ABSTRACT WILDLIFE, MAN AND COMPETITION FOR LAND IN KENYA: A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS BY Donald L. Capone In this study the complex question of competition for land occupance in Kenya is approached in three ways: temporally, functionally, and in a case study. In Chapter I tin: physical, biotic, and human background to the problem of competition for land in Kenya is presented. The uniqueness of Kenya's wildlife resources is pointed out and habitat requirements are discussed. The potential threat to wildlife from human population growth is introduced and competition for land between men and animals is seen as a serious problem. The last part of the chapter outlines the objectives of the study. In Chapter II the historical factors characterizing the land question in Kenya, as it relates to wildlife, are placed in the theoretical setting of S. B. Jones' unified field theory model. This provides a test for the Jones "model" and a system- atic conceptualization of the temporal data. The model's idea- area chain proves very useful in tracing the evolution of wildlife conservation areas in East Africa. Conservation areas are seen to be more than merely administrative units; they become political areas within the state, generating their own circulation fields, pressures, and modifications of the underlying idea. The Donald L. Capone resources of conservation areas come to represent one thing to the state, and another to the people living in or near them. Chapter III is a functional analysis of the contemporary wildlife conservation system in Kenya. The system is a complex one in which a variety of agencies and interest groups share in the control of conservation areas. The administration of hunting and the economic benefits derived from the industry are outlined and the allocation of wildlife resources is discussed. Salient problems confronting Kenya's wildlife conservation areas are investigated, and two categories of problems recognized. Manage- ment problems include those involving primarily ecological con- siderations, and those produced by the impact of increasing numbers of visitors to the wildlife areas. Visitor-impact is a problem of growing magnitude in Kenya and has already led to con- flict between economic and conservation goals. It is shown that in the case of lodge siting, economic considerations outweigh conservation goals. Problems of conflict between human and animal interests include poaching, and land-use conflict. Types of poaching and the impact of each are described. Land use conflict appears the most serious long-term threat to the future of wildlife in Kenya. Movement of agricultural pe0ples into what has formerly been wild- life land is seen as particularly damaging. Chapter IV presents a case study of such a movement; the migration of pioneer agriculturalists into the dry bushland of southeastern Kenya. This study demonstrates the complexity of the factors involved in migration patterns. Economic factors are Donald L. Capone important, but cultural and social forces are also seen to contri- bute to migration behavior and influence settlement. A form of social organization, the 2521 system of residence, is of particu- lar interest, influencing both the manner of migration, and the pattern of settlement. This particular migration also demon- strates the profound impact of pioneer agriculture on regional ecology, and particularly on wildlife abundance and distribution. In the concluding chapter attention is focused on popula- tion growth as the basic cause of increasing human impact on wildlife. It is suggested that programs of agricultural develop- ment in the traditional areas of settlement will provide a satisfactory solution to human-animal conflict in Kenya. In— creased productivity in these densely populated areas promises to reduce the impetus of migration and stem the flow of settlers into wildlife habitats. Conservation organizations are urged to support this effort for the future survival of Kenya's wildlife depends on the solution of this basic conflict. WILDLIFE, MAN AND COMPETITION FOR LAND IN KENYA: A GEOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS By Donald L. Capone A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Geography 1971 é’ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is made to the many people who have assisted in the preparation of this thesis. The author is especially indebted to the government officials and others in Kenya, who pro- vided valuable research materials, much of it unpublished, and made themselves available for interviews. Mr. Perez Olindo, Director of the Kenya National Parks, supplied much useful information about the park system and extended many courtesies which were greatly appre- ciated. The Chief Game Warden, Mr. J. Mutinda, kindly granted access to the Game Department files and his staff was most helpful in locating items that I was unable to find. Others whose assistance is gratefully acknowledged are Dr. S. H. Ominde of University College, Mr. K. A. McIntyre and the staffs of the National Archives, the Kenya Survey Office, and the University College library. Dr. R. Davis of the Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism was of great help in the develOpment of the Kikumbulyu case study, and was always willing to share his knowledge of East African conservation problems. Mr. G. Muthama, Assistant Director of Agriculture, Mr. F. Charnley, Deputy Commissioner of Lands, and Mr. P. Back, Deputy Head Range Management Officer, all provided useful back- ground information on southern Machakos District, and Mr. Muthama arranged for assistants to help with the survey of settlers. Mr. D. Sheldrick and Mr. C. W. Marshall, wardens of Tsavo National This study was supported by a grant from the Midwest Univer- sities Consortium for International Activities. The author wishes to express his appreciation for this assistance and for the support of Dr. Charles C. Hughes, past Director, African Studies Center, Michigan State University. ii Park, supplied data on recent settlement and wildlife distribution in Lower Kikumbulyu and Mr. J. M. Nzioka, Machakos District Agricul- tural Officer, provided agricultural data for the District. Their assistance was invaluable and is gratefully acknowledged. Mr. Solomon Songolo and Mr. Eliud Musinga assisted with the Kikum- bulyu survey, which would have been impossible without their help. Mr. Songolo, an Agricultural Assistant, served as interpreter and his excellent work in this capacity was crucial to the success of the survey. At Michigan State University Dr. John Hunter, who served as Chairman of the Guidance Committee, gave unsparingly of his time and energy. His advice and support are deeply appreciated. Dr. Lawrence Sommers, Dr. Ronald Horvath, and Dr. George Petrides, all members of the thesis committee, contributed many useful sug- gestions and criticisms for which I am grateful. Dr. Petrides also provided many useful contacts in East Africa and was able to visit Kenya during the research period where his advice and counsel was especially valuable. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Dr. Harm J. deBlij, Chairman of the Department of Geography at the University of Miami. As the original Chairman of the Guidance Committee he supervised the development of this study from its inception and has remained deeply involved through all stages of preparation. His advice and perceptive criticism of the various drafts of the thesis has been of immeasurable value. Beyond this,Dr. deBlij, as teacher, colleague, and friend has been a source of encouragement and inspiration, with- out which this study could not have been completed. iii A number of people at the University of Miami contributed invaluable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. Miss Florence Dawson typed the first draft and worked on parts of the final copy despite the pressure of other work and assisted in many other ways; her efforts are greatly appreciated. Mrs. Glenda Mikesell typed most of the final draft and Miss Inge Odinge worked on the tables and appendices. Cartographic assistance of excellent quality was contributed by Miss Bonnie Brodie, Mr. Randy Willich, and Mr. Ned Eissler. Mr. Don Heuer and his staff provided high quality reproduction of manuscript and maps. The excellent work of all these peOple is gratefully acknowledged. To my wife, Mary Ann, goes my deepest appreciation for her support, encouragement, and assistance. Her efforts as typist, proofreader, and editor are greatly appreciated. But more than this, she has been deeply involved in all phases of the research and writing and has lent invaluable assistance in an amazing variety of ways. In Kenya she aided in the collection of data and transcribed field notes under difficult conditions as well as serving as an observer in an aerial game census. In addition to all these duties she efficiently organized households in Nairobi and on safari, and proved to be an excellent and imag- inative camp cook. Without her untiring effort and her support and encouragement this study could never have been completed. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES . LIST OF MAPS. . . . LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION. Chapter I. II. III. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES. Physiography . Climate. Vegetation . Wildlife Objectives of the Study. COLONIAL BEGINNINGS TO MODERN PROBLEMS: AN APPLICATION OF FIELD THEORY TO THE EVOLUTION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AREAS IN EAST AFRICA From Idea to Decision: The Convention of 1900. Decision and Movement. Field and Political Area WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN KENYA TODAY: ESSENTIALS OF THE SYSTEM AND SALIENT PROBLEMS . Administration . Hunting Regulation . Licenses and Fees. Special Licenses Page ii ix xi xiii l3 17 22 31 37 48 49 49 50 50 52 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) £333 Chapter Protected Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Controlled Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Benefits to Local People . . . . . . . . . . 56 Growth and Development of Hunting. . . . . . . 58 Utilization of Hunting Blocks. . . . . . . . . 62 Economic Benefits of Hunting to the National Economy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Wildlife Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 The 1939 Game Policy Committee . . . . . . . . 65 Park Adjuncts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 National Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Conflict and the 1956 Game Policy Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 District Council Game Reserves . . . . . . . 69 Salient Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Management Problems and Conflicts. . . . . . . 72 The Tsavo Elephant Problem . . . . . . . . . 73 Tourist Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Conservation and Economics: Conflict- ing Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Conflicts Between Human and Animal Interests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Illegal Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Land Use Conflict. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O Pastoral Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Agricultural Land Use and Game Control . . . 96 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter IV. THE HUMAN INVASION AND THE DISPLACEMENT OF WILDLIFE: PIONEER SETTLEMENT ON THE ARID FRINGES. The Setting. The Forces The Course of Settlement Water Supply and Rainfall. The Road . Sanctioned Settlement as a Factor. "Push Factors" Social Organization and Group Migration in Ukambani Traditional Kamba Social Organization. The Utgi System Group Migration. Information Flow . Group Decision Making. The Migration and Settlement Advantages of Group Migration. Impact of Group Migration. The "First-footing" Fee. The Persistence of Settlement: Livelihoods and Prospects. . . . . . Agriculture. . . . Charcoal Organization of the Charcoal Trade vii Page 107 116 118 127 127 129 134 141 148 150 150 152 152 153 153 154 155 155 157 157 160 162 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Chapter Method of Charcoal Making. . . . . . . . . . . 166 Impact on Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 The Impact on Regional Ecology . . . . . . . . . . 167 Ecological Change, Poaching, and Disturbance . . 167 The Impact of Settlement on Wildlife in Block 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Elephant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Rhinoceros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Other Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Game Census. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 The Future of Wildlife in Block 29 . . . . . . 177 V. Summary and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 APPENDIX I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 APPENDIX II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 APPENDIX III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 APPENDIX IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 APPENDIX V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 APPENDIX VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 APPENDIX VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 APPENDIX VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 APPENDIX IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 APPENDIX X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 APPENDIX XI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 viii Table 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 LIST OF TABLES Hunting Licenses and Fees. Controlled Area Fees Paid to District Councils 1958-1965 . . . . . Game Animals Shot on License in Controlled Areas (1959-1965) Animals Destroyed on Control by Kenya Game Department. . . . . . . . . . . . Animals Destroyed on Control, Central Division, 1966-1968. Machakos District: POpulation, Area, and Density by Location. Annual Rainfall for Selected Stations in the Kikumbulyu Area of Southeastern Kenya, 1960-1969. ix 59 98 102 114 130 Figure 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 LIST OF FIGURES Mara Plains Grassland . Acacia-Commiphera Bush. Montane Forest: Mt. Kenya. 01 Tukai Swamp: Amboseli Game Reserve. Masai Cattle at Amboseli Game Reserve . Erosion: Amboseli Game Reserve . . . . . Masai Boma: Amboseli Game Reserve. . . Baobab Tree Damage. . . . . . Baobab Tree Destruction . Kilaguni Lodge: Tsavo National Park (West) Kilaguni Waterhole. Voi Safari Lodge: Tsavo National Park (East) Kamba Homestead: Lower Kikumbulyu. Settlement Along the Nairobi-Mombasa Road . Chyulu Hills. Charcoal Making: Lower Kikumbulyu. Charcoal Making: Lower Kikumbulyu. Charcoal Bags: Nairobi-Mombasa Road. Charcoal Station: Nairobi-Mombasa Road . Fire and Settlement on the Eastern Chyulu Hills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10 12 14 38 40 42 44 74 74 80 80 82 128 133 136 163 163 165 165 169 LIST OF MAPS Physical Features Probability of Annual Rainfall. Vegetation. Major Towns and Communications. Population Distribution . Peoples of Kenya. Early Wildlife Sanctuaries in East Africa National Parks and Reserves Nyeri Corridor, Wildlife Conservation Areas Kenya: Districts Kenya: Provinces Utilization of Hunting Blocks, 1965 Machakos District in Kenya. Machakos District: Locations Machakos District: Population Density. Location of Machakos District and Lower Kikumbulyu in Southeastern Kenya. Lower Kikumbulyu. Ukambani: Traditional Divisions. Lower Kikumbulyu: Location of Farmers Interviewed Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, 1965 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, 1966 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, 1967 xi Page 16 18 29 32 35 46 53 57 61 63 109 111 113 117 119 121 123 139 143 145 _!EE_. Pagg 4.11 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, 1968 . . . . . . . 147 4.12 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, June 1969. . . . . 149 4.13 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settlement by Location of Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 4.14 Lower Kikumbulyu: Charcoal Stations. . . . . . . . 161 4.15 Block 29 (South): Distribution of Elephant and Rhinoceros. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 xii Appendix II III IV VI VII VIII IX XI LIST OF APPENDICES Hunting Licenses Issues 1956-1965 Game Animals Which May be Hunted and Killed on Licence . . . . Special Licence Fees. Controlled Area Fees. Controlled Area Fees. Animals Protected Throughout Kenya. Numbers of Animals Shot in Various Controlled Area Blocks, 1965. Number of Visitors to Kenya National Parks 1960-1967 Lower Kikumbulyu Settler Survey. Survey of Charcoal Buyers Origin of Kikumbulyu Settlers xiii Page 201 205 207 209 211 213 215 222 224 226 227 INTRODUCTION Conservation has become an extremely p0pu1ar subject of discussion in recent years. A steady stream of articles in the press and popular journals are devoted to environmental issues. We are experiencing a kind of revolution of environmental aware- ness and words like ecology, ecosystem, and biodegradable have become part of the common vocabulary. Much of this new awareness is focused in the highly industrialized nations of Western EurOpe and North America, where the environmental impact of modern tech- nology has suddenly become painfully obvious. Indeed, a perusal of recently issued textbooks and other publications dealing with conservation topics might lead one to believe that problems of environmental deterioration are almost entirely confined to the highly developed countries of the western world. This is far from the case, however. Throughout all parts of the world man's activities are altering, and often degrading, natural environments. The intensity of man's environmental impact may vary between dif- ferent regions of the earth but the whole world is, in one way or another, involved in the environmental crisis. This study will examine an environmental problem in a non-western setting; the competition for land between man and wildlife in Kenya, which threatens one of the nation's most valuable natural resources. Kenya, like many of its African neighbors, possesses a very limited resource base. The country lacks major exploitable mineral resources and good agricultural land is scarce. Much of northern and eastern Kenya is too dry to support any agriculture at all. In fact, over half of Kenya's land area is classified as desert or semi-desert. Kenya does, however, have one unique, and economically valuable resource, wild animals. Kenya's wild- life resource is Spectacular both in variety and in abundance. This small country contains one of the last great concentrations of wildlife remaining anywhere in the world. The economic value of this unique resource is realized through game viewing, princi- pally by foreign visitors. The tourist industry, based primarily on game viewing, is already the nations's leading earner of foreign exchange and the potential for future growth is excellent. Wildlife conservation in Kenya is chiefly implemented through an elaborate system of National Parks, Game Reserves and other types of sanctuaries. Although the system would appear to be adequate to protect the nation's wildlife there are many pro- blems confronting the conservation system today. Chief among these is the growing competition from other forms of land-use. Kenya's human population is increasing at an unprecedented rate, close to 3% a year according to a recent estimatel, and will double in size in less than 25 years. This expanding population has already begun to come into conflict with wildlife as men move out of the traditional areas of settlement in search of new land for cultivation and grazing. This population movement has brought human settlement into areas that have long been occupied ex- clusively by wild animals. The competition resulting from this movement threatens the future survival of Kenya's spectacular wildlife resources. 1United Nations Demographic Yearbook, 1969, p. 116. CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Kenya is one of five political units that occupy the region of highland East Africa. The total area of the country is just under 225,000 square miles.