Kiriro & Calestous Juma (eds). Nairobi. ACTS Press. 1991. pp 51-86.

Kangwana, K. 1995. Human-Elephant conflict: The challenge ahead. Pachyderm 19:11- 15.

Kassily, F. N. 2002. The fence as a moderator of the wildlife menace in Kenya. African Journal of Ecology.40: 407-409.

Kenya Wildlife Service. 1990. A Policy Framework and Development Program 1991- 1996. Annex 7B: Conservation of Elephants and Rhinos. Unpublished Report.

Kenya Wildlife Service. National Parks of Kenya: 50 years of challenge and achievement. 1996. Nairobi, Kenya.

Kimmerer, R. W. 2002. Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into biological Education: A Call to Action. BioScience. 52 (5):432-438.

Kinyua, I. D., van Kooten, C. G., & Bulte, E. H. 2000. African Wildlife Policy: protecting wildlife herbivores on private game ranches. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 27 (2): 227-244.

Kiiru, W. 1995a. The current status of human-elephant conflict in Kenya. Pachyderm.19:15-20.

Kiiru, W. 1995b. Human-elephant interaction Around the Shimba Hills National Reserve, Kenya. Unpublished Report, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.

Kock, R. A. 1995. Wildlife utilization:use it or lose it- a Kenyan perspective. Biodiversity and Conservation. 4:241-256.

Koch, P. L., Heisinger, J., Moss, C., Carlson, R.W., Fogel, M.L. & Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1995. Isotoipic Tracking of Change in Diet and Habitat Use in African Elephants. Science. 267:1340-1343.

Governement of Kenya. Kwale District Development Plan Report. 1979-1983. Potential Land Uses in Kwale District.

Lamprey, R. H. & Reid, R. S. 2004. Expansion of human settlement in Kenya’s : what future for pastoralism and wildlife? Journal of Biogeography 31: 997–1032.

55 Leakey, R. Agricultural land use and wildlife policy in Kenya: some problems and ideas. AFR.1319, 1991, p 160-166. AFRICA INSTITUTE

Leakey, R., & Poole, J. H. Kenya. In Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. A World Bank Symposium. 1996. ed. Lutz, E. & Caldecott, J.

Leuthold, W. 1976. Age Structure of Elephants in Tsavo National Park, Kenya. Journal of Applied Ecology.13:435-444.

Lindeque, M. 1995. Conservation and management of elephants in Namibia. Pachyderm. 19:49-54.

Litoroh, M. 2002. Aerial elephant count in the Shimba Hills ecosystem, Kenya. Pachyderm. 32:55-63.

Litoroh, M., Omondi, P., Bitok, E., & Wambwa, E. 2001.Two successful elephant translocations in Kenya. Pachyderm. 31:74-75.

Litoroh, M. 2003. The effectiveness and challenges of the Shimba Hills and Mwaluganje Electric Fence. Unpublished paper presented at a workshop to evaluate the effectiveness and challenges of electric fences in Kenya, at Masinga Dam Lodge on 28th-29th April 2003.

Lockwood, J. A. 1999. Agriculture and biodiversity: Finding our place in this world. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 365–379.

Lusigi, W. J. 1981. New Approaches to wildlife conservation in Kenya. Ambio. 10 (2-3): 87-92.

Lusigi, W. J. 1994. Socio-Economic and Ecological Prospects for Multiple Use of Protected Areas in Africa. Biodiversity & Conservation. 3 (5): 449-458.

Lusigi, W. J. 1987. Alternative strategies and approaches for the conservation of African wildlife. Environmental Awareness. 10 (1): 25-35.

Marekia, E. N. Managing wildlife in Kenya. In Gaining Ground: Institutional Innovations in Land-Use Management in Kenya. Amos Kiriro & Calestous Juma (eds). Nairobi, ACTS Press. 1991. pp.155-176.