\ A compact territory, Kenya lies astride the equator, stretching a little over four degrees of latitude north and south of the equator and from 34 to 42 degrees of east longitude. The dominant physical characteristic of the whole region is the East African Plateau which reaches elevations of 7,000 feet in some sec- tions of Kenya and lies at an elevation of 3,000 feet above sea level over most of its area (see Map 1.1). Physiography. The physiography of Kenya and East Africa as a whole has been described by several writers, African as well as European.1 For present purposes a brief description of Kenya's salient physical features will suffice. As is true of much of the African continent, Kenya possesses only a very narrow strip of true coastal plain. The coastal zone below 200 feet above sea level, which can be described as coastal plain, extends only 40 miles inland at its widest point and is but 10 miles in width over most of its length. Inland from the coast the land rises gradually in a series 1E. P. Saggerson, "Physiography of East Africa," The Natural Resources of East Africa, ed. E.W. Russell (Nairobi: East African Literature Bureau, 1962), pp. 48-51 gives a brief overview of the subject. A much more detailed and valuable treatment, confined to the physiography of Kenya, is F. F. Ojany, "The Physique of Kenya: A Contribution in Landscape Analysis," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. LVI, No. 2 (June, 1966), pp. 183-96. ETHIOPIA I‘IVWOS DI'llndil ‘2 4L PHYSICAL FEATURES amnoumvm I m... I - moo—0,000 woo-3,000 soon—10m mum Map 1.1 Physical Features Generalized after Directorate of Overseas Surveys. D.O.S. (Misc.) 2993, map accompanying The Natural Resources of East Africa, ed. E. W. Russell (Nairobi: East African Literature Bureau, 1962). of steps culminating in the high pleateau surface of the central highlands. Beyond the coastal zone, between 500 and 1,000 feet in elevation, is an extensive area of low plains. Another area of plains stretches inland from 1,000-3,000 feet above sea level. This low plateau region is,like the low plains, relatively flat and dry and the two regions are often combined and called the "Nyika." Along the 3,000-foot contour a distinct change of slape marks the edge of an intermediate plateau that lies between 3,000-5,000 feet above sea level. The high plateau areas of central and western Kenya generally range between 5,000-7,000 feet above sea level but there are some extensive areas of higher elevation in the Mount Kenya-Aberdare region and in the western highlands. Through the center of the Kenya Highlands stretches East Africa's most unique physical feature, the great Rift Valley. The Kenya, or Eastern, Rift Valley is part of a rift system that runs the entire length of the African continent, from the Red Sea to Swaziland in the south. The Kenya section,probably the most spectacular part of the rift system, is about 50 miles wide where it passes through the high- lands. From the plateau surface the land falls steeply, several thousand feet to the flat valley floor. Across the valley the rift wall marking the opposite fault can be seen. There is considerable variation in the elevation of the rift floor in Kenya and the valley contains volcanic cones such as Mount Longonot, as well. Volcanic activity has left its mark throughout Kenya, particularly in the form of the great extinct volcanoes that rise above the plateau surface. Mount Kenya, rising to 17,058 feet, and Mount Elgon on the Kenya- Uganda border, at 14,172 feet, are the highest mountains in Kenya l I s u o A N \36‘ 4o- ETHIOPIA I‘IVWOS DI'IIndil TANZANIA Milan l PROBAMLHY OF ANNUAL RAWWALL thwlmmmroummmmwuvm ’6. - UNDII D INC“! 20 N INCHES . OVH 30 moms )0-20 INCHES 30-50 INCHES Map 1.2 Probability of Annual Rainfall Generalized after Directorate of Overseas Surveys, D.O.S. (Misc.) 299D, map accompanying The Natural Resources of East Africa, ed. E. W. Russell (Nairobi: East African Literature Bureau. 1962). and just across the border to the southlies Mount Kilimanjaro, at 19,340 feet the highest mountain in Africa. The Aberdare Mountains and the Chyulu Hills in southeastern Kenya are also of volcanic origin. Climate. The most striking aspect of Kenya's climate is the extreme aridity of most of the country. This is particularly remark- able considering the location of Kenya astride the equator, on the east side of the African continent. Similar locations on other conti- nental land masses receive much higher amounts of rainfall. Trewartha has described the general deficiency of rainfall in trapical East Africa as "undoubtedly the most impressive climatic anomaly in all of Africa."2 Kenya is much the driest part of East Africa, with only part of the southwestern quarter of the country receiving over 30" of rainfall annually (see Map 1.2). The correspondence between rainfall and elevation is very close (see Maps 1.1 and 1.2); almost all of the area receiving over 30" of rain annually is above 5,000 feet. Rainfall is the climatic factor of greatest significance in Kenya, much of the country receiving too little for sustained agri- culture. Not only is total rainfall low but variability is very high. Map 1.2 shows the minimum annual rainfall that can be expected in four years out of five -- a much more reliable measure of moisture condi- tions in Kenya than average annual rainfall. The map shows that only a very small area of the country receives a reliable 30" annual rainfall and that the greater part of Kenya receives less than 20". In fact, 85% of Kenya '3 land area has a reliable annual rainfall of less than 30",3 2G. T. Trewartha, The Earth's Problem Climates (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961), p. 121. 3J. F. Griffiths, "The Climate of East Africa," The Natural Resources of East Africa, p. 79. <4 5%....nwawVQwW .. .uv ‘ VEGETATION m m w was... I KAT“ AND ”GLAND GRAHAM E MIST 3 Map l .1011 Vegetat Generalized after Directorate of Overseas Surveys, (Misc.) 299E. map accompanying The Natural D.O.S. Russell E. W. East African Literature Bureau, ed. Resources of East Africa, 1962). i (Nairob the minimum considered necessary for successful agriculture without irrigation. The effectiveness of rainfall in Kenya is related to its distri- bution throughout the year. Rainfall that is concentrated in one rainy season is more effective than the same amount of rainfall divided between two rainy seasons. As moisture is the major limiting factor for agriculture in Kenya this means that the rainfall minimum neces- sary for successful farming in areas with two rainy seasons will be higher than that required with single-season rainfall. The seasonal distribution of rainfall in Kenya varies widely. In the western part of the country, near Lake Victoria, a single rainy season lasts virtually all year, with 11 or 12 months recording a minimum of 2" of rain. The extreme northern and northeastern regions also have a single rainy season, but a much shorter one, lasting for just one month, April. Most of southern and southeastern Kenya and the southern part of the central highlands exhibits the classic equatorial two-season rainfall pattern. The two rainy seasons vary slightly in timing but they generally last from late March to May and from late October to December.4 Vegetation. The wide differences in amount, reliability, and seasonal distribution of rainfall in Kenya, together with the great variation in elevation have produced regions of sharply contrasting environment that can be clearly defined by the different types of vegetation characteristic of each.5 41b1d., pp. 79-82 5D. C. Edwards, "The Ecological Regions of Kenya: Their Classifica- tions in Relation to Agricultural Development," Empire Journal of Experimental Aggiculture, Vol. XXIV (1956), p. 89. 10 I... Ivan ; Figure 1.1 The grassland vegetation of the Mara Plains in western Kenya supports large herds of wild grazing animals. 11 Forest vegetation in Kenya is confined primarily to areas of higher elevation, above 5,000 feet. On the higher mountains alpine and sub-alpine vegetation (called Heath and Moorland on Map 1.3) comprise the highest vegetation zone, above 10,000 feet. Below 10,000 feet a zone of mountain bamboo is common, and below 8,000 feet is found the montane forest. The forest is predominantly evergreen and occurs generally where rainfall reaches 60-80 inches, although drier mountain forests do occur in some parts of Kenya where rainfall is as low as 30 inches. Dry semi-deciduous lowland forests are also found in a few areas of Kenya, notably in the Nairobi region, with a rainfall of 35-40 inches. Savanna, tall grass with scattered trees and shrubs, is charac- teristic of the plateau area of southwestern Kenya above 3,000 feet, with rainfall of about 20 inches. The southern part of the Kenya savanna zone is composed of Acacia savanna with its distinctive flat- tapped Acacia trees. Most of the varieties of savanna vegetation found in Kenya are subject to frequent grass fires and appear to be fire-induced vegetation types. By far the most common types of vegetation in Kenya are the dry bushland and thornscrub associations that cover the vast areas of the country receiving less than 20 inches of annual rainfall. The bushland and thicket vegetation is composed of an often dense stand of small trees and shrubs with a thin grass ground cover. Semi- desert scrub is characterized by bushes and dwarf shrubs widely spaced over the ground, which carries only a very sparse grass cover. 6C. G. Trapnell and I. Langdale-Brown, "The Natural Vegetation of East Africa," The Natural Resources of East Africa, pp. 92-102. 12 . r _ m“ “a"??? Figure 1.2 Semi-arid bushland vegetation in southeastern Kenya. This photograph shows an elephant in Acacia-Commiphera bush in Tsavo National Park. l3 Wildlife. Kenya's varied environments support an incredible variety of wild animals, and although wildlife populations have been substantially reduced in modern times, game can still be seen in spectacular abundance in some areas. There are 57 prominent mammal Species in Kenya. Among these are 33 species of horned animals, such as buffalo, kudu, gazelles, and other antelopes; 12 large carnivores including lion, leOpard, hyena, and aardwolf; as well as other impor- tant species like rhinoceros, elephant, and giraffe. In addition to these large mammals there are many smaller mammals, and a very rich bird life.7 The herbivores, the most numerous of Kenya's wild animals, depend on vegetation for survival, and may be classified according to their food preferences. Some species like the buffalo, zebra, wilde- beest, and Thomson's gazelle are entirely or almost entirely grazers. Other species such as giraffe, kudu, bushbuck, and black rhinoceros are entirely or almost entirely browsers. And there are some species that are mixed feeders, consuming grass and shrubs; among these are the impala, reedbuck, and sable and roan antelopes. Within these very broad groupings each species differs in.precise food require- ments, each preferring different plant Species or different growth stages of the same plants. The specific habitat requirements of the different wild animal Species tend to limit most species to particular vegetation types that provide the food and other resources necessary to their survival. 7G A. Petrides, Kenya's Wild-Life Resource and the National Parks (Nairobi: Trustees of the Royal National Parks of Kenya,1955), p. 5. 14 Figure 1.3 Montane forest on the slopes of Mt. Kenya at approxi- mately 10,000 feet above sea level. 15 In Kenya, three distinct wildlife vegetation types can be distin- guished: (1) bushland, (2) savanna and grassland, and (3) forest.8 The vast area of dry thornscrub vegetation supports large numbers of elephant, especially in southeastern Kenya, and is the principal habitat of the black rhinoceros. Other animals common to this vegeta- tion type are impala, oryx, lesser kudu, Grant's gazelle, and gerenuk. The savanna and grassland vegetation type is the most productive of Kenya's wildlife habitats, supporting large herds of zebra, wildebeest, kongoni, tOpi, and gazelles as well as smaller numbers of other ante- lope and giraffe. The forest areas, especially the montane forests, provide habitats for some of the less common species like the rare bongo and forest hog, mountain reedbuck, duikers, and monkeys. The forests are also occupied by many Species which are also found in other areas: elephant, rhino, buffalo, leopard, and others. Wild animals in Kenya, although diminished in recent years, are still well distributed in suitable habitats and have survived in sufficient numbers to make the wildlife resources of this small, but fortunate, country one of the world's great natural Spectacles. But the future of this magnificent natural resource is uncertain, threatened by the rapid growth and expansion of the human p0pulation with which it shares the land. Kenya's human population has always been very unevenly distrib- uted, with most of the peOple concentrated in the better-watered areas of the high plateau in the southwest. With the exception of the coastal zone and a few other small pockets of high density, the rest 8Ibid., pp. 7-10 16 s u o A N \55- 40 P ......... .. /'\.... ,/ \., ETHIOPIA ,.\ /.\ 'o I" I " ’0 4’ 3'” \.. .l ‘- >, .a‘: \ ..... \ «.‘J/ ,/ I. ,./ \. ../ 3 - x. a 2: 2 . Manchu ! I z \ I > < ~ Wuiir 3 " o , ! ’ = i i : . C '1' 1 C 0': . v 3 - I. ! n I” l. O \- \. '\ .° . ‘ gm 1’ A N z A N I A ., ‘ V 3°- ’JMoIIndi . INDIAN OCEAN Mom Mlle: 2.. I. '1” \".\ \' MAJOR TOWNS AND COMMUNICATIONS Map 1.4 Major Towns and Communications 17 of the country is very Sparsely populated (see Map 1.5). Even the more modern forms of human activity, urbanization, transportation, and communication, have been developed in a relatively restricted area. The concentration of human activity in a small part of Kenya's total area has meant that much of the country's natural vegetation and the animal life it supports has not yet been subjected to the more intensive forms of human occupance and alteration. In the past there has always been room for wildlife, in the sparsely populated bushland, in the mountain forests and the patches of dense bush that remained amidst cultivated land, and on the savanna grasslands, shared with pastoralists' cattle. But today Kenya's human population is growing at an unprecedented rate and people are increasingly - coming into conflict with wild animals as they compete for living space and resources. Competition for land between men and animals is already a serious problem in some areas of wildlife abundance, and the future growth and development of human activities in Kenya can only intensify this competition. Objectives of the Study. This study seeks to approach the complex problem of competitive land occupance in Kenya from several directions. The geographic context of the issue is manifest; it involves land use, land pressure, migration, allocation, and several other Spatially-expressed phenomena. But the field phase of research soon confirmed the elusiveness of hard data that is apparent from the meager literature. Additionally, the problem is being magnified by several precipitous developments that have occurred (and are still progressing) during the last several years. It is hardly possible to view the question of land competition in Kenya without continuous l8 I'IVWOS a m 1 c u ,— n POPULATION DISTRIBUTION Map 1.5 Population Distribution Source: Population distribution after C. G. Rosberg. Jr. and J. Nottingham. The Myth of "luau-Mag": Nationalism in Kenya (New York: Praeger, 1966). Map in rear pocket. 19 reference to the political circumstances in a country whose very inde- pendence was, in large measure, the result of a crisis over land and the rights of settlement. Independence having been a recent achieve- ment, the adjustments of what van Valkenburg referred to as the youthful stage of national development are now perhaps at the height of intensity, and the overriding impression that emerges is one of change, rapid change.9 This generates the difficult question of whether the issues raised in this study can be related in any meaningful way to some fundamental conceptual constructs in geography. Some two decades ago R. Hartshorne proposed that political geographers adopt a more func- tional approach to their problem-solving, an appeal that might have been directed to other areas of the discipline as well.10 Certainly it is necessary to place the present study in the context of Kenya's wildlife management system and its functional prOperties, but this phase of the work, as will be seen, is essentially contemporary. What Hartshorne's suggestion lacked was a mechanism to include the relevant evolutionary qualities of a functioning political region. It was S. B. Jones who filled this gap several years later with a statement relating to field theory in political geography, a 98. van Valkenburg, Elements of Political Geography (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1939), p. 5. The youthful stage is one of "internal organization . . . the consolidation of internal structure." In Systematic Political Geography (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967) H. J. de Blij proposed the term organizing as a substitute for youth- ful, since the process rather than the chronology is the critical issue (p. 103). 10R. Hartshorne, "The Functional Approach in Political Geography," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. XL, No. 2 (June, 1950), pp. 95-130. 20 statement that could also have wider application than to political geography alone.11 In the following chapter, therefore, the histor- ical factors characterizing the land question in Kenya (as it relates to wildlife conservation) are placed in the theoretical setting put forward by Jones. This procedure provides both a test for the Jones "model" and a systematic conceptualization of the temporal data. A second objective of this study is a functional analysis of Kenya's wildlife conservation system, with an emphasis on spatial ramifications. The usefulness of this approach is substantiated by the recognition of the intense complexity of the system itself, a complexity which plays a role in producing several of the salient problems identified in Chapter III. For a variety of reasons, the administration of Kenya's wildlife areas is a difficult matter. Areas set aside for total protection adjoin other areas where hunting may take place and animals migrate without regard for the appro- priateness of man-perceived boundaries. Poaching affects much of Kenya's fauna, and the system can only partially cope with it. Destruction of wildlife habitats by pioneer settlers who penetrate the wilderness poses still another threat. Superimposed upon all this are uncertainties about the apprOpriateness of p0pulation control policies to be applied to wild animals. Indeed, even the numbers, distribution, and migration patterns of some Species is uncertain. The third goal of this study involves a redefinition of scale. The broad problem of land competition having been identified, it is instructive to examine this matter at the case-study level. 118. B. Jones, "A Unified Field Theory of Political Geography," Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. XLIV, No. 2 (June, 1954), pp. 111-23. 21 Kenya would not seem to be an overpopulated territory, and yet people move into marginally usable land. What leads to their decision to do so? What are the consequences? What is the impact on the wildlife p0pulations of such areas, which have hitherto been beyond the fringes of pioneer settlement? In Chapter IV, a representative case (in Machakos District) is examined in detail to seek answers to these questions and to guage the potential threat to other areas in Kenya facing similar pressures. CHAPTER II COLONIAL BEGINNINGS TO MODERN PROBLEMS: AN APPLICATION OF FIELD THEORY TO THE EVOLUTION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AREAS IN EAST AFRICA Like many other countries in Africa and the remainder of the developing world, the young states of East Africa are presently reor- ganizing their political structures and reorienting their economies to reflect new goals and aspirations. In the political arena the condi- tions under which independence was achieved have already been greatly modified and the trend toward the one-party state prevails. Tanzania has already attained one-party status; in Kenya the government party reigns supreme with the organized opposition losing strength rapidly under heavy pressure; and in Uganda the traditionalist Buganda Kingdom, which extracted federal guarantees at independence, has seen its power and influence submerged in a nationalist revolution that came after independence had been achieved.1 In the economic sphere the three East African states also have chosen individual directions designed to meet their differing needs and develOpment problems. The central concern for each of the three republics is land and the policies re- lating to its ownership. Half a century of British colonial adminis- tration left Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya with a body of laws and attitudes which reflected alien as well as African objectives. 1Crawford M; Young, "The Obote Revolution," Africa Report, Vol. XI (1966), pp. 8-14. It is possible that the trend in Uganda will be somewhat delayed by the coup which ousted Obote in 1970. 22 23 Tanzania has implemented a communalization program in which freehold tenure has been replaced by leasehold tenure; land in effect became the property of the state, and farmers were organized into multi- tribal c00perative villages under the control of party and government. Uganda decided on a policy of tribal autonomy in regard to the ques- tion of land ownership, which in principle means that different forms of land tenure prevail in various parts of the country. And Kenya, where the land issue helped provoke the Mau Mau revolt of the 1950's, has witnessed the end of racial restrictions on land ownership. In the fertile and productive Highlands European estates were vacated and became available for African use. Even before independence, a suc- cessful program of land reform and consolidation was in progress, and today Kenya's hopes for agricultural development rest, in contrast to Tanzania, upon a large and productive base of African smallholders.3 Land is the chief concern for the overwhelming majority of East Africans, whether it is owned by the state, by national groups, or by individuals. All of the East African states depend for most of their external trade, as well as for local subsistence, upon agri- cultural products; mineral resources being of minor importance in the total economic picture. It was land that drew European settlers to the region, and land policies became the central political issue during the colonial period.4 It is not surprising that land was a 2F. Burke, "Tanzania's Search for a Viable Rural Settlement Policy," Proceedings, 1967 Annual Meeting of the African Studies Associa- tion of the United Kingdom, London, 1967. 3Aaron Segal, "The Politics of Land in East Africa," Africa Report, Vol. XII (1967), pp.-46-50.. 