Mburu, J., Birner, R., & Zeller, M. 2003. Relative importance and determinants if landowners’ costs in collaborative wildlife management in Kenya: an empirical analysis. Ecological Economics 45:59-73.

Messmer T. A. 2000. The emergence of human-wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation 45: 97-102.

56

Mcpherson, M. A & Nieswiadomy, M. L. 2000. African elephants: the effects of property rights and political stability. Contemporary Economic Policy. 18 (1):14- 26.

Mendelssohn, G. The Relevance of Economic Valuation for Species Conservation Policy: The Case of the African Elephant. In Valuation and the Environment: Theory, Method and Practice. O’Connor, Martin & Spash, Clive (eds). Edward Elgar. 1999. pp 123-145.

Mugabe, J., Mareka, N. & Mukii, D. Biodiversity management in Kenya. In Managing Biodiversity: National systems of conservation and innovation in Africa. Mugabe, J. & Clark, N (eds). Nairobi, Kenya: Acts Press, 1998. 91-119

Mulkey, S. S., Smith, A. P., & Young, T. P. 1984. Predation by Elephants on Senacio keniodndron (Compositae) in the Alpine Zone of Mount Kenya. Biotropica. 16:246-248.

Muruiki, J. N. Cooperation or conflict? Managing scarce resources of Africa. Case of community wildlife conservation in Kenya. Kenyatta University. Available form http://www.katunetwork.fi/Artikkelit/kirja2/tekstit/Muriuki.htm Accessed 6/6/2003.

Musters, C. J. M. 2000. Can Protected Areas be expanded in Africa? Science. 287:1759

Negi, C. S. & Nautiyal, S. 2003. Indigenous peoples, biological diversity and protected area management-policy framework towards resolving conflicts. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 10:169-179.

Newmark, W. D., Mayanza, D. N., Gamassa, D. M., & Sariko, H. I. 1994. The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: Human density as a predictor. Conservation Biology. 8:249-255.

Ngure, N. 1995. People-elephant conflict Management in Tsavo, Kenya. Pachyderm 19: 20-25.

O’Connell-Rodwell, C. E., Rodwell T., Rice, M., & Hart, A. L. 2000. Living with the modern conservation paradigm: Can agricultural communities co-exist with elephants? A five year case study in the East Caprivi, Namibia. Biological Conservation. 93:381-391.

Ogutu, Z. A. 1997. Conflicts over resources: Saiwa Swamp National Park (Kenya) and its environs. GeoJournal 41 (1): 25-31.

57 Omondi, P., Bitok, E., Wambwa, E., Gakuya F., Ndeere, D., Manyibe, T., Ogola, P., & Kanyingi, J. 2001. Recent translocation of elephant family units from Sweetwaters Rhino Sanctuary to Meru National Park. Pachyderm. 32:39-49.

Omondi, P., Bitok, E. & Mayienda, R. 2002. Decline of Elephants and other wildlife in the Nasolot-South Turkana and Kerio Valley-Kamnarok conservation areas, Kenya. Pachyderm. 33:69-74.

Omondi, P., Bitok, E., & Kagiri, J. 2004. Managing human-elephant conflicts: the Kenyan experience. Pachyderm. 36:80-86.

Osborn, F.V & Parker, G. E. 2002. Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review of current research. Oryx. 37 (1): 80-84.

Perrings, C. & Lovett, J. 1999. Policies for biodiversity conservation: the case of Sub- Saharan Africa. International Affairs.75: (2): 281-305.

Pienkowski, M. W.,Bignal, E. M.,Galbraith, C. A., McCracken, D. I., Stillman, R. A., & Boobyer, M. G. 1996. A simplified classification of land-type zones to assist the integration of biodiversity objectives in land-use policies. Biological Conservation.75: (1) 11-25.

Reid, R. S., Kruska, R. L., Muthui, N., Taye, A., Wotton, S., Wilson, C. J., & Mulatu, W. 2000. Land-use and land-cover dynamics in response to changes in climatic, biological and socio-political forces: the case of southwestern Ethiopia. Landscape Ecology. 15: 339–355.