4The importance of the land question in Kenya during the colonial period and the central role of land grievances in the development of African nationalism in that country is convincingly documented 24 major theme of African politicians as the colonial period drew to a close, and the hopes of land-hungry people were sometimes falsely raised that independence and the end of British rule would bring an immediate solution to existing land problems. Among outsiders unsym- pathetic to independent, African-ruled, states it became fashionable to predict that the rich and commercially productive Kenya Highlands would revert to nonremunerative subsistence agriculture, and that East Africa's magnificent wildlife heritage would be destroyed by the encroachment of tribal peOples and their livestock. Wildlife conser-l vation, it is true, had been a completely foreign innovation in black Africa and the colonial period had seen African peoples deprived of the use of their land in the interests of protecting wild animals. Since independence the pressures on wildlife conservation areas in East Africa have been severe and in some cases damaging. Among these pressures have been demands for farm land, the activities of hunters and poachers, and the impact of pastoralism on fragile grass- lands. But, contrary to pre-independence fears, African governments have in fact strengthened conservation policies. Furthermore, they have had to face issues which colonial governments, by virtue of their imposed, non-consent nature, could conveniently submerge and ignore. In the years since independence, tourism, almost all of it based on the attraction of the region's wildlife, has undergone rapid growth. Kenya's foreign exchange earnings from the tourist industry were esti- mated at $20 million in 1964 and had more than doubled by 1968, when in C. G. Rosberg, Jr. and J. Nottingham, The Myth of "Mau Mau": Nationalism in Kenyg (New York: Praeger, 1966). 25 they amounted to almost $46 million.5 Indeed, far from permitting the destruction of their wildlife heritage, the governments of East Africa have recognized its great value and have willingly accepted the responsibilities involved in its protection. Scarce development capital is being made available to prepare for future growth. Large financial investments are being made; game lodges are under construc- tion; roads are being improved and new roads built; park fences are being erected; and the administration and operation of the wildlife sanctuaries is being improved. In addition to financial outlay political and social investments have also had to be made; encroach- ment on wildlife reserves has been resisted by force, squatters have been evicted, notably from the Serengeti, and laws regarding poaching and illegal hunting have been made even tighter than was the rule under British administration. This can be a sensitive matter, for an African farmer who sees a licensed European hunter kill an elephant and is then arrested for killing a buck for its meat, and on what he regards as his traditional hunting ground, is apt to think little of the rewards of independence. This chapter focuses on a politico-geographical aspect of the wildlife conservation system in East Africa. The emergence of Kenya as an independent state, with nearly ten per cent of its territory set aside as wildlife conservation areas, endowed the country with two sets of boundary and territorial problems, international and internal. In tracing the complex origins of Kenya's national parks and game reserves, the decisions that defined and delimited them, their 5Joseph P. B. Mg Ouma, Evolution of Tourism in East Africa (1900-2000) (Nairobi: East African Literature Bureau, 1970), p. 31. 26 frequent revisions, the disruption of established migration patterns and the creation of new ones, and the continuing spatial adjustments that resulted from these circumstances, it was recognized that the prominent hubs of activity being recorded were directly related to the constituents of the unified field theory model proposed by S. B. Jones.6 Although the field theory model's most direct application is to the evolution of a 53521 political area, its usefulness in the con- text of an internal, lower order of organized space can, it is be- lieved, be demonstrated.7 The unified field theory model is also known as the idea-area chain because idea and area are the first and last of its five stages, with decision, movement, and field intervening. The first question that arises is whether the idea of wildlife conservation, in its African setting, has any political relevance. The concept was, of course, entirely alien to the region where it was introduced by Euro- peans. Not only was the concept of wildlife conservation unknown, the idea of single-purpose allocation of land was also foreign to the cultures upon which it was imposed. Wildlife conservation was, how- ever, much more than a humanitarian principle when the idea was being debated, late in the 19th century. The British East Africa Company, struggling to administer and develop their vast African domain, was impoverished and in need of support at home and increased revenue in 6S. B. Jones, pp. cit. For an example of the model's application to the evolution of a total political area, see H. J. de Blij, "Uganda and the Problem of Poli- tics," in A Geography of Subsaharan Africa (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964), pp. 264-77. 27 East Africa. Politically the promise of the preservation of a great natural heritage served to generate favorable public Opinion in England and economically the income potential from controlled hunting promised to ease the company's strained finances. It was fitting that EurOpeans took the first organized steps to preserve wildlife in East Africa, for they had themselves produced the threat that made conser- vation necessary. When EurOpeans first arrived on the East African plateau late in the 19th century they found wildlife in staggering numbers. Although we have no reliable records of animal numbers in East Africa before the turn of the century we can arrive at the general magnitude of the game herds by extrapolation from estimates of game populations made in the early years of the 20th century. The first systematic counts of wild animal numbers in East Africa were made by Meinertz- hagen, an enthusiastic hunter and trained naturalist. In 1902 when, according to old timers in Kenya, the game herds had already been greatly reduced, Meinertzhagen counted the game observed south of the railway line between Athi River and Nairobi, a distance of less than twenty miles. He recorded: 5 rhinoceros 142 Thomson's gazelle 18 giraffe 46 impala 760 wildebeeste 24 ostrich 4006 zebra 7 greater bustard 845 hartebeeste l6 baboon 324 Grant's gazelle Meinertzhagen's first game census was conducted on May 18, 1902; later 8Colonel R. Meinertzhagen, Kenya Diary 1902-1906 (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), pp. 5-6. 28 that year, on July 8, he counted the game on a ten square mile area of the Athi Plains, south of Nairobi, and recorded:9 2430 zebra 8 steinbok 967 wildebeeste 2 duiker 846 hartebeeste 46 eland 932 Grant's gazelle 19 giraffe 546 Thomson's gazelle l rhinoceros 146 impala 86 ostrich 1 cheetah 5 hyena 7 hunting dogs As impressive as these concentrations of game were, wild animals were apparently much less numerous than twenty years earlier when EurOpeans first viewed the wildlife of the plateau. At that time the vast herds of game animals covered the grasslands and it must have seemd to early observers as if this magnificent natural resource was inexhaust- ible. The great game herds quickly drew European hunters, both amateur and professional, to East Africa. Professional ivory hunters were soon causing substantial reductions in elephant populations and amateur hunters were beginning to have a significant impact on other game animal populations. The amateur "sportsmen" hunting in East Africa were interested both in the quality of their trophies and the quantity of game shot. There were no limits on the number of animals that could be shot and it became common practice to shoot large num- bers of each species in hapes of getting one good trophy head. The size of each hunter's bag was also a source of pride and many animals were shot simply to add to the tally. It was also customary for large 'hunting safaris to live off the land and, as it was not unusual for a large party to employ a hundred or more porters, the amount of game 91b1d., p. 13. 29 _i fl StJoAlu $9 w- ,. ......... a ’,. . (’ \x ETIIIOPI.A "m\ / 'o ' do. ~ a. 3" \..\ 3’ :7, a} ..... .\__‘ ,/ .l I RENDILLE /' _ °\'runxANA /" 3... °\. ! g 2 ( w E s T ! 3 z I > 2 f SOhdALl i : 3 .° 8 O R A N i res 3"“ , a is a I 3 . i c -(LUO IER 1 : m- ow) . I E l . r: = -i 55 5 '° '\.. M A S A I m\% \,. \,. ‘N. TA NZ AruuA ‘N. L 30- : .f‘t‘ .9. PEOPLES OF KENYA Map 2.1 Peoples of Kenya Modified after G. P. Murdock. Africa -- gts Peoples and Their Culture Histogy (New YOrk: McGraw-Hill, 1959). Map in rear pocket. 30 required for food could be enormous. By 1894 concern was already being expressed about the decline in wild animal numbers in East Africa and suggestions were being made that some kind of control measures might be necessary to preserve wildlife.10 The conservation idea in East Africa received its first official expression in the British East Africa Company's "Sporting Licenses Regulation of the 5th September, 1894," which prOposed hunt- ing restrictions and bag limits, regulating the number of kills that might be made on each license. As much of the best hunting country lay in African tribal lands (see Map 2.1) the Regulation stipulated that its application should be relaxed toward African hunters.11 It was not in Kenya, however, but in what is today mainland Tanzania where the first real wildlife sanctuaries in East Africa were created. This pioneering achievement was largely due to the effort of von Wiss- man who, as Germany's Imperial Commissioner in East Africa, apparently made the earliest appeals for such action. His recommendations were reported to Foreign Secretary Salisbury in 1896 by Gosselin, the British representative in Berlin.12 Mainly as a result of von Wiss- man's proposals, there were two large wildlife conservation areas in German East Africa by late 1896. The Northern Reserve extended from the Masai Steppe south of Mt. Kilimanjaro to the present-day Serengeti 10Sir Harry Johnston, quoted in Noel Simon, Between the Sunlight and the Thunder: The Wildlife of Kenyg (London: Colins, 1962), p. 33. 11Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, Vol XL, 1898 (Africa, No. 7), Command 8683, p. 641. 12Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, Vol LXXIX, 1906 (Africa, No. 58), Command 3189, "Correspondence Relating to the Preserva- tion of Wild Animals in Africa" (November, 1906), pp. 2-3. 31 and the Southern Reserve coincided largely with the modern Selous Game Reserve (see Map 2.2). In British East Africa, it was proposed by Sir John Kirk that "large wild game preserve areas" be created, and Frederick C. Selous, one of Africa's most famous hunters, advocated the introduction of closed seasons on all species and additional reserves where no hunting of any kind would be permitted, in a state- 13 It is remarkable that these ment to the Foreign Office in 1897. early expressions of the conservation idea demonstrate an extraordi- nary lack of knowledge regarding some basic questions, such as the space requirements of truly viable ecological units. More importantly‘ they show an apparent lack of concern for the African peOples whose lands were being considered as desirable areas for the establishment of wildlife sanctuaries. Although they were undoubtedly unaware of the future consequences of their actions these early conservationists were sowing the seeds of political trouble. From Idea to Decision: The Convention of 1900 In response to the growing concern over the destruction of wildlife in Africa an international conference was convened in London in 1900 which was attended by representatives of the colonial powers with African dependencies. All the governments concerned shared an interest in the large-scale implementation of the conservation idea and among the articles included in the resulting convention were two which read as follows:14 13 Ibid., pp. 42-44.. 14 Ibid., pp. 86-91. 32 r ._a EARLY WI L DLI F E SANCTUARIES IN EAST AFRICA NORTHER RESERVE s: G E R M A N Map 2.2 Early Wildlife Sanctuaries in East Africa Sources: For British East Africa: Parliamentary Papers. Vbl. LXXIX. 1906 (Africa. No. 58). Command 3189. p. 39. For German East Africa: Ibid., pp. 2-3 and 34-36. The modern boundary framework is superimposed for reference. 33 II. lihe signatories favor thé] establishment, as far as it is possible, of reserves within which it shall be unlawful to hunt, capture, or kill any bird or other wild animal except those which shall be specially exempted from protection by the local authorities. By the term "reserves" are to be understood suffi- ciently large tracts of land which have all the qualifications necessary as regards food, water, and, if possible, salt, for preserving birds or other wild animals and for affording them the necessary quiet during the breeding time. 111. The contracting parties undertake to . . . communi- cate . . . within 18 months giving information as to areas which may be established as reserves. In British East Africa the London Convention led directly to the consolidation of one game reserve and the definition and delimita- tion of several others. The newly consolidated reserve was the "whole of the Kenia District of Ukamba Province, except the area within 10 miles around the Government Station at Kikuyu."15 A comparison of Maps 2.1 and 2.2 shows that this reserve incorporated a large part of the land of the Kamba and the Masai.- The newly delimited conservation areas included a northern reserve that was an expanded version of the Sugota Reserve, which had been proclaimed unofficially and without 0.16 New sanctuaries were also created in the Aberdare and Mt. Kenya areas north of Nairobi.17 In sanction by Sir Harry Johnston in 190 Britain, influential organizations took up the cause of wildlife con- servation and pressed for expansion and improvement of East Africa's '51b1d., p. 59. 16Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1906, pp. ci ., No. 67, Pp. 113-14 0 H- r? 17Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1906, pp. ., No. 116, pp. 173. 34 game sanctuaries. In 1905 the Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire, in a deputation to Colonial Secretary Lyttleton, called for the establishment of additional reserves.18 On March 23, 1906 the Zoological Society of London sent a communication to the Colonial Office demanding that restrictions be placed on human settle- ment in wildlife conservation areas, the first time that this impor- tant issue was raised.19 As Jones has stated, the links in the idea-area chain are not separate but "interconnect at one level, so that whatever enters one 20 The decisions that led to the will spread to all the others." establishment of conservation areas in British East Africa were not always based on an adequate knowledge of the local situation and the advice of Europeans in Kenya was sometimes ignored. It is not sur- prising that these conservation policies produced problems in Kenya. Interference with local hunting rights on traditional hunting grounds, the interruption of ancient nomadic migration routes, the restriction of settlement to one side of a line demarcated on the ground, were all consequences of the establishment of game sanctuaries and these pro- blems led to demands for a revision of the whole conservation idea. It became increasingly evident, for example, that while complete pro- tection of wildlife could be accomplished in some reserves, there were other areas in which animals would have to share the land with the 18Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1906, pp, pip., No. 181, pp. 249-57. 19Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1906, pp, cit., No. 216, pp. 335-36. 0 2 S. B. Jones, pp. cit., p. 115. 35 sunny: “/1? 1" 1 3,. ,II ails.‘ / —u-—\\ .° 5 I H n o r u A . ..\ I”, .\ \~ // \ov . \o -.\/ ./ ,/ L /o .‘ WT NAM .m I! U 0 A N D A 0 j . > I/ : noon NATURE IISIIVI I 2/' mo m : Cl. C . : .. LNAKUIU M. mg.“ n ‘W m 0 NA“ m D umwr m. /mmsammm .mmmamms (noun ocaAN I.-... 7° Map 2.3 National Parks and Reserves Sources: Survey of Kenya. Kenya Hunting Map. Series SK57B. Edition 1. 1965. and Survey of Kenya. Game Policy Committee Map of Kenya. 1958. 36 human population. Thus there gradually emerged a concept of a hierarchy of conservation areas; and this idea was one of the central themes of the 1933 Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State, the outcome of an international conservation conference convened, once again, in London.21 The Convention of 1933 defined no less than six levels of pro- tection and control for wildlife areas, ranging from the complete protection of "national parks" to the minimum protection afforded by "controlled areas."22 These revisions in the conservation idea naturally had an impact on the disposition of land considered suitable for wildlife sanctuaries.. There were, according to the Convention, alternatives other than complete protection or total abandonment of wildlife. In areas where pastoralists drove their livestock, the conservation objective now became the maintenance of an ecological balance; where hunting was an important human activity, control to ensure the survival of adequate numbers of wild animals became the goal. In time it became apparent that the six levels of protection defined in the London Convention were too complex to be administered satisfactorily. The concept of a hierarchy of conservation areas did survive, however, and became a cornerstone of wildlife preservation in East Africa. Kenya today still has three basic categories of 21The Convention was amended by the Third Interngpional Conference on the Protection of the Fauna and Flora of the Empire4(Africa), Bukavu, 1933 (White Paper, Command 5230, 1936» the proceedings are summarized in the Final Act, H.M.S.0., London, 1938. 22Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Report of the 1956 Game Policy Committee, Sessional Paper No. 7 of 1957/58 (Nairobi: The Govern- ment Printer, 1958), pp. 62-64. 37 wildlife reserves: the national park, the game reserve, and the game controlled area.23 Decision and Movement Kenya's population of ten million people is concentrated in the southwestern quarter of the country, whose core area stretches north and northwestward from Nairobi to Lake Victoria.24 When EurOpeans first penetrated the interior of Kenya, the Kikuyu dominated the High- lands (although they had temporarily abandoned parts of this area in the late 1890's), and the pastoral Masai grazed their cattle over wide areas of southern Kenya and what is today northern mainland Tanzania. The Kikuyu and the Masai had long contested the border areas between the two peoples, but in 1904 the British forcibly restricted the Masai to two reserves, one in the Laikipia area in the north and a southern reserve of 4,350 square miles south of Nairobi, between the railway line and the boundary with German East Africa. The fragmentation of the Masai domain was unfortunate and violations of the reserve bound- aries were frequent. The two reserves were connected by a half-mile wide corridor but this link between the two sections of the Masai soon became so infected with disease that the Veterinary Department was forced to impose a quarantine. This severed the connection between the two reserves and resulted in demands for consolidation of the 3Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, A Game Policyfifor Kenya, Sessional Paper No. l of 1959/60 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1959), p. 1. 24T. J. D. Fair, "A Regional Approach to Economic DevelOpment in Kenya," South African Geographical Journal, Vol. XLV (1963), pp. 55-77. 38 Figure 2.1 01 Tukai swamp in the Amboseli Game Reserve is the only permanent source of water for a large part of the Amboseli area and is the focus of game concentration in the Reserve. Although included in the proposed stock-free area it is still utilized by Masai cattle and is at the center of the Amboseli controversy. 39 Masai people. In 1911 a land exchange was made in which the Masai agreed to abandon their northern reserve in exchange for nearly 6,000 square miles of land in the Mara region westward along the border from their southern reserve. An additional 3,700 square miles was added to the reserve the following year to bring the total area of the reserve to about 15,000 square miles. The reserve that the Masai eventually come to occupy was, of course, much less extensive than their former range (see Map 2.1), and the Masai were certainly not among the beneficiaries of the colonial advent in Kenya. Further, when wildlife conservation deci- sions were implemented in Kenya the Masai found that they occupied an area of great interest for this purpose. The Masai were not hunters (except to protect their livestock from predators and for certain ceremonial purposes), and although their cattle may have competed with wildlife for grazing and water, they had never been directly respon- sible for the large-scale destruction of wild animals. With the decision to establish "national reserves" (in the terms of the 1933 London Convention) it appeared to the Masai that further encroachments were being made upon their already shrunken domain. The situation was mitigated somewhat, however, by involving the Masai themselves in the conservation effort. In Masailand, instead of creating national parks which would be controlled by outsiders, so-called game reserves were introduced in Amboseli and Mara (see Map 2.3). In these reserves an attempt was made to make the rewards of conservation directly visible through the collection of revenues from visitors, with the people's own District Council responsible for control and supervision of the reserves. In return, the Masai agreed to exclude all domestic 40 ,.,... ..~ ...p.Au ._.‘...AI ...g~.|-o\ n e , . 7.0.0.59 . 41:2.» ”-0 9' ‘ 0. .0..I~o I»...Auo :-..