Rogo, L. & Oguge, N. O. 2000. The Taita Hills Forest Remnants: A Dissappearing World Heritage. Ambio 29 (8):522-523.

Seno, S.K. & Shaw, W. W. 2003. Land tenure policies, Maasai traditions, and wildlife conservation in Kenya. Society and Natural Resources. 15:79-88.

Shete, Mwamba H. A. 1997. “Kenya seeks home for nation's wildlife.” Forum for Applied Research & Public Policy. 12 (2):139-142.

Sitati, N.W., Walpole, M.J., Smith, R.J, & Leader-Williams, N. 2003. Predicting spatial aspects of human-elephant conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology. 40: 667-677.

Smith, R. J. & Kasiki, S. M. A spatial analysis of the human-elephant conflict in the Tsavo Ecosystem. http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/hectf/pdfs/gishectsavo.pdf Accessed December 23rd 2003.

58 Skonhoft, A. 1998. Resource utilization, property rights and welfare—Wildlife and the local people. Ecological Economics.26: 67–80.

Srivastava, J., Smith, N. J. H., & Forno, D. Biodiversity and agriculture: implications for conservation and development. World Bank Technical Paper Number 321. World Bank. Washington, D.C. 1996.

Steinhart, E. 1994. National Parks and anti-poaching in Kenya 1947-1957. The International Journal of African Historical Studies. 24 (1): 59-76.

Tisdell, C.A. 1995. Issues in Biodiversity Conservation Including the Role of Local Communities. Environmental Conservation.22 (3): 216-222.

Thouless, C. R. and Sakwa, J. 1995. Shocking Elephants: Fences and crop raiders in Laikipia District, Kenya. Biological Conservation. 72: 99-107.

Thornton, P. K., Galvin, K. A., & Boone, R. B. 2003. An agro-pastoral household model for the rangelands of East Africa. Agricultural Systems. 76: 601–622.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Kenya- Mwaluganje Community Elephant Sanctuary: From Corn to Conservation. Available from http://www.usaid.gov/regions/afr/ss02/kenya6.html Accessed December 23rd 2003.

Walker, B. 1999. Maximizing net benefits through biodiversity as a primary land use. Environment and Development Economics 4: 203–236.

Weladji, R. B., Moe, S. R., & Vedeld, P. 2003. Stakeholder attitudes towards wildlife policy and Benoue Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Environmental Conservation. 30 (4): 334-343.

Wells, M. P. 1998. Institutions and incentives for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation. 7: 815-835.

Wessels, K. J., Reyers, B., van Jaarsveld, A. S., & Rutherford, M.C. 2003. Identification of potential conflict areas between land transformation and biodiversity conservation in north-eastern South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95:157–178.

Western, D. & Wright, M. Background to community-based conservation. In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, ed. Western D. & M. Wright. 1994. Washington, DC: Island Press. pp. 1-15.

World Bank. 2001. Tourism in Africa. Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 12 Available from http://www.worldbank.org/afr/wps/wp12.pdf Internet. Accessed December 23rd 2003.

59 Yeager, R., & Miller, N. N. Wildlife, wild death: land use and survival in eastern Africa. State University of New York. 1986.

60

Appendices Appendix 1 Research Permit

61

Appendix 2 The Main Human-Elephant Conflict Areas in Kenya

From Pachyderm No. 36, 2004 pp 82

62

Appendix 3 Press Release by the KWS on Commitment to Policy Reform and Human-Wildlife Conflicts From the Sunday Nation August 8 2004

63

Appendix 4 A summary of the Kenya National Biodiversity National Plan

(Page 1)

64

(Page 2)

65

(Page 3)

65

(Page 4)

66

(Page 5)

67

Appendix 5 The IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group (Page 1)

69

(Page 2)

70

(Page 3)

71

(Page 4)

72

(Page 5)

73

(Page 6)

74