- .‘QQOIOVO‘Q'V T' eooetoeosw' o'i-OOO“ < .90.: . 1 ,.....4»‘-' ..v. .,.,.....'..~Av ‘ . ...~~u .... .. n-:"" . .. .......... ‘UCIIQDO‘I' . .. ... ,.....A.».~9:¢ .-. .,,.,,..... u: A ..-»- , , c . n I ~ I , , , 4 '3‘.... -1“" «A... ..-Xoo::~ . on .~.--.. n... c c ow ooou ... . . ,.,‘i ~oa Figure 2.2 Masai cattle herd within sight of 01 Tukai swamp in the Masai-Amboseli District Council Game Reserve. Symptoms of over- grazing are evident in this picture and are becoming characteristic of much of Amboseli today. 41 livestock from small sections of both Amboseli and Mara so that these areas might be reserved fdr the exclusive use of wildlife. Mara and Amboseli today are examples of the successes and the failures of this sort of cooperative venture between the Nairobi government and the local people. The Masai-Mara Game Reserve is rela- tively stable and productive of revenues, and the range appears to be in no danger. At Amboseli, however, excessive numbers of cattle are overgrazing the grasslands and causing severe erosion. In a recent Annual Reportthe Kenya Game Department summarized the problem at Amboseli in these words: ". . . it is to be regretted that no prog- ress was made to secure even an inadequate area for the sole use of wildlife. The [Districé] Council did not enforce the agreement to exclude domestic stock from the inner sanctuary of 30 square miles and further considerable damage was done to the vegetation."25 The political overtones of the conservation issue, then, are as prominent today, in an independent Kenya, as they were under British colonial rule. In a country composed of many ethnic groups, the government cannot impose unpOpular decisions on one group of its peOple without the risk of arousing the fears of others as well, argu- ments about the "national interest" notwithstanding. And although the Masai have been subjected to intense criticism for their failures in the Amboseli Reserve, they have not been alone in their Opposition to government conservation efforts. The Samburu, for example, are a pastoral peOple who graze their cattle on the dry rangeland between the northern edge of the Kenya Highlands and the southern end of 25Republic of Kenya, Game Department Annual Reports 1964 and 1965 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1967), p. 27. 42 Figure 2.3 Cattle-induced erosion, Masai-Amboseli District Council Game Reserve. Dust-bowl conditions are spreading in Amboseli, which is in danger of destruction as a prime wildlife sanctuary. 43 Lake Rudolf. They objected strenuously to attempts to establish a National Park on their land and the Kenya Game Department observed that to press the issue too strongly might endanger future conserva- tion efforts in the area. The Samburu felt it was unfair that the government should maintain game on their land and yet not share with them the benefits of its exploitation. Should a national park be created this feeling was likely to be exacerbated. Ex- ploitation would still be by an alien body in the shape of the [National Parks Board of] Trustees and as soon as the exclusion of livestock was enforced, as it would have to be, a friction line would develop round the park boundaries and reprisals might well be taken when game "trespassed" onto surrounding land in the course of its seasonal move- ment . . . the resulting ill-feeling would prejudice all other conservation measures in Samburu District. The Samburu eventually softened their opposition to the idea of wildlife conservation and today, through the cooperative principle of the District Council Game Reserve they participate in a conserva- tion area that includes both a Reserve and a game-controlled area. The success of this particular program is evidence of the government's determination to strengthen wildlife protection in Kenya (see Map 2.3) MOvement, in Jones' field theory model, may be created, changed, or restricted as a result of politically motivated decisions. The decisions having political implications produce so-called "circulation fields." The case of wildlife conservation in Kenya produces a number of examples. One clear instance relates to the policing of the con- servation areas. Except in District Council Game Reserves, where local supervision is common, the officers of the Kenya Game Department 26Government of Kenya, Game Department Annual Rgport 1962 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, n.d.), p. 3. 44 Figure 2.4 Evidence of Masai encroachment upon Amboseli‘s maximum game protection area: a boma adjacent to the swamp, which can be seen in the background. 45 are frequently drawn from distant areas of the country, so that a Kikuyu officer may be in charge of patrolling a wildlife sanctuary in Kamba country. It has been deliberate policy to recruit rangers for the large anti-poaching Field Force from among the peOples of Northern Kenya: the Rendille, Turkana, Samburu, and Orma. MOvement of this kind is somewhat analogous to the British use of Ganda administrators 27 In a broader sense, the dis- in the non-Ganda sections of Uganda. tribution of Kenya's wildlife conservation areas (see Map 2.3) has produced fields of adminstrative contact between the central government and peoples who otherwise might have little direct involvement with Nairobi. The location of the game sanctuaries has also had an impact on the development of Kenya's road system; certain parts of the country which might not otherwise be considered for road construction or improvement were on the priority list of the 1966-1970 DevelOpment 28 One such road connects Masai-Amboseli to Tsavo National Park Plan. and the Voi-Taveta Road, another is between Voi and Malindi along the Sabaki River, and a third improvement will link the newly gazetted Meru National Park to the network of the core area. In the area of restrictive movement, park and reserve bound- aries may well interfere with the nomadic migrations of men and animals in search of water and forage. One Special case of such interference involves the Aberdare National Park, where animal herds, particularly elephants, have long migrated back and forth across 27 H. J. de Blij, pp, pi£., p. 272. 28Republic of Kenya, ngglopmppt Plan l966-l9ZQ_(Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1966), pp. 214-15. See also Chapter 9. 46 CORRIDOR MT. KENYA NATIONAL 0 Nero Moro farm TREETOPS OMwego OKigonio O . mm roars: Nyeri .Karotino ABERDARE l a n d NATIONAL PARK Sogono . For: Hall 0 fl FOREST XXXXX FENCE NATIONAL PARK --- MOAT ”WILDLIFE MIGRATION noun Map 2.4 Nyeri Corridor Source: F. W. Woodley. "Game Defence Barriers." East African Wildlife Journal. Vol. III. 1965. p. 89. 47 farmland between the Aberdare and Mt. Kenya forests29 (see Map 2.4). In order to protect the farms from raiding by migrating wild animals and to protect the animals,tunjifrom retaliation by farmers and from control shooting by the Game Department, fences and moats have been constructed to close off this migration route completely.3O Decisions emanating from the conservation idea have produced other forms of field-creating movement, all with direct or indirect political implications. Some of these involve the tourist industry itself. The overwhelming majority of Kenya's hotels and other tourist-oriented establishments are still owned by non-Africans and it has been argued, by opponents of government policy, that dependence on the tourist trade leads to status-quo politics. The economic impact of the tourist industry is evident in the rapid development of central Nairobi, where luxurious hotels and the many travel and safari offices dramatically reflect the importance of the growing stream of foreign visitors. Outside Nairobi, too, tourism's impact, though less obvious, is felt almost everywhere in the country. Kenya's National Parks alone annually draw a quarter of a million visitors and an increasing number of tourists are enjoying the attractions of the country's coastal resorts. Overseas tourists, with their money and demand for luxury, are bringing changes to distant corners of Kenya, as evidenced 29Meinertzhagen reports witnessing this migration in 1903. He records observing a herd of 700 elephants following the return migration route from Mt. Kenya through the Nyeri Forest to the Aberdare Mountains (Meinertzhagen, pp. cit., p. 107). 30F. W. Woodley, "Game Defence Barriers," East African Wildlife Journal, Vol. III (1965), pp. 89-94 48 by the German-speaking African labor force of Malindi's beachfront hotels. Field and Political Area Wildlife conservation in a colonial dependency, an apparently apolitical idea, has led in Kenya to a fragmented national territory whose game conservation areas have come to constitute and represent much more than that. In this chapter the conservation idea has been used in the context of Jones' unified field theory to provide a con- ceptual perspective for the historico-geographical data that have relevance to this field, and to give emphasis to the "hubs" of activity that have marked the idea-area chain in this context. The conservation areas in Kenya constitute a large part of the national territory, and their creation and maintenance have involved the activities of a substantial number of peOple. As Jones wrote in response to a draft of this Chapter, "your work . . . shows that [hy own contributioé] does have relationship to reality."31 318. B. Jones, Personal Communication, December 4, 1969. CHAPTER III WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN KENYA TODAY: ESSENTIALS OF THE SYSTEM AND SALIENT PROBLEMS The Optimal use and conservation of wildlife resources, in Africa as well as in other parts of the world, relates directly to planning, organization, and control. Where the exploitation of such resources has gone on unchecked or with inadequate control, their expendability was soon reflected by growing lists of extinct species. Few countries possess faunal resources as productive and promising as Kenya and few countries would require as well-functioning a sys- tem of wildlife conservation as does this richly endowed republic. 'Administration The system of wildlife conservation in Kenya, as it is presently constituted, consists of two basic fields of activity. One is the creation, maintenance, and Operation of the several types of sanctuaries which afford varying degrees of protection to wild- life. The other involves the regulation of hunting along with other forms of exploitation of wild animals, and includes the resolution of direct conflicts between human and wildlife interests through such activities as control shooting and vermin control. The admin- istration of the wildlife conservation system in Kenya today is under the overall direction of a separate government ministry, the Ministry of Tourism and-Wildlife, but the direct supervision of the various elements of the system is carried out by a number of agencies, both 49 50 within the Ministry and outside of it. The Kenya Game Department, local District Councils, and the quasi-independent National Parks Board of Trustees all administer wildlife sanctuaries of different types, and the Forest Department controls additional reserve areas of faunal interest. Hunting regulation and game control work in defense of human life and prOperty are primarily the responsibilities of the Game Department. Vermin1 control is considered to be the responsibility of local authorities, but the Game Department does assist in this area when their resources permit. Hunting Regulation Licenses and Fees The regulation of hunting was the first conservation measure adopted in Kenya and it remains an important part of the wildlife conservation system today. All hunters, both resident and non- resident, are required by law to hold a valid hunting license. There are several types of licenses which vary in duration and in the number and variety of animals that can be killed. Table 3.1 lists the types of licenses available in Kenya and the fees for each. Class A licenses are for non-residents and the fees for them are in each case ten times the fees for Class B, or resident licenses. All licenses except the fourteen-day license are valid for one year. The species and number of animals that can be shot on each license v—fi 1In Kenya wild animals are classified as vermin if they cause damage and are not scheduled as game animals in the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance. Among the animals so classified are hyena, jackals, baboon, and several Species of monkeys. See Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Rgport of the 1956 Game Poligy Committee, Sessional Paper No. 7 of 1957/58 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1958), p. 18. 51 are listed in the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, Third Schedule Part II (see Appendix III). Table 3.1 HUNTING LICENSES AND FEES Sh. cts. l. A full licence (1) Class A 1,000 00 (2) Class B 100 00 2. A fourteen-day licence (1) Class A 500 00 (2) Class B 50 00 3. A private land licence (1) Class A 750 00 (2) Class B 75 00 4. An employee's licence 100 00 5. A bird licence 60 00 Source: Republic of Kenya, Legal Notice 94, The Wild Animals Protection Act (Amendment of Schedules) Order 1967. The holder of a full license is entitled to shoot 16 different spe- cies; he is allowed two of most of these species but is restricted to one each in the case of four species and is allowed to kill three common zebra. On a fourteen-day license the hunter is restricted to 11 species and is allowed to shoot just one of each. On both licen- ses an unlimited number of game birds are allowed. The private land license permits a hunter, with the consent of the landowner, to kill, on private land, unlimited numbers of any animal listed in Part II of the Third Schedule (1,p,, the same 16 species allowed on a full license). An employee's license is identical to a private land 52 license except that it is restricted to African or Somali employees of a landowner.2 A bird license entitles the hunter to Shoot an unlimited number of game birds. Special Licenses. In addition to the animals which are allowed on the license, the holder of a full license may apply for special licenses to hunt 29 other species. These animals, which may be hunted only under special license, include most of the popular game species and all of the dangerous game animals, such as elephant, lion, 1eOpard, rhinoceros, and buffalo. A separate Special license is required for each animal and is restricted to one such license for each Species except in the case of buffalo where three are allowed, and elephant where two licenses are permitted. The fees for special licenses range from sh.30/ for duiker to sh.2,000/ for 3 The rhinoceros and sh.2,500/ for the second elephant license. special license system has been expanded gradually over the past 15 years. In 1957 special licenses were required for only nine species; this was expanded to 14 in 1958 and to the present 29 in 1964.4 With a full license and all the Special licenses, hunters in Kenya today may shoot a total of 45 game animal species. The remaining game animals in Kenya are fully protected from hunting. 2Laws of Kenya, The Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, Chapter 376, Section 12. 3See Appendix III for animals that may be hunted on special license and the fees for each license. 4See Appendix I for a comparison of special licenses issued from 1956 to 1965. 53 / I, .-“\.. ETHIOPIA .U C O I D P I ll ‘ C C o- O‘- n TANZANIA an a cccccc I I l v Q , , (a 'o’.'. lllll '3'.“ o. o::::xl '4‘ o 'c’.'.'. ’/ IIIIIIIII ' .6 ‘- // I . H" :.: ' / "J A I , a . l P 'n‘.'.‘ o . . . . - . ........ lllllll ........ ........ ....... / an s: -l 0.0.. I 1“... . . a . . . .. O '.‘. . . II‘QIT . . . . . .' V mmammm . .. // oooooooo .- goo 000000 '0 no. ...... I. II. ...... - . . o ..... . . « ................... ..... ......................... mmmammz --------------- ........ ........ . ....... . ...... . . ------ Emu-n eeeee ..... .,. .no. on so - occ- u... ..... ......... ssssssss ........ ooooooo ...... vvvvvv vovovo l l l Map 3.1 Wildlife Conservation Areas Source: Survey of Kenya. Kenya Hunting Map. Series SK57B. Edition 1, 1965. 54 Protected Game Full protection from hunting has been given to a wide variety of animals in Kenya. The protected list includes all immature game animals, pregnant females and females with young, all female lion and giraffe, and all individuals of a large number of Species. Completely protected animals include the roan and sable anteIOpeS, Uganda kob, hippopotamus, and elephants with tusks weighing less than 25 pounds in total. Among the predators protected are the cheetah, wild dog, caracal, golden cat, and serval cat. Other ani- mals on the list include hyrax, otters, aardwolf, several species of monkeys, and all birds other than game birds, queleas, and mouse birds.S Controlled Areas Hunting is further regulated through the Controlled Area system which covers most of the country's game areas outside of the National Parks and Game Reserves. Virtually all land in Kenya having substantial game interest is included in the system except for private land and that already designated as park or reserve land. The Controlled Areas (see Map 3.1) that make up the system are all under the control of the Game Department in regard to hunting. A Controlled Area permit is required to hunt in any Controlled Area and these are issued at the complete discretion of the Chief Game ‘Wardenl He may attach any conditions he sees fit to such permits including restrictions on particular species or number of animals SSee Appendix VII for a complete list of protected animals. 55 Good omo.mHH one.m ans.~ oka nmo.s mme.s osH.~ coo was.m naa.~s «mm mom mmq.e oms.o oom.k mmo.~ msw.e~ omH.- oms.~ .em span moofl-wmmfi .muuomwm.fim=cc< .ucosuumdoo mms.wm~ om non mam.~ o~m map.q com oma mmm m~m nno.m cam.s mom ooo.ss mam.ms mmm mmm oqw.m ma~.ss msk.ss kmm.w oqa.pu ooo.o~ omm.m .em News mm~.eos no on mma.m one moe.s omm.m mam.m coo mes onw.n omh.o mo~.s was oes.Ns ma~.ws cma oas mmm.o omm.os mom.o mmm.o omo.m~ omm.mm ooo.q .am mops «on.am~ owe.a owo.os onm.~ opp.s can mop.oH om~.m omm mm can naq.om Osa.~ oe~.s onm.oa omm.am ope.s oom.s omo.e was nm~.n onw.s mam.¢m mke.om ssm.m .em Spas msq.oqe «mm.s msa.a oaq.m oom.s cow mne.¢~ oNs.a ooo.s can mma.- was.m nmN.s o~o.om cam.om cao.s Smm.s new.ss op meo.a ~s¢.q mob.ow mwo.mms omm.ss .em noes momauwmmfi mAHUZDOo BUHMHmHQ OH GHdm mmmm wmz oxma mmou< amouom uo>wm menace acmxuse umacoq sappmppz Aamamumzv anonEmm fixaxcmz mosxmumz Ohowam uses: sang “coax seam sum: suede moxmsomz xSm umoz owcwuom uo>Hm acme mmmaumo oaoapH auaaax xoumz assumes ofimsx ppspumsa 56 allowed, and may even close an Area completely to all hunting.6 The Department attempts to Spread hunting pressure and prevent over- crowding by limiting the number of parties hunting in any Hunting Block7 at the same time. In practice this means that it is necessary for hunters to make advance reservations for use of Controlled Areas, particularly in the case of the more pOpular Hunting Blocks. The Controlled Area system thus assures the hunter that when he receives a perudt for a Block he will not find it overcrowded with other hunters. The system also provides the Game Department with a very flexible tool for game management, allowing an unlimited range of Options regarding hunting restrictions, which may be tailored to meet the specific management needs of local areas. Benefits to Local Pe0ple. The Controlled Area system also serves to bring some of the economic benefits of wildlife exploita- tion directly to the peOple in the form of fees collected from the hunter for use of a Controlled Area and paid directly to local District Councils. A separate fee is assessed for each animal shot, and the fee schedule resembles that for Special licenses. The Controlled Area fee schedule, however, includes fees for animals that do not require Special licenses, such as impala, gazelle, and 8 zebra. Table 3.2 shows the Controlled Area fees received by 6Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Repprt of the 1956 Game Polipy Committee, Sessional Paper No. 7 of 1957/58, pp. 13-14. , A Game Policy for Kenya, Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1959/60, pp. 1 and 3. 7A Hunting Block is a Controlled Area that is Open to hunting. 8See Appendices IV and V for a complete list of Controlled Area fees. h _ Map 3.2 Kenya: Districts If — U s u o A N \56° 40‘ .o'_' .. I“... ,/ \., E 1’ II I o r I A . ’0‘ .. [God 0’ \Oo‘..’. / H \'o . > . \. O ofii 0—.o\.~ ../ ’ \. 7 26 .-/ 30-1 ‘ \ l " . 1' O < ( l a , 3 z \ > < : u- p ,/ 3 l 0 a - ‘° ll " 1 1 I? ‘ u I Q I- I : m! h iov 34 . . d .\.. , ID \,. \,. \,. ,1 T A N l A N I A I- 3" I N D l A N O C 8 A N III" I -44 I L 7° 1 moon 11 am mm 21 ms: 31 films 2 30813 12 moo 22 Kim 32 mm 3 mm 13 MIKIPIA 23 FOR? mm. 33 ”.113 4 CUTML mza 14 MIN 61880 24 xnm 34 mm 5 soura smzA 15 mm 25 ram 35 an arm 6 KISII 16 KBRICBO 26 man 36 new 7 ma 17 m 27 181010 37 ram 8 mam 18 m 28 man 38 nun 9 "881' P030? 19 WWO 29 m 39 m 10 INS 3201A 20 mm 30 KIT"! 40 m 41~MIDDI 3.P.D. 58 District Councils from 1958 to 1965. The steady increase in total receipts reflects both an increase in hunting9 and upward revisions of the fee scale during that period. Districts with substantial game interests like Kajiado, Narok, Machakos, and Taita realize 10 These payments, it significant income from Controlled Area fees. is felt, help to compensate local people for the inconveniences and possible economic and personal losses that might accrue from the maintenance of wild animals on their land. District Councils are encouraged to use at least part of the money received from Con- trolled Area fees to reimburse people for damage or personal injuries caused by wild animals. The Game Department has strongly. urged that such compensation schemes be more widely implemented and has suggested that this would help in obtaining local support for wildlife conservation measures.11 Growth and Develppment of Hunting Licensed hunting, in Kenya, has increased steadily in recent years. In 1965, 307 full licenses were issued to visitors and 636 to residents. Ten years earlier, in 1956, only 63 visitors and 449 residents hunted in Kenya on full licenses.12 Continued growth in 9See Table 3.3 for animals shot on license in Controlled Areas 1959-1965. 0Kenya's Districts are shown on Map 3.2. 11 Republic of Kenya, Game Department Annual Reports 1964 and 1956 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1967), p. 15. 12See Appendix I for a complete annual breakdown of all hunting licenses, including special licenses, issued in Kenya during the period 1956-1965. 59 TABLE 3.3 GAME ANIMALS SHOT ON LICENCE IN CONTROLLED AREAS (1959-1965) Species 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 Bushbuck 69 55 76 53 70 76 86 Bongo 8 9 2 4 5 2 10 Buffalo 236 195 207 157 207 180 200 Crocodile 34 4O 47 52 --- 37 46 Duiker Blue 4 13 29 8 15 36 23 Duiker Red 1 1 --- --- --- --- --- Duiker Black 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- Duiker Grey 18 10 --- --- --- --- --- Dikdik 181 190 138 164 119 121 229 Eland 120 80 96 75 68 65 85 Elephant 198 137 177 162 189 180 151 Gerenuk 128 132 145 150 121 110 150 Giraffe 3 1 --- --- --- 2 2 Forest Hog 14 15 29 4 10 8 5 Gazelle Grant 540 355 352 328 247 282 296 Gazelle Thomson's 380 315 311 309 208 229 239 Hartebeeste Cokes 320 140 187 155 138 238 182 Hunter's AnteIOpe --- --- 8 ll 10 12 18 Impala 623 468 460 451 381 326 309 Klipspringer 21 26 18 24 12 17 15 Kudu Lesser 100 74 83 96 93 69 70 Kudu Greater 8 l4 4 l --- l4 l6 Leopard 140 102 104 92 81 72 84 Lion Masai 60 39 35 41 14 27 6 Lion Other 9 14 24 15 67 18 ll MOnkey Blue 1 10 l 1 --- --- --- Monkey P/Nosed --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Menkey Patas --- --- --- --- --- --- p--- Monkey Colobus 2 l --- --- --- --- --- Oribi 53 35 --- --- 17 26 39 Oryx Fringed Eared 134 35 --- --- --- --- --- Oryx Beisa 38 133 189 185 163 159 165 Ostrich 28 40 42 38 48 26 27 Reedbuck Bohor 18 S --- --- --- --- --- Reedbuck Chanlers ll 15 10 6 25 34 34 Rhinoceros 27 30 48 51 86 100 88 Suni 2 5 S --- --- --- --- Steinbok 42 43 31 17 25 27 26 Waterbuck Common 75 Waterbuck Defassa 73 92 95 78 123 138 46 Wildebeeste 190 118 144 125 76 104 83 Wart Hog 190 129 100 96 113 118 128 Zebra common 821 737 450 530 400 598 314 Zebra Grevys 53 29 55 77 64 50 69 TOpi 40 36 85 65 53 47 24 Source: Kenya Game Department Annual Reports 1959-1965 60 the number of people hunting in Kenya can be anticipated, although the Game Department is already experiencing difficulty in accommo- dating the demand for hunting facilities in the Controlled Areas and has been forced to double-book some of the larger of the more p0pu1ar Blocks.13 Extensive doubling-up of hunting parties produces less attractive conditions for the hunters but results in more efficient utilization of the wildlife resource. The increased hunting pressure in the Controlled Areas is certainly well within the limits of annual productivity of game populations in most areas and the Department's ability to restrict shooting or close blocks completely to hunting should assure that overhunting does not become a serious problem. Other outlets for the increasing number of hunting parties are the northern Controlled Areas and private land. Hunting Blocks in the northern and northeastern sections of Kenya have recently been reopened after being closed for several years because of security problems. These Blocks contain some game animals not found in other parts of the country and, although game densities are lower than in the south, they should prove attractive to many hunters and help to take some of the pressure off the more popular Hunting Blocks in southern Kenya. Hunting on private land has, in the past, been confined largely to residents, but an increasing number of visitors are beginning to utilize these areas as well. As demand for hunting accommodations increases in the future, privately owned land could provide a substantially larger proportion of the total hunting land than it does today. 13Game Department Annual Reports 1964 and 1965, p. 28. 61 \56- con .P ooooooooo 00 ° ’0‘..\ a £1 HI¢3PI A ’,m\ o.\ It.“ '0‘..’.>/ °\, f. .° ...“‘~. h—f ;’ O./ 3’ r« I a. EASTERN i o , z I > ! _ RIFT VALLEY ! a i m : ‘I I c NORTH EASTERN = - ! : .. | n \3 \. NAIROBI E.P.D. O.\. ’ .‘M. If? T A N Z A N I A \0. \,. ‘k. r- d COAST \_ INDIAN '%\. 0(2844N mm \'0 ‘1 - l L - 1 '?° \., PROVINCES .Map 3.3 Kenya: Provinces 62 Utilization of Hunting Blocks The concentration of hunting pressure in southern Kenya is well illustrated in Map 3.4 which shows the number of animals shot on license in Controlled Areas in 1965.14 Block 66, between Tsavo National Park and Amboseli, was the most heavily utilized Controlled Area, a total of 671 animals being shot on license. Blocks 58 and 59 in Narok District were also very popular and over 400 animals were shot in each of these blocks. Other heavily utilized Hunting Blocks were 57 and 60 in Narok and 63, 64, 65, and 84 in Kajiado District. In fact, all of the nine most popular Hunting Blocks are in the two districts which make up Kenya Masailand. The popularity of these areas with hunters, together with the important wildlife concentrations of the Mara and Amboseli Reserves, highlights the crucial position of the Masai areas in Kenya's wildlife conservation system. Economic Benefits of Hunting:to the National Economy Although overshadowed by the enormous income from other forms of tourism, the economic value of the hunting industry to Kenya should not be overlooked. Clarke and Mitchell have estimated that the total expenditure of visitors hunting in Kenya in 1966 was nearly Ll million. Per person expenditures were high, averaging over £1,600, as all visitors are required to hunt with a professional hunter and must therefore undertake a relatively elaborate safari. Total expenditures of resident hunters, although they were almost 14Appendix VII contains precise data on animals shot by species in each of the Hunting Blocks during 1965. 63 EYHIOPIA IlVWOS DI’IIflJII INDIAN OCIAH Map 3.4 Utilization of Hunting Blocks, 1965 Sources: Base after Survey of Kenya, Kenya Hunting Map. Series SK57B, Edition 1, 1965. Hunting kill data from Kenya Game Department Annual Report, 1965. 64 twice as numerous as visitors, was estimated at just over L100 thousand.15 In terms of economic benefit, then, overseas visitors are the mainstay of the Kenya hunting industry. Indeed, the regula- tions governing hunting in Kenya make it unlikely that the resident hunting will ever reach the expenditure level of visitors. Residents are not required to hunt with professional hunters except when hunting "dangerous game," and so are spared the expenses of elaborate safaris. Also, resident hunters concentrate more on the Species permitted on the full license and do not purchase many special licenses. In 1965, for example, residents were issued only two licenses for rhinoceros compared to 47 issued to visitors; for lion the ratio was 34:143, for 1eOpard, 45:224, for elephant, 64:183, and for eland, 66:204. Similar ratios between residents and visitors prevailed for most of the other species requiring special licenses (see Appendix I). The cost of special licenses and Controlled Area fees is undoubtedly a significant factor in determining the hunting pattern of residents. Special license fees are high for the more sought-after animals and when Controlled Area fees are added on the total cost of shooting these animals is simply more than the average resident hunter can afford. It would appear that residents are being priced out of much of the hunting market and that one of the effects of the fee structure is to allocate a large part of Kenya's huntable game animals to overseas hunters. Such allocation is, of course, economically sound and serves to maximize the benefit to the Kenya economy from hunting. 15R. Clarke and F. Mitchell, "The Economic Value of Hunting and Outfitting in East Africa," East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, Special Issue, June, 1968, pp. 89-97. 65 Wildlife Sanctuaries Notwithstanding the richly varied fauna and flora of Kenya, effective conservation practices did not emerge until after the Second World War. Efforts in this direction had been piecemeal since the creation of the first wildlife sanctuaries in the early years of the twentieth century (see Chapter II) but not until the mid-1940's did a practical, integrated prOposal for large-scale wildlife protection make its appearance. The core of Kenya's wildlife conservation system today lies in those areas of the country that have been set aside as wildlife sanctuaries. The different types of wildlife conservation areas that make up the present system exhibit a hierarchy of levels of protection similar to that suggested at the London Convention of 1933 (see Chapter 11). Although a direct outgrowth of ideas on conservation organization deve10ped at the 1933 Convention, Kenya's modern wildlife conservation areas were not fully implemented until 1948. The 1939 Game Policy Committee The first movement toward a reorganization of wildlife con- servation in Kenya, following the 1933 London Convention, was the convening in 1939 of a Game Policy Committee charged to make recommendations to the government concerning the establishment of National Parks and other types of wildlife sanctuaries in the colony. Their deliberations interrupted by the war, the Committee was able to submit only a brief interim report in 1942 recommending that legislation be enacted to institute National Parks in Kenya and 66 suggesting an area near Nairobi and the Tsavo area in southeastern Kenya as desirable Park sites. After the war, in 1946, the Second 16 was published and the Interim Report of the Game Policy Committee reorganization of Kenya's wildlife conservation system was begun. The Committee recommended the establishment of four National Parks, including parks in the Nairobi and Tsavo areas as they had earlier suggested, and additional parks on the Aberdare Mountains and Mt. Kenya. Nairobi National Park was the first to be gazetted, followed shortly thereafter by Tsavo National Park, established in 1948. Mt. Kenya National Park, comprising all land on the mountain above the 11,000-foot contour, was established in 1949, and the Aberdare National Park was created in 1950. Park Adjuncts. The Game Policy Committee also recommended that "Park Adjuncts" be created in areas where circumstances made the establishment of National Parks impossible. National Parks were to be administered by an independent public body, the Trustees, who would have complete powers in regard to the management and use of park land. The Committee found that there were many areas of Kenya of outstanding biological and scenic interest that should be pro- tected but where permanent human rights precluded the exercise of the kind of authority inherent in National Parks administration. They suggested, therefore, the institution of "Park Adjuncts," in which the National Parks Board of Trustees would have the care of, and responsibility for, the flora and fauna, but would not have the 16Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Second Interim Report of the Game Policy Committee (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1946). 67 absolute powers conferred upon them in National Parks. What powers and rights the Trustees were granted were to be exercised with care so as to avoid undue inconvenience to human rights or interference with human development and expansion.17 The Game Policy Committee was aware of the difficulties involved in such an arrangement, and pointed out that the ". . . powers and rights held by the Trustees in Park Adjuncts will be on sufferance, and as a result of the good- will of those who grant, and are affected by, the Park Adjuncts."18 These words were prophetic, as the Trustees were soon to find out, and the "Park Adjunct" principle was to be abandoned after a brief, unsatisfactory period. National Reserves. The "Park Adjuncts" that were created as a result of the Committee's recommendations were called National Reserves. Among the areas so designated were Amboseli, Mara, and Marsabit. The Amboseli National Reserve covered over 1,200 square miles at the foot of Mt. Kilimanjaro, one of Kenya's most scenic game-viewing areas. The Mara National Reserve included about 700 square miles of grassland and savanna country in southwestern Kenya that supported a spectacular array of plains wildlife. The Marsabit National Reserve was created out of the existing Northern Game Reserve which covered 10,000 square miles of northern Kenya. Smaller National Reserves were established in the Ngong Hills near Nairobi, in the Western Chyulu area, and along the road and railroad right-of-way through Tsavo National Park. 171b1d., pp. 16-22. 181bid., p. 17. 68 Conflict and the 1956 Game Policy Committee The National Reserve idea proved troublesome from the start and it soon became evident that conflicts between human interests and wildlife conservation management needs were inevitable. The National Parks Board of Trustees found that it could not develop the kind of management programs it felt were necessary in these areas without some interference with human interests and that, in fact, good wildlife management was impossible in the face of strong opposition by local peOple. Such conflicts were particularly severe in the Amboseli National Reserve where competition between wildlife and Masai cattle and access to the permanent water in the vicinity of 01 Tukai swamp became bitterly contested issues. The Trustees' difficulties in administering the National Reserves led the Kenya Government to appoint a new Game Policy Committee to recommend future wildlife conservation policy. The Committee's first two terms of reference give ample evidence of the problems that pro- duced the need for a reappraisal of Kenya's wildlife conservation system. They were: (1) to consider and make recommendations as to the policy to be adopted for the long-term preservation of game, having regard to the interests of human pOpulation in game areas and to the economic devel- opment of the country; (2) in view of the urgency of a solution of the conflict in the Amboseli National Reserve between game and human interests which is rapidly reducing the value of this area as a game reserve, to make interim recommendations for the preservation of the game interest, having due regard to the considerations in (1) above;19 19Report of the 1956 Game Policy Committee, p. 1. 69 The recommendations of the 1956 Game Policy Committee were to become the basis for the present system of wildlife conservation areas in Kenya. The Committee's report reaffirmed the primary role of the National Parks as the main instrument of long-term game preservation policy, and pledged that the Government would maintain existing National Parks and endeavor to create new parks in areas of great faunal interest providing that such areas contained no conflicting human interests. The Report also recommended the abolition of the National Reserves, substituting for them Game Reserves to be admin- istered by the Game Department together with a Game Advisory Committee made up of local people. This would relieve the Trustees of the National Parks of the onerous burden of administering wild- life areas over which they had little real control. The Committee also urged the extension and full implementation of the Controlled Area system as an instrument of management and control of wildlife.20 District Council Game Reserves. Following the publication of the Report the National Reserves were gradually dissolved and re- placed by Game Reserves, except for Marsabit which was reduced to 800 square miles but remained a National Reserve pending negotia- tions to establish a National Park in the area of Marsabit Mountain. In an attempt to involve local people in the wildlife conservation effort, local authorities were encouraged to assume responsibility for areas of high faunal interest through the creation of African District Council Game Reserves. In these new Reserves wildlife 201bid., pp. 1-3. 70 would be managed by the Game Department and all other regulations pertaining to human activities within the Reserve would be under the control of the Council. The district Council would, in return, benefit through receipt of all fees paid by visitors to the Reserve. The Meru District Council was the first to take action, in 1960, creating a 600 square mile Game Reserve northeast of Mt. Kenya and passing by-laws controlling entry, cultivation, grazing, and the destruction of vegetation.21 In the same year both the Narok and Kajiado District Councils agreed to create Game Reserves in the Mara and Amboseli areas respectively, and to pass by-laws regulating human activities within the Reserves.22 The Masai Mara Game Reserve, officially established in 1961, consisted of a 200 square mile inner area, in which all livestock was excluded and all human activities controlled, and a 500 square mile outer area in which cattle were allowed to graze but vegetation destruction by burning was prohib- ited.23 The Masai Amboseli Game Reserve was also Opened in 1961, when the District Council assumed control of the over 1,200 square mile area. The future of the Reserve looked secure when the Council, which had passed by-laws regulating burning and other human activi- ties in other parts of the district, notably the Kitengela area south of Nairobi Park, agreed to consider the creation of an inner 1Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Game Department Annual Report, 1960 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1961), p. 2. 22 Ibid., p. 3. 23Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Game Department Annual Repgrt, 1961 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, n.d.), p. 3. 71 sanctuary which would exclude all domestic livestock from a 200 24 In 1962 the Samburu Game square mile area around the swamp. Reserve was created out of a small (22 square mile) piece of the old Marsabit National Reserve.25 The Samburu Reserve was later enlarged to 40 square miles and the total area of Reserve land was increased to 115 square miles with the creation of the adjoining Buffalo- Springs Game Reserve.26 With the establishment of these five District Council Game Reserves and Lake Nakuru National Park, in the early 1960's, Kenya's wildlife conservation system assumed approximately its present form. There have been some small additions to the system in recent years, notably the Shimba Hills and Mt. Elgon National Park, and a change of status at Meru, where the old Game Reserve became a National Park in 1968, but the essential sanctuary areas that comprise the present system were all in existence within a few years after the publica- tion of the Report of the 1956 Game Policy Committee. Salient Problems Kenya's wildlife conservation areas today are generally successful in fulfilling their preservation objectives and have become an important economic asset to the country. An increasing stream of foreign visitors, attracted to Kenya primarily by the 24Ibid., pp. 4-5. 5Government of Kenya, Game Department Annual Report, 1962 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1963), pp. 3 and 6. 26J. G. Williams, A Field Guide to the National Parks of East Africa (London: Collins, 1967), pp. 69-71. ml 72 region's wildlife, has already made tourism one of the nation's largest industries and it is today the fastest-growing sector of the Kenya economy.27 The importance of the wildlife areas to the growth of Kenya tourism is evidenced by the steady increase in visitors to the National Parks. From about 75,000 in 1960 the number of visi- tors to the nation's Parks had climbed to nearly 250.000 by 1967 (see Appendix VIII). The economic significance of wildlife-based tourism has prompted the Kenya Government to support, both directly and indirectly, the development of expanded tourist amenities in the game sanctuaries and to encourage management plans and land use restrictions designed to ensure the preservation of these valuable areas and their wildlife resources. This is not to suggest that there are not still serious problems facing the wildlife conserva- tion system in Kenya. Although some of the old problems and conflicts have been resolved, others have continued to be a source of concern and still others have only recently arisen. Management Problems and Conflicts The problems facing wildlife conservation in Kenya today may be conveniently divided into two categories. One set of problems are distinctly of a management nature, including those involving ecological requirements of game populations and the necessity to manipulate the environment in order to achieve as nearly "natural" conditions as are possible within the unnatural confines of game sanctuaries, and those produced by the environmental impact of the 27Above, Chapter II. J. P. B. M. Ouma, op. cit., Preface and p. 31. Iv 73 increasing number of visitors who are utilizing the wildlife-viewing areas. The second category of problems involves conflicts between human and wildlife interests, particularly in areas within or adja- cent to game sanctuaries. These include illegal hunting, as well as the impact of agricultural land use, in both its pastoral and arable forms. The Tsavo Elephant Problem. Management problems involving primarily ecological considerations are well illustrated by the long-standing controversy surrounding the Tsavo elephant pOpulation. The Tsavo National Park (8,050 square miles) and surrounding area, a total ecological unit of about 17,000 square miles contains the largest concentration of elephants in Africa. The elephant p0pu1a- tion of this area was recently estimated to be 30-40,000.28 The Tsavo region has been subjected to large-scale destruction of woody vegetation by this rapidly expanding elephant population since the early 1960's and concern was being expressed regarding the possible 3.29 It was overpopulation of elephants in the area as early as 196 widely believed by scientists and laymen in Kenya at that time that control of the elephant population would be necessary.30 Even so 28R. W. Laws, reported in J. Goddard, "Aerial Census of Black Rhinoceros Using Stratified Random Sampling," East African Wildlife Journal, Vol. VII (August, 1969), p. 105. 29See J. Glover, "The Elephant Problem at Tsavo," East African Wildlife Journal, Vol. I (August, 1963), pp. 30-39; and P. Napier Bax and D. L. W. Sheldrick, "Some Preliminary Obser- vations on the Food of Elephant in the Tsavo Royal National Park (East) of Kenya," lgg.‘gi£., pp. 40-53. 0For one example of scientific backing of elephant control, see J. Glover, op. cit., p. 38. 74 Figure 3.1 A striking example of elephant damage to a baobob tree; Tsavo National Park (East). Figure 3.2 The same tree several weeks later. Destruction of woody vegetation by elephants in Tsavo is widespread and is producing pro- found changes in the park's vegetation. .IL FIP all 1 \7J 75 conservative and preservation-oriented an organization as the East African Wildlife Society advocated crOpping of elephants to prevent the destruction of the Tsavo region. The Kenya National Parks, however, chose the wise course of attempting to obtain detailed scientific information concerning the ecology of elephants in Tsavo and their probable long-term impact on the Park's vegetation and animal life before undertaking any action. To this end a Research Project was begun at Tsavo and a distinguished biologist was invited to undertake the elephant study, the most crucial part of the re- search effort. What followed was one of the more disturbing chapters in recent conservation history in Kenya. The Tsavo Research Project was racked by internal disputes and the elephant research came to a halt after little more than a year, when the Project's director resigned and left the country in May, 1968. The disagreements that had arisen within the Research ‘Project soon reached the newspapers and the Tsavo elephant contro- versy blossomed as a full-scale public debate. It became impossible to sort out fact from fiction in the barrage of charges and counter- charges as the debate was waged in the public press.31 The most unfortunate aspect of the "Tsavo Elephant Controversy" was the acrimonious debate in the press, much of it carried out by journalists and others rather than those directly concerned with the 31 For contrasting views of the controversy, by two of the principals, see R. W. Laws, "The Last of the Elephants in Our Lifetime?", Sunday Nation (Nairobi), November 3, 1968; and P. Olindo, "The National Parks and the Elephant Research Project at Tsavo National Park," Sunday Nation (Nairobi), November 24, 1968. 76 project. The use of terms such as "murderers" and "massacre advo- 32 cates" to describe scientists who appeared to favor elephant control, and the description of National Park's management policies "33 as "laissez faire could only serve to harden positions regarding the serious question of future management policy for Tsavo. It is to be hoped that the scars left by the bitter public controversy over the Tsavo elephant problem will not prejudice future actions to ensure the ecological well-being of Tsavo National Park.34 Tourist Impact. Another management problem of growing urgency is the impact of tourism and visitor accommodation on wild- life conservation areas. The increasing numbers of game-viewing tourists have already begun to have deleterious effects on some National Parks and Game Reserves in East Africa. In the Amboseli Game Reserve automobile traffic is worsening an already serious erosion problem. The light volcanic soils of the Reserve are now held together by only a very sparse vegetative cover and are easily disturbed. The flatness of the country makes it easy to drive off the roads and visitors have always driven wherever they liked. The 32 Anonymous, "Reprieve for Tsavo Elephants: Nature Plays Tricks on the Massacre Advocates," East African Reporter (Nairobi), October 4, 1968. 33R. W. Laws, "The Last of the Elephants in Our Lifetime?", loc. cit. 34It should be noted here that Mr. Perez Olindo, Director of the Kenya National Parks, has given public assurances that the Trustees will formulate whatever management plans are necessary to ensure the survival of the Tsavo ecosystem when they have obtained adequate scientific information on which to base their decisions. (P. Olindo, 0p. cit.) -_,__.- 77 Reserve is now criss-crossed with innumerable car tracks which are accelerating the erosion process. As far back as 1962, the Kenya Game Department expressed alarm at the rapid deterioration of graz- ing and cover caused by motor vehicles and urged that: . . immediate action must be taken, and that action can only be the construction of a system of properly ballasted roads and the restriction of cars to their use. Until this is done there can be no question of increasing visitors' accommodation and the ggesent number of day visitors ought, in fact to be reduced. Unfortunately, as late as 1969, although some road improvements had been made, no effective remedy to the problem of auto-induced erosion had been implemented and the deterioration of the reserve was proceeding unchecked. Although problems of visitor impact have not yet become as serious elsewhere as they are in Amboseli it is likely, if tourism continues to expand at the present rate, that many other wildlife areas will begin to suffer from visitor-related disturbance. Park administrators and managers in East Africa are well aware of the growing threat posed by rapidly increasing visitor pressure and consideration is being given to ways of minimizing the disturbance of natural habitats. At a conference held in Kenya in 1969 repre- sentatives of East Africa's conservation agencies met to discuss this question along with other problems of wildlife conservation administration. Among the suggestions made concerning the question of visitor impact were: (1) that it might be necessary in the future to strictly confine all vehicles to the roads; and (2) that ultimately the limitation of the numbers and distribution of 35Game Department Annual Report, 1962, p. 5. 78 visitors could well become an important part of conservation area management plans. It was further suggested that ideally, visitor accommodation should be sited on the periphery of conservation areas and not within them in order to reduce the impact of the elaborate facilities necessary to accommodate tourists and of the staff required to Operate and maintain them.36 Conservation and Economics: Conflicting Goals. There can be little doubt that management policies like those presented above would have beneficial effects on the natural environments of con- servation areas, but are such policies feasible? Will it be possible to place limitations on the number of visitors that may enter National Parks and Game Reserves, in view of the understand- able desire of both private investors and governments to maximize the economic benefits derived from wildlife conservation areas? The position that wildlife must pay its own way was forcefully stated by Kenya‘s Minister for Tourism and Wildlife in his address that Opened the First Wildlife Conference for Eastern Africa. He told the assembled conference participants that, For our wildlife to survive we must be able to show that our wildlife resources are bringing and will continue to bring in economic return to our countries. We must be able to show that conservation pays. Otherwise competing economic land uses will gradually reduce these resources, and endanger their future. In Kenya the main economic value of our wildlife lies in the tourists who come to visit us. (italics mine) 36H. Lamprey, g£_21., "The Impact of Tourism on National Parks in Eastern Africa," Committee Report, First Wildlife Conference for Eastern Africa, Voi, Kenya, March 30, 1969. 79 The Minister did express concern over the question of visitor impact, however, continuing, We are aware however that the human pressures on areas set aside for the protection of fauna and flora is continually increasing. Just how far can we go? What needs to be done to ensure that our wildlife makes the maximum possible contribution to national develOpment, without adversely affecting the conservation of this resource?37 The necessity that wildlife conservation areas produce sub- stantial economic returns in order to justify their continued exis- tence poses a dilemma for management planners. The goals of conservation and those of economic development, in wildlife areas, are not completely compatible; management plans designed to achieve maximum conservation benefits will yield less than maximum eco- nomic benefit, and management that aims to maximize economic returns will inevitably minimize conservation benefits. The ques- tion of where visitor accommodations should be located is a good case in point. The location of all accommodations outside wild- life areas would be an ideal solution from the conservation point of view; it would eliminate the undesirable environmental conse- quences of elaborate game lodge facilities and reduce visitor impact to that produced by day visitors in automobiles. The important questions then become (1) whether tourists will accept such accommodations and, more significantly perhaps, (2) whether investors (including Government Deve10pment Corporations) will risk capital in the construction of game-oriented hotels and 7 Speech by the Minister for Tourism and Wildlife, Hon. S. O. Ayodo, to the First Wildlife Conference for Eastern Africa, Nairobi, March 26, 1969. 80 fishfltfle ‘ Figure 3.3 Kilaguni Lodge in Tsavo National Park (West), one of Kenya's most popular game lodges. t€_.fi_ p “Niven. 3'1 35’ ‘32:»: *‘o “ 9","~‘ AIL-3. Figure 3.4 From the veranda at Kilaguni tourists can view elephants at close quarters and a variety of other animals attracted to the water hole, which is lighted at night. 81 lodges outside the wildlife areas when the economically more attract- ive alternative of location within them exists. The answer to both questions in East Africa today would appear to be no. Demand for accommodation within wildlife areas is very high and where the alternative of accommodation in peripherally located hotels is also available, tourists' preference for the former is reflected in the hotels' rates. For example, Tsavo National Park has three game lodges located inside the park: Kilaguni Lodge, Ngulia Lodge, and Voi Safari Lodge. There are also two international tourist class hotels located just outside the Park boundaries, the Tsavo Inn at MtitO Andei, and the Park Inn at Voi. Both are situated close to Park entrances with game-viewing Opportunities a matter of minutes away. The rates for the three lodges within the Park are about sh.l40/ per person a night (approximately $20) while the rates for the two hotels located outside the Park are only sh.70/ a night. Some of this differential may be accountable to slight differences in standards of food and service and the fact that the Tsavo and Park Inns are somewhat less modern than the lodges in the Park, but the greater part of the rate differential can only be attributed to location. Location within the Park Offers tourists many of the things they come to East Africa for: the chance to hear a lion roar at night, the opportunity to watch wildlife at lighted waterholes, and the thrill of being "in the bush." These are all part of the attractions of an African safari and tourists will pay premium prices for them. TO satisfy the demand for accommodation inside wildlife areas East African governments have included substantial lodge building and modernization programs in recent development plans. Kenya's lodge- 82 , . ~.- Inuhw.‘ t 00o. u .1. ‘.o . .0..‘ou.- :- . - Figure 3.5 Evidence of the continuing investment in wildlife-based tourism in Kenya is the spectacular new Voi safari lodge, built on a hill overlooking the vast expanse of Tsavo National Park (East). 83 building program has already led to the construction of two new lodges in Tsavo National Park: Ngulia and Voi Safari Lodge, and future plans call for new lodges in Meru National Park, Amboseli and Mara Game Reserves and an additional lodge in Tsavo.38 All of these new facil- ities will be located within prime wildlife conservation areas. So at present the conservation aspects of visitor management hold a lower priority than economic develOpment in the game areas. As tour- ist pressure increases, however, there could well be a shift in prior- ities toward visitor limitation and conservation goals. Such a shift would, of course, involve economic sacrifices and will require diffi- cult decisions on the part of policy makers and planners. Conflicts Between Human and Animal Interests Management problems like those outlined above are relatively less difficult to resolve than complex problems that involve basic conflicts between human and animal interests. Ecological problems, though they may generate controversy, are amenable to scientific solution; research can produce the answers to ecological questions and provide the basis for effective management planning. The manage- ment of tourists, although also at times a controversial issue, is basically a question of weighing economic benefit against conservation loss and attempting to increase economic returns to the highest level possible without producing irreparable damage to the natural environ- ment. The search for solutions to these problems may produce disagreements about the means of achieving desired ends but the goals 38Republic of Kenya, Development Plan, 1966-1970 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1966), pp. 208-11. 84 being sought are generally agreed upon. This is not the case when basic human interests conflict with the interest of wildlife. Goals are not agreed upon; in fact, they are often diametrically Opposed. The desire of a poacher for game meat or rhinoceros horn to sell is an obvious example of conflicting goals but there are others. Farmers want to clear new land for cultivation and protect their land from the depredations of wild animals. Pastoralists desire to see their herds increase and are loath to share scarce forage and water with wild grazing animals. The ultimate solution to the problems created by conflicting goals probably lies in education and change in peoples' values regarding the importance of wild animals. That much-desired goal is some time away, however, and government and conservation agen- cies must face the problems that arise from human-animal conflict now or risk the gradual erosion of the wildlife resource. Illeggl Hunting. Poaching, or illegal hunting, is probably the most widely known kind of human-animal conflict; the direct destruc- tion of animals is dramatic and produces a strong public reaction and concern. Unregulated hunting has, in fact, been an important factor in the reduction of some animal populations in other parts of the world.39 Hunting is not necessarily destructive, however, and if carefully regulated (as legal hunting is in Kenya) may even be bene- ficial to wildlife populations. Controlled hunting can replace natural mortality factors and operate to keep animal populations from 39 Two classic examples of the impact of unregulated hunting on wild animal populations are the American Bison, hunted to the brink of extinction during the westward expansion of the American frontier, and the Passenger Pigeon, once the most abundant American bird, exterminated by uncontrolled commercial market hunting. 85 increasing beyond the capacity of the environment to support them. Illegal hunting is a problem because hunting pressure cannot be con- trolled and may inflict serious damage on wildlife pOpulations. This kind of uncontrolled hunting can result in the complete destruction of all large game animals in heavily hunted areas and in the wide- spread reduction or elimination of a few species that are particularly sought after because of their high trophy value. Illegal hunting in Kenya today is basically of three types: (1) meat hunting by individuals to satisfy the needs of themselves and their families; (2) trOphy hunting by individuals and groups to earn cash from the sale of skins, ivory, and rhino horn; and (3) commercial meat hunting carried on by groups of poachers who sell the meat in local markets. The Game Department reports that illegal hunting of all types continues at high levels in many parts of the country, in Spite of their strenuous efforts to control the activity. The most heavily poached areas are the western provinces, forest areas close to settlement schemes, southern Machakoleistrict, and the northern provinces.41 Severe poaching appears to be most prevalent where human populations at high densities live in close proximity to areas of game concentration. This is clearly the case in the first two heavily poached areas listed above, and in southern Machakos where recent immigration and settlement has contributed to an increase in ¥ 4”OSee R. Dasmann, Wildlife Biology (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964), pp. 193-96. 1Game Department Annual Repgrts, 1964 and 1965, p. 15; and Game Department File 19/1-19/5, Divisional Game Wardens Annual Reports, 1968. 86 illegal hunting. In the northern provinces the high level Of poach- ing in recent years has been attributed to armed gangs of shifta operating in that sparsely populated and hard to police area.42 Some idea of the amount of illegal hunting that takes place in Kenya can be gained from the number of cases brought before the courts by officers of the Game Department under the Wild Animals Protection 43 and in 1965, 660.44 The Act. In 1964 the number of cases was 607 number of hunting Offenses prosecuted represented only a small per- centage of the total amount of illegal hunting, however, as the vast majority of offenders go unapprehended or unprosecuted. The Game Warden at Kitale, for example, who had initiated the prosecution of 107 offenders during 1964, reported that with additional staff and improved facilities his stations could bring to court well over 1,000 cases a year.45 The Game Department realizes that it cannot hope to completely eliminate poaching and views its antiepoaching activities as a kind of holding action designed to contain the inci- dence of illegal hunting until a final solution to the problem can be achieved through education and citizen COOperation.46 An accurate assessment of the impact of poaching on Kenya's wildlife resources is difficult because the magnitude of illegal 42Game Department File 19/5, Game Warden Northern Division, Annual Report, 1968 and Game Warden Isiolo, Annual Report, 1968. 43Game Department Annual Reports 1964 and 1965, p. 16. 44Ibid., p. 43. 4Sum. 46Ibid., p. 16. 87 hunting activity cannot be estimated with any degree of confidence. The impact of the three general types of illegal hunting does differ though, and should be considered. Meat hunting by individuals for their own requirements is the least serious poaching problem. The man who kills an occasional buck to feed his family presents no great dan- ger to wildlife survival and the Game Department has always tended to be lenient in the application of game laws to this kind of subsistence poaching. Commercial meat hunting is another matter, however. Pro- fessional hunting for meat can be extremely destructive of wildlife pOpulations. In Nigeria Petrides has attributed the present scarcity of wildlife to overhunting, especially by professionals, resulting from the high prices paid for bush meat."7 This kind of hunting appears to be fairly well contained in Kenya and although cries of alarm are sounded periodically in the press and popular journals about the "slaughter of wildlife" by poaching gangs there seems at present to be little danger of serious long-term damage to the na- tions wildlife from commercial meat hunting. An example of the actual level of commercial poaching compared to what had been suspected comes from the Serengeti area in Tanzania. Estimates of the annual kill by poachers around the Serengeti National Park were as high as 150,000 animals. The Talbots' study of wilde- beest mortality factors, however, suggested that the poachers' take of wildebeest, by far the most numerous animal in the area, could 47G. A. Petrides, Wildlife and National Parks in Nigeria (New York: American Committee for International Wildlife Protection, Special Publication No. 18, 1965), pp. 11-16. 88 48 The authors go on not be more than a few thousand animals a year. to point out that this low level of poacher kill is undoubtedly due to the vigilance of the Parks and the Game Department, which must be continued if increased poaching is to be prevented. The impact of illegal trOphy hunting is confined to a few Species of high value; in Kenya the most sought after animals are elephant, for ivory, rhinoceros, for the horn, and 1eOpard, for its skin. The illegal trade in trophies is widespread in East Africa and has gone on for many years because of the continuing high prices paid for the trophies. In recent years ivory has brought an average of sh.20/ per pound and rhinoceros horn, in great demand in Asia for its alleged curative and aphrodisiac powers, has sold for as high as 49 High quality leopard Skins Sh.150/ per pound on the legal market. may sell for L100 or more and average quality skins have sold at auction for an average price of 1:84.50 The poacher, of course, re- ceives much less than this from a trader or middleman but gets a high enough price to make poaching, in spite of the risks involved, a lucrative activity, especially for a subsistence farmer who hunts part-time. Illegal hunting probably constitutes a significant mortality factor for these three species but only the rhinoceros would appear to be in immediate danger from poaching. Rhino hunting is a major 48L. MS Talbot and M. H. Talbot, The Wildebeest in Western Masailand, East Africa, Wildlife Monograph No. 12 (Washington, D.C.: The Wildlife Society, 1963), pp. 79-80. 49Game Department Annual Reports 1964 and 1965, p. 42. SOIbid. 89 problem in all areas where the species is still found and is espe- cially prevalent in southeastern Kenya. The rhino has been greatly reduced or eliminated from much of the Rift Valley and the northeast by poaching51 and the survival of the Species in all areas outside of National Parks and Game Reserves depends, in large measure, on the ability of the Game Department to control the level of poaching in those areas. Elephant have been heavily hunted, both legally and illegally, in the past and have been eliminated from parts of western and central Kenya and from much of the area around Lake Rudolf. In other parts of the country, however, elephant are one of the few species that have been increasing in recent years.52 Not only is the elephant in no danger from illegal hunting today, but the species could probably withstand a considerably higher level of hunting pressure. Illegal hunting of leopard has been of great concern in eastern Africa for some years. The illegal trade in leopard skins is thought to be very large and although some poachers and individual dealers are prosecuted from time to time, authorities have been unable to cause a major disruption of the trade, much less eliminate it. The ultimate solution to the problem of the leopard skin trade lies not in Africa but in Western Europe and North America where the major de- mand is located. If the demand for 1eOpard skins could be cut off, the trade in East Africa would dry up and poaching of leopard would 51D. RS M. Stewart and Joyce Stewart, "The Distribution of Some Large Mammals in Kenya," Journal of the East Africa Natural HistoryfiSo- ciety, Vol. XXIV, No. 3 (June, 1963), p. 8. 521bid., p. 7. 9O cease to be a serious problem. Legislation forbidding the importation of leopard skins has been considered in several of the large importing countries and although none has yet been approved there appears to be a good chance that such legislation will soon come into effect.53 Until the demand is eliminated 1eOpard will continue to be heavily hunted, but the species is widely distributed in Kenya, and in East Africa in general, and its ability to survive on a variety of small prey animals and its secretive and nocturnal habits should enable the species to survive.54 Illegal hunting has been a serious problem in Kenya in the past and could become SO again. In recent years, though, the vigor- ous anti-poaching campaigns of the Game Department and other wildlife agencies have been successful in keeping illegal hunting from reaching very damaging levels throughout the country. There are still some local game pOpulations and some species, like rhinoceros, that may be threatened by poaching but if the present effectiveness of wildlife agencies in this area is maintained illegal hunting should not endan- ger the survival of the nation's wildlife resources. Land Use Conflict. The most serious long-term threat to the future of wildlife in Kenya comes, not from the direct impact of illegal hunting, but rather from the indirect effects upon wild animal populations of habitat alteration and destruction. Wild animals de- pend upon their habitats for the resources necessary to their survival. 53Legislation forbidding the importation of the skins of 1eOpards and other endangered Species was defeated by a narrow margin in the U.S. Congress; New York State has recently passed a similar bill. sastewart and Stewart, "The Distribution of Some Large Mammals in Kenya," loc. cit., p. 4. 91 The habitat requirements of wild animal Species vary, each species requiring particular kinds and combinations of food in addition to other resources such as water and cover. Vegetation is probably the most important component of the habitat as it supplies the basic food source for all animal food chains. Alteration of the habitat which effects changes, either qualitative or quantitative, in the vegetation will affect the capacity of the habitat to support wildlife. The more drastic the changes in vegetation the more profoundly will carrying capacity be affected. Because animal species differ in their habitat requirements vegetation change will affect each Species differently. A particular change in vegetation may lower the carrying capacity for one Species, increase it for another, and make the habitat completely unsuitable for a third. Vegetation change, then, whatever its precise impact on particular animal species, inevitably produces changes in the composition and density of wildlife pOpulations.55 The most significant agent of habitat alteration in Kenya, as elsewhere, is man. Although animals can effect some changes in vege- tation through their own activities, drastic, large scale changes in vegetation today are usually the result of man's use of the land.56 Arable agriculture produces severe alterations of natural ecological systems, involving the removal of natural vegetation and the substi- tution of a few domesticated plants for the large variety of wild 55See R. F. Dasmann, Wildlife Biology (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964), pp. 59-86 for a good general treatment of the subject of wildlife habitat and the impact of habitat alteration on wild- life pOpulations. 56Elephants, as noted above, are an obvious exception, being capable of producing widespread and profound changes in natural vegetation. 92 plants that originally covered the ground. Pastoral agricultural activity, though less severein its impact, also results in changes in vegetation. Domestic grazing animals, with their specific food preferences can, especially at high densities, cause changes in the species composition of grassland vegetation.57 Other human activi- ties associated with agriculture also lead to habitat alteration. Gathering of firewood and various wild plants for food or other uses may, over a long period, have a significant impact on vegetation. Charcoal making can remove a substantial prOportion of the trees and larger shrubs from an area in a relatively short time. Fire, which has a profound effect on vegetation, inhibiting the growth of woody plants and favoring grasses, is a commonly used tool of agriculturale ists. Fires set by farmers and pastoralists often burn uncontrolled, affecting wide areas of the surrounding countryside. The impact of man's agricultural activities on the natural environment is not a new phenomenon in Kenya; it is centuries old. However, the severity of habitat alteration has increased enormously in recent years as a result of the ever greater demands being placed upon the environment by rapidly growing numbers of peOple and live- stock. As people and their stock use more and more land, and use it more intensively, wildlife habitats will continue to degenerate and disappear. There are today a number of areas in Kenya where man's use of the land conflicts dramatically with the goals of wildlife conservation. The future of much of Kenya's wildlife and some of its most spectacular tourist attractions depends on the solution of these conflicts. 57Dasmann, 2p. cit., pp. 78-81. 93 Pastoral Land Use. Wildlife conservation problems in the pas-p toral areas of Kenya result primarily from overstocking of domestic animals and the consequent deterioration of the range. In the past natural mortality factors Operated to keep livestock numbers down and overstocking was rarely a problem. The introduction of modern veteri- nary medicine reduced mortality rates drastically, however, and live- stock numbers have been a cause of concern for many years. All efforts to limit the livestock of traditional pastoralists have failed and there has been severe overgrazing in many areas. Overgrazing by domestic cattle results in the destruction of perennial grasses and a lowering of the carrying capacity of the range for wildlife as well as for cattle. The Situation in the Masai Amboseli Game Reserve is a striking example of wildlife conservation problems in pastoral areas. The Reserve is badly overstocked and has suffered from severe overgrazing and erosion. The Masai are tolerant of wildlife and their cattle have always shared the range peacefully with wild grazing animals. The wild grazers consume different food plants from those eaten by cattle and so do not compete directly with the Masai stock. But the heavy grazing pressure of the large numbers of cattle has lowered the carrying capacity of the range and resulted in a marked reduction of wildlife populations. The deterioration of the Amboseli Reserve has been a continuing problem for conservation authorities.59 They have long sought the agreement of the local Masai to a 200 square mile stock-free area 581bid. 59See the terms of reference of the 1956 Game Policy Committee, above. 94 around the 01 Tukai swamp. In March of 1967 the local District Council approved the stock-free area and it was reported that an American foundation had agreed to finance a series Of bore holes to provide an alternate supply of water outside of the proposed "inner sanctuary" of the Reserve. The local peOple, however, resented this attempt to restrict their activities and publicly rejected the Coun- cil's action at a baraza6O at 01 Tukai late in 1968. They stated their position in a memorandum handed to the chairman of the Council: We the undersigned residents of the Amboseli area, wish to bring to your councils notice the fact that after careful consideration of the above mentioned area (which we are given to understand that your council has agreed to allocate exclusively for game and thereby forcing us to move out without our consent or knowledge) we absolutely reject as nothing but shear daydreaming the idea of ex- tending the Amboseli Game Reserve from 30 square miles to 200 square miles. With regard to an alleged large sum of money promised by a certain American millionaire and which we are given to understand that it was prOposed to be used to finance the develOpment of the area adjacent to the 200 square miles, we are notifying him by COpy of this letter not to waste his money at all because we are financing the project of water supply, dips, etc., ourselves through self-help schemes and our own individual and collective efforts.61 The memorandum was signed by 33 residents of the 01 Tukai area. It is evident from the reaction of the local people that the concept of District Council Game Reserves, in which revenues from tourism are Shared with the Council, may have gained the support of Council mem- bers, but has not convinced the average man of the value of wildlife. There are other potential conflicts elsewhere in the Masai 69hg£ggg3 Swahili, a public meeting; used commonly throughout East Africa. 1Game Department File 19/2, Masai Amboseli Game Reserve Annual Re- port 1968. 95 district of Kajiado. The Athi-Kapiti plains in the northern part of Kajiado District are adjacent to the southern boundary of Nairobi National Park, and the plains form an integral part of the range of much of the Park's wildlife population. The Park itself is small, only 45 square miles, but it serves as a dry season concentration area for large numbers of plains game. The Park's permanent water supply draws an astonishing number and variety of animals, which makes it one of Africa's greatest tourist attractions.62 But the future of the Park is now threatened by planned changes in land use on the Athi- Kapiti plains to the south. In the near future the Masai pastoral- ists in that area will abandon their traditional forms of land tenure and assume legal ownership of large ranches. A group ranching scheme is planned, whereby groups of 12-15 Masai families will COOperatively own and manage large cattle ranches. The transition to land owner- ship and modern ranching is economically desirable but presents some problems in terms of wildlife conservation. As land owners the Masai ranchers could fence their land, thus cutting off the migration route to the Park. They would also be legally entitled to shoot unlimited numbers of game animals on their land. Conservation authorities are hopeful that the ranchers will COOperate in a sustained yield game cropping scheme which would ensure the survival of the Athi-Kapiti herds while producing income for the ranchers. But there is no guarantee that the ranchers will cooperate and if they do not the wildlife pOpulations of Nairobi National Park may be permanently reduced to the low levels that the Park supports during thevunzseason. 62J. B. Foster and D. Kearney, "Nairobi National Park Game Census, 1966," East African Wildlife Journal, Vol. V (August, 1967), pp. 112-20. 96 In Narok, the other Masai district, the people have not yet begun to move toward modern ranching and land ownership but such develOpments cannot be too far in the future. When modern develop- ments do come, the wildlife resources of Narok District, including the Mara Reserve, will be subject to the kinds of pressures now evi- dent in Kajiado. The future of the spectacular wildlife resources of Masailand depends, in large measure, on whether these new forms of organization adopted by the Masai will allow the coexistence of cattle and wildlife that was characteristic of traditional pastoralism. Agricultural Land Use and Game Control. The use of land for arable agriculture produces a severe and long-lasting impact upon wildlife populations. Alteration of the natural landscape is almost complete and the high population densities characteristic of many agricultural settlementscreatecomditions that do not favor the sur- vival of the larger game animals, although many of the smaller animals are able to survive, and even thrive, on or near cultivated land. Large animals, though, are incompatible with agriculture and in the heavily pOpulated areas of the central highlands and western Kenya large game has been exterminated or reduced to small remnant popula- tions occupying the few remaining patches of natural cover. Where agricultural settlement is less dense some game remains. In these areas, and especially where farming land borders areas of game concen- tration, conflict between people and wild animals is direct and often violent. Destruction of crOps by wildlife is a problem in many areas of Kenya and serious injuries and deaths caused by wild animals are not uncommon. The necessity to provide protection from personal injury and 97 property damage caused by wild animals has made game control an impor- tant part of wildlife management in Kenya. The Government's position on the control of wild animals was clearly stated in a Sessional Paper published in 1959: The Government does recognize a responsibility, arising from its declared game preservation policy, to assist in the control of scheduled game animals as far as it is practicable to do so. Control is an important function of the Game Department and the Government intends that, within the limits Of finance available, such control shall be as effective as is practicable. Game control is carried out primarily by the Game Department but the National Parks and the Forest Department also engage in control activ- ities and private individuals, of course, retain the right to protect themselves and their prOperty from wild animals. Game control in Kenya today is provided by several methods including game-proof barriers and the shooting of animals thought to be responsible for property damage or considered to be a threat to human safety. Control was provided almost exclusively by shooting, in the past, and this continues to be the principal method of control in most areas of the country. The Game Department has estimated that on the average 40 per cent of its time is devoted to control work,64 and a substantial number of animals are shot each year by department personnel.65 The large, dangerous game animals figure prominently in 63Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, A Game Poligy for Kenya, Sessional Paper No. l of 1959/60 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1959), p. 5. 64D. W. J. Brown, "Game Control in Kenya," East African Agri- cultural and Forestry Journal, Vol. XXXIII (Special Issue, June, 1968), p. 210. 65See Table 3.4 for the number Of animals of six major species shot on control annually by the Game Department during the period 1956-1968. 98 uocmfi mum>flud he uonm mum afiEum> pow zufifiwnflwcoammu uoammv cflaum> mo mumnasc .m38mu0dodawn mam .moumooawnu .ucmsdoHo mo ammo osu cw udmOxo .mmuswflw m.u:mEuumdoo ecu mommoxo kaumouw mumc3omcmH Oum>fiud he womowummw mHmEHam mo woman: osu umnu moumewumo u¢mEuumdma mama one .kuwoaoua mam omwa mo Omaomow aw muoc3o mumnuo home mama omumfia mamawam mo woman: map ou moflufloom cH uomuwo m>ms uoc moon unusuumaoa on» nwsocuam .Acooamn mam mach: haamwo mwumfi mum mm mumowmmo unmauumama mamu zn Houucoo co momouumom omHm mum mowomam nozuo mo mameflcm mo necessn ammquumnsm .ucoauumdoa mama mmcmx OLu mo mumuwwmo zn Homecoo .Houucoo so omzouummm kHHmsuom mowomdm HOHmE me omosu mo mamawcm no women: one >Hco monooou mfinmu mwfiB ”muoz me mm SH SH on a e suppose mm so RN am am as m cone com mam aom mes was «Hm nae cepmmsm an OS Nm mm me an an monouoaaem cm Nm me me on u n moamuomomdwm can omm sum Son oNN «we mam saucepan mama mama mmmw .mmmw mmmm mew mmmm. monomam e.m peppy HZMZHM ! . g . II c - I 0“ n "'m“ 0 :;:;:;:§:§5§:§§§:;., \. :§:§:§;§:§:§:§:§:§:§:" MACHAKOS . onsnncv "\., §s§s§s§2222==.. \. "‘=523532533332:: F \3 ....... 3.,4 c. \ °'\.. 0 C B A N NI" \.' I 1 '1” \ Map 4.1 Machakos District in Kenya encompassing the traditional Kamba homeland, Ukambani, in southeastern Kenya. The district lies to the southeast of the Kikuyu Highlands and is bounded on the west and south by the Masai district of Kajiado. TO the east lies Kitui, the other Kamba district (see Map 3.4). The total area of Machakos District is approximately 5,790 square miles. The landscape of Machakos District may be described as a pla- teau surface, sloping gradually from the northwest to the south and east, where the elevations average about 2,000 feet above sea level. The most prominent feature of the district's landscape is the Machakos Hills, rising to almost 7,000 feet, located in the northwest part of the district. Rainfall varies enormously acroSs the district: from nearly 50 inches annually in some parts of the hills to about 10 inches in the east and south. Vegetation in the drier parts of the district is dry bushland with some grass and the soils are generally latosols typical of dry tropical regions. In the hill region soils are more variable with some rich alluvial soils and areas of poor stoney soil interspersed within the more common latosols. The total population Of the district at the time of this survey was estimated at over 600,000 people. Population densities are highest in the northwest where, north of Machakos township in the 5 densities reach 500 to 750 persons per square mile hills, location (see Maps 4.2 and 4.3). Southeast of Machakos township densities in the hills range from 250 to 500 persons per square mile. The southern half of the district is much less densely settled, with population 5A location, in Kenya, is an administrative subdivision of a district; there are 25 locations in Machakos District. lll (a P \ 34:15:; “Sign 1 We Map 4.2 Machakos District: Locations 112 6 densities as low as 2 persons per square mile in some parts (see Table 4.1). The Mbooni Range in the Machakos Hills was apparently the first area in Ukambani settled by the Kamba. Traditions suggest that they were once a compact group occupying the region called Ulu (liter- ally "up there") in the hills and that from there they expanded into Kitui and south into Kikumbulyu. This outward movement from Ulu appears to have taken place during the eighteenth and nineteenth cen- turies beginning with an eastward movement into Kitui early in the eighteenth century followed by an expansion southward throughout Ulu into Kikumbulyu during the nineteenth century.7 Kikumbulyu is the southernmost location in Machakos District (Map 4.2); it stretches from Kiboko south to Mtito Andei and from the Athi River in the east to the Chyulu Hills in the west. In the last five years the pOpulation density of the southern half of Kikumbulyu has increased rapidly. This growth has involved the movement of Kamba from the densely populated sections of central Machakos to the less densely settled southern part of the district. The area being settled, called Lower Kikumbulyu, is only marginally suitable for sustained subsistence cultivation because of the low annual rainfall. Cattle raising has been precluded by the presence of the tsetse fly, the 6For further details relating to population densities in this and other Kenya districts, see W. T. W. Morgan and N. Manfred Shaffer, Population of Kenya (Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1966). 7J. Middleton and G. Kershaw, The Kikpyp and Kamba of Kenya (London: International African Institute, 1965), p. 68. G. Lindblom, The Akamba of British East Africa (Uppsala: Appelberg, 1920), p. 10. 113 ............ .............. ................... ............................. ............................ ............................ ..................... ...................... ..................... ...................... ...................... .................. ...... .............. ............. ............ MACHAKOS DISTRICT Population Density on ... . ooooo I . o ooooo ..... ..... oooooo ...... ....... oooooo ooooooo Persons Per Mile2 Map 4.3 Machakos District: P0pu1ation Density Source: W. T. W. Morgan and N. Manfred Shaffer. Pogulation of-Kenya (Nairobi: Oxford university Press, 1966). p. 21. POPULATION, AREA, AND DENSITY BY LOCATION Location Mbiuni Mwala Kangundo Matungulu North Yatta Yatta Plateau Kisau Kibauni Muthetheni Kiteta Mbooni Kilungu Mukaa Okia Kalama Iveti Muvuti Mitaaboni Masii Wamunyu Makueni Nzawi Mbitini Kikumbulyu Extra-Locational Crown Land, Emali Ward 11 Ward 12 Ward 13 Sultan Hamud 114 Table 4.1 MACHAKOS DISTRICT Total Population 15,923 17,518 36,875 40,395 11,421 11,499 14,523 14,603 16,800 9,214 38,011 36,644 27,773 16,042 19,207 31,327 15,398 32,369 17,060 20,291 20,191 23,895 19,163 16,259) 2,006) 2,277) 4,703 7,591 1,093 272 Area in S9. Miles 60 70 58 70 436 316 91 157 60 29 109 95 101 71 69 42 44 62 66 74 167 193 77 1,160 331 372 68 in Ward 12 Densi Per _§S;_!ilfi_ 265. 250. 635. 577. 26. 36. 163. 93. 280. 317. 348. 385. 275. 225. 274. 745. 350. 522. 258. 274. 120. 123. 248. 17. 14. 20. 16. ty ‘Oc>\sc~h>haaaua¢~ \l II-‘bN Location Kibwezi Makindu T.C. Athi River (Ward 13) Konza (Ward 12 Machakos Lower Makueni Simba Ranch Game Park Totals for Machakos District 115 Table 4.1 (continued) Total Population 290 103 5,510 180 4,353 548,5 790 Area in Sq;, Miles Kikumbulyu Kikumbulyu in Ward 12 7 351 101 883 5,790 Density Per Sq. Mile urban urban 94.8 (avs.) Source: W. T W. Morgan and N. Manfred Shaffer, Population Of Kenya (Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 21. 116 insect vector of trypanosomiasis, a deadly disease of domestic cattle.8 With these natural obstacles to human settlement the area has, in the past, been only very sparsely pOpulated. The Setting The area of Lower Kikumbulyu that has been subject to recent settlement lies 80 miles southeast of the town of Machakos and is about 750 square miles in area (see Map 4.4). It is bounded on the south and east by Tsavo National Park, on the west by the Chyulu Hills, and on the north by the Kibwezi Forest and the Kibwezi-Kitui road. The area is bisected by the Mombasa-Uganda railway and the Nairobi- Mombasa road (see Map 4.5). Lower Kikumbulyu is the southernmost part of Machakos District and since the elevation declines toward the south and east in the district it is at its lowest in southern Kikumbulyu. Hence Lower Kikumbulyu is analogous to southern Kikumbulyu in common usage. The land is generally flat, leping gently from the Chyulu Hills toward the Athi River in the east. The major streams flowing into the Athi: the Mtito Andei, Darajani, Masongaleni, and Kibwezi, have always been intermittent, flowing only during the rainy seasons. Natural vegetation in this subhumid area is dry bushland or thorn- scrub. The dominant vegetation type is Acacia-Commiphera bush with scattered larger trees,including Acacia spp. and Baobob, and with desert grasses in Open areas. Red latosols characteristic of the 8This disease is commonly known as nagana in East Africa. Another form of trypanosomiasis, sleeping sickness, is a human disease. Sleeping sickness is also transmitted by tsetse flies but of dif- ferent species which are not found in this part of Kenya. 117 NAIROBI. A. M\. .\m ‘x. ‘m 'I . _ ....... : . g . - 1' ' x i 1"B’ZJ|N'IA _/! I ’} ° 0‘. | t .\ I .\-,S : .\.\ II I "' - \\., !_, \ '\i """ \ \t \ Milo. ’0 \.. ,/ MOMEASA L . \4 \u \. Map 4.4 Location of Madhakos District and Lower Kikumbulyu in Southeastern Kenya 118 drier parts of Kenya are the most common soil type found in Lower Kikumbulyu. As was reported earlier, rainfall in this part of Kenya aver- ages only about 20 inches annually and is highly variable. The 20% probability of annual rainfall, the amount likely to be exceeded in four years out of five, lies between 10 and 20 inches, with most of the area falling within the lower part of that range. Periodic droughts have been characteristic in the past, the last severe drought occurring in 1959-60. There are two distinct precipitation maxima, the "long rains" in March-April and the "short rains" in November- December. Much of the rainfall during the short rainy seasons comes in the form of scattered, locally heavy showers. The intensity of these storms produces a high rate of runoff, thus reducing further the amount of moisture available for plant growth. The limited extent of individual storms produces substantial local variation in total rain- fall in addition to the pronounced seasonal variability. The Forces The southern part of Machakos District has been the scene of migration movements in the past. Historically Kikumbulyu has been occupied by small numbers of Kamba at least since the nineteenth cen- tury, and has long been considered part of Ukambani, the Kamba home- land.9 As elsewhere in Kenya and in Black Africa in general, records of early population movements are vague, and it is necessary to rely on oral data for a glimpse of the demographic past. According to one of the several Kamba traditions relating to their origin and early 9G. Lindblom,gp. cit., p. 17. H9 LCHNER KIKUMBULYU TSAVO NATIONAL -—- main road /. --- motoroble ,/ crock / mm o 5 m l 4 J Map 4.5 Lower Kikumbu lyu 120 migrations the tribe occupied, at least temporarily, land in the vicinity of the Chyulu Hills prior to their eventual settlement in Ulu, on the Mbooni Range.10 Whether or not this account Of an earlier presence is historically accurate it is certain that by the late nine- teenth or early twentieth century Kikumbulyu was recognized as one of 11 the others being Ulu, the four main centers of Kamba pOpulation, Kitui, and Mumoni (see Map 4.6). Traditionally the pOpulation of Kikumbulyu has been concen- trated in the northern part of the location, between Kibwezi and Kiboko. South of Kibwezi, in Lower Kikumbulyu, small numbers of Kamba had settled near the railway towns and there were a few farms scat- tered near the railway line and the Chyulu Hills. Near the base of the Chyulu Hills were several small settlements of farmers who occupied that better-watered area. The total number of people in- volved in these settlements was quite small, however, and the popula- tion of Lower Kikumbulyu has probably never in the past exceeded a few thousand peOple. For various reasons successive Kenya administrations have made attempts to remove the Kamba people from Lower Kikumbulyu and settle them in other parts of Machakos District. Among the reasons for these attempts were: (1) administrative consolidation, (2) the area's mar- ginal character for agriculture, (3) the scarcity of permanent water 10H. E. Lambert, "Land Tenure Among the Akamba," African Studies Vol. VI (September, 1947), No. 3, p. 133; and The Systems of Land Tenure in the Kikuyu Land Unit, Communications, School of African Studies, No. 22, Capetown, 1950, p. 28. 110. Lindblom, 10C. cit. 121 s u D A N \036‘ 40' ,_ ......... .. /'\..._ / \., ETHIOPIA ’,.\ / '87 ..\.. 3".“ -~..-—->/ a} \ ..... \. K ._,.-/ ../. I. ,./ - \ .,/ 3°- '\ ! “' < ( i 0 a . , z z \ I > < 3 : ,. o ,I I " a ll ,. l 3 C : w- n TANZANIA UKAMBANI=TRADITIONAL DIVISIONS Map 4.6 Ukambani: Traditional Divisions 122 supplies, and more recently (4) protection of the Chyulu Hills catch- ment area, the major source of Mombasa's water supply. The first such effort, in 1936, was recommended by the Carter Commission. At that time (the early 1930's), the commission estimated the pOpulation of the area as 3,194 persons. The recommendation that these people be removed and the area excised from the Machakos Reserve was based on two arguments: (1) the inhospitable nature of the country, and (2) that the proposal would have the effect of concen- trating all Kamba north of the railway line, thus consol- idating the Machakos Reserve and facilitating the adminis- tration of the tribe and the provision of roads and social service centres.12 This attempt was largely unsuccessful, as have been subsequent efforts by both the Colonial and African Kenya governments to relocate the peOple of lower Kikumbulyu. Some reduction in population was un- doubtedly accomplished by these government efforts but Kamba settle- ment in the area persisted, especially near the railway line and on the lower slopes of the Chyulu Hills, until the mid-1960's when the recent immigration began.13 12Kenya Land Commission, 1932, Report (Nairobi: Government Printer, 1933), Vol. 2, pp. 217-18. 3Data on recent immigration and settlement in Lower Kikumbulyu were gathered during two periods of field research in 1969. Ground and aerial surveys of the settled area were conducted during April and May, 1969. A survey of farmers was carried out in Lower Kikumbulyu in June and July, 1969. A total of 342 farmers were questioned as to their previous residence and 60 farmers were interviewed at length, on details of migration, the operation of their farms, and other economic activities. The form used for these interviews is reproduced in Appendix IX. Interviews of local officials and others with long acquaintance with the area were also conducted in Kikum- bulyu, Machakos, and Nairobi. The location of farmers who were interviewed at length is shown on Map 4.7. NB UOVVER KIKUMBULYU TSAVO NATIONAI. ./ TSAVO NATIONAI. mu P. b. C O Map 4.7 Lower Kikumbulyu: Location of Farmers Interviewed Star symbols indicate the location of the farm of each farmer interviewed at length during a survey conducted in June and July. 1969. See page 122, footnote 13, and Appendix Ix. 124 The ineffectiveness of relocation attempts since 1936 may be traced to three factors: (1) the settler's attachment to his land, (2) the unsatisfactory (in his view) alternatives offered by the government, and (3) the inability of government to prevent settlers from returning to their old homesteads after removing them. Besides the normal attachment of a peasant farmer to the land he has long cultivated there were, in Lower Kikumbulyu, several attractions that made other, alternative areas of settlement seem unattractive to the Kamba. Unlike most of Ukambani, where overpopulation of men and animals has practically denuded much of the landscape, Lower Kikum- bulyu was virtually untouched bushland where firewood and wild game were plentiful and honey could easily be gathered. The availability of firewood has become a serious problem in the more densely settled parts of Machakos District; women sometimes find it necessary to walk many miles in search of a small load of wood. Game animals have been virtually eliminated from most of Machakos District and the Kamba's traditional reliance on game meat as an important part of their diet is no longer possible in these areas. The Kamba were tra- ditionally regarded as great hunters and in the few places where hunt- ing is still possible they continue to hunt for meat and to a lesser extent for trophies such as ivory and rhino horn. Such hunting re- quires hunting licenses, which the Kamba cannot afford to buy. It is done illegally, therefore, and it is difficult to gather informa- tion about the practice. There is no doubt, however, that the Kamba of Lower Kikumbulyu have in the past and continue today to do a great deal of hunting. When asked about hunting activity many Kamba will admit that there is much hunting going on, and that although they 125 themselves do not hunt they know many peOple who do. Game Department reports confirm that illegal trOphy hunting, especially for rhino, has been a continuing enforcement problem in the area.14 An additional attraction of the Lower Kikumbulyu bush was the ease with which wild honey could be gathered. In contrast to the more densely settled parts of Machakos District where beekeeping was diffi- cult it was relatively simple for a man to place as many hives as he wished in the uninhabited bush of southern Kikumbulyu. Honey is a favorite food of the Kamba as it is of many other East African peoples. The Kamba also make beer from honey and although less commonly brewed it is much preferred to beer made from sugar cane. Honey is obtained by setting out beehives made from hollowed-out logs. The hive is sus- pended from the branch of a tree and once the bees inhabit the hive honey is collected three or four times a year.15 Beeculture 13, in fact, widely practiced in Lower Kikumbulyu and a great many hives can be seen in the trees by even a casual observer. Several of the older residents of the area were among those interviewed and they all claimed to have many beehives placed throughout the countryside. One man stated that he owned well over a hundred hives and had owned more but had lost them when Tsavo National Park was created, the lost hives having been within the boundaries of the new park. 14Republic of Kenya, Game Department, File l9/2, Game Warden, Kiboko, Annual Report, 1968. 15G. Lindblom, 92. 315., pp. 494-500, gives a brief summary of Kamba beekeeping. For a more detailed treatment, see J. K. R. Thorp, "African Beekeepers: Notes on the Methods and Customs Relating to the Beeculture of the Akamba Tribe in Kenya Colony," Journal of the East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society, Vol. XVII (1943), pp. 255-73. 126 Another factor contributing to the inability of successive Kenya governments to permanently remove the settlers has been the lack of policing after each eviction operation. The procedure in these Operations has been to use police or troops to raze farms and build- ings in the illegally settled areas when repeated requests that the settlers abandon their farms have been ignored. The persistence of the illegal settlers is illustrated by eyewitness accounts of a re- cent eviction Operation. Several witnesses reported seeing women busily at work gathering saplings and other building materials for construction of a new house even as troops were setting fire to the old houses. Settlers who do leave their farms usually do so only tem- porarily, returning within a few weeks. Prevention of such resettle- ment would have required the establishment of a permanent policing force in the area - a commitment the government was unwilling or un- able to make. The settlers who occupy the Chyulu Hills area today are not, as some suggest, newcomers but the same people who have always occupied that area. Among the settlers interviewed in 1969 were sev- eral who insisted that they and their fathers before them had always lived at Chyulu and they told long, and often amusing, stories of how they hid in the bush until the soldiers were gone and then rebuilt their farms. Other residents of Lower Kikumbulyu confirm these claims and they all seem to have vivid recollections of resettlement attempts by government forces going back to the Carter Commission in 1936. One cannot help but be impressed by the tenaciousness of these Kamba farmers who have, for two generations, been repeatedly burned out, forcibly evicted, fined and sometimes jailed but have stubbornly re- fused to be driven from what they regard as their ancestral homes. 127 The Course of Settlement Prior to 1964 settlement in Lower Kikumbulyu was confined to a small farming colony on the lower slopes of the Chyulu Hills that had long defied government attempts to relocate them and to small areas near the railway stations and plantations. Settlements at the Dwa sisal planation and Manooni sugar plantation were made up entirely of plantation workers and their families who were permitted to farm small plots near the estates. Railway workers were the core of the railway station settlements but there were, in addition, some other settlers who were probably drawn to the area of the stations by the availability of water from the station wells. In 1964, however, new immigrants began to settle in Lower Kikumbulyu and have continued to arrive in increasing numbers over the last five years. Four factors account for the sudden influx of settlers into an area that was previously very Sparsely populated and was considered by most government officials and agricultural experts to be unsuitable for agricultural settlement. The factors that appear to have made Lower Kikumbulyu more attractive for settlement were: (1) an initial increase in the supply of permanent water (2) a prolonged period of above average rainfall (3) improvement of the Nairobi-Mombasa road, greatly in- creasing the effectiveness of the road as an artery (4) the officially sanctioned establishment of a small settlement scheme. Water Supply and Rainfall Permanent sources of water did not exist between the Chyulu Hills and the Athi River prior to 1961 except for the supplies of the railway stations and plantations. Heavy rains broke the severe 128 Figure 4.1 A typical Kamba homestead in the newly settled area of Lower Kikumbulyu. This farm, just east of the Nairobi-Mombasa road, was settled in 1966. 129 drought of 1959-60 and filled the streams, and they have continued to carry water throughout each year since that time. New springs appeared in some places and many water holes, previously seasonal, have held water for most of each year since 1961. With the increased supply of water throughout Lower Kikumbulyu, settlement was no longer restricted to the better-watered area of the Chyulu Hills and the immediate vicinity of the railway towns and plantations. Annual rain- fall totals at all stations in the Lower Kikumbulyu area were far above average for 1961. Totals ranged from 34.83" at Kiboko to 39.53" at Simba Station. At Kibwezi and Makindu, where long term records are available, 1961 saw totals of over 38" at both stations compared to 30-year averages for 1931-60 of 23.92" for Kibwezi and 20.12" for Makindu. From 1961 to 1964, when the influx of Kamba migrants began, annual rainfall averaged 33.86" at Kibwezi, an increase of 9.94" or 41% in the annual average (see Table 4.2). The abnormally high rainfall in the Lower Kikumbulyu area con- tinued through the 1960's. At both Kibwezi and Makindu only 1965 was substantially below the 30-year average in annual rainfall. Three years, 1962, 1966, and 1969 were close to average and all remaining years, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1967, and 1968 were above the 30-year average. The average for the period 1961-69 was over 30" at both stations, an increase of 49% for Makindu and 28% for Kibwezi above the 30-year average at each station. The Road The improvement of the Nairobi-Mombasa road was important in two ways: first, it improved access into Lower Kikumbulyu from the northern parts of Machakos District, and secondly it improved egress 130 Hm.qH -.mH mm.HN ao.qH mw.oH o¢.na No.mH um.m~ mama < .muw .voHuwd umsu you Hamwcwwu Hmsccm wwmum>m Esau wcoa mnu can maanHm>w mum muuoomu sagas u0m mums» mo sagas: wsu an cmsoaaom aw coHuMum Sumo mo mam: 0:8 AHHV Amav Aaav Aqav Ammv AHmv Aoov "muoz cowumum “consume .m.z.a gonna ouauz aaam saunas mama exonas Haas sswz .mpEam coauaum spasm mac .Hnmanas ancaxmz 131 .mvuooou Hmcwwwuo sworn Eoum ucoeuumdoo Hmowonouomumz cmuwuu< ummm msu an vowaddam ouo3 mood mam wood you sump Hamucflmm --- ssmm.m~ --- mm.o~ --- m~.m~ mm.m~ sow.mm No.mm mm.om -.o~ «c.0m mmuwmmw mmummmw uwmumv< ¢O.HN mm.wH mm.wH mo.NN mm.- mm.H~ mama oo.mm om.mq mn.~m mH.H¢ om.m¢ mm.wq mw.m¢ wood MN.NN Om.H¢ mw.om No.mm .aooa ”coma ”mesa ”seas ”moms ”mesa “Haas nomad .msmos as Hammcamm co stassm .oomH ou HmmH mums» muuwch mnu wmquso mmmvx cw Hamucwmm Hmscc< cam afinucoz .ucmsuumdma Hmowonouooumz cmowuu< ummm ”mmuuaom N¢.NH ao.o~ um.m~ mn.m~ mm.wH om.o~ m¢.ma coma Aconcaucoov ~.q manna .momH-moaa new mmmum>< as moms-Head you owmum>¢ % cowumum wcmnmumo .m.z.a Hmuc< ouwuz AH“: wawamx name oxonax Has: aawz .unEam cowuaum onswm «an .auoznas seesaw: 132 from Lower Kikumbulyu to the south and Mombasa. Improvement of the northern section of the road served to increase the visibility of the areas being settled and permitted more rapid diffusion of knowledge about the settlement throughout Machakos District. Kikumbulyu had been a distant location, reachable from the overpopulated core area of the district only by an arduous, day-long journey over dusty, pot- holed murram roads. With the improved road it was brought within easy reach - a comfortable bus ride of several hours. This impact was not fully felt until 1968 when the northern section of the road, from Mtito Andei to Nairobi was completed. The increasing rate of immigra- tion into Lower Kikumbulyu, as evidenced by the rapid expansion of the frontier of settlement after 1968 (see Maps 4.11 and 4.12) was due, at least in part, to improved access into the area from northern Machakos. Of more immediate importance to the early immigrants was the southern section of the road, from Mtito Andei to Mombasa. When com- pleted in 1966 the new road south from Lower Kikumbulyu provided improved access to Mombasa and its markets, particularly the charcoal market. In addition to large supplies of wood suitable for charcoal- making, the new settlers found a ready market for their charcoal through local buyers interested in supplying the Mombasa market. These buyers, mostly local Kamba, bought the charcoal in Lower Kikum- bulyu and shipped it to Mombasa themselves where they sold their ship- ments to large dealers, many of whom were also Kamba. Charcoal burning provided the early immigrants with a source of cash income to tide them over the difficult period when they were clearing the land and building their houses but harvesting no crops. Charcoal has 133 Figure 4.2 Recent settlement along the Nairobi-Mombasa road in Lower Kikumbulyu. 134 continued to provide a significant source of income for the Kikumbulyu settlers and may, even today, be regarded as one of the most important cash crops in the area. Sanctioned Settlement as a Factor Settlement schemes have long been a common feature of rural develOpment programs in Africa. They have transformed some parts of the continent into productive farming regions and by resettling farm families have helped to alleviate overpopulation and land pressure in some crowded rural areas. The Gezira scheme in Sudan is one of the oldest and most successful of Africa's settlement schemes but there have been many others, large and small, successful and unsuccessful, undertaken in all parts of Africa. In Kenya organized settlement in the immediate post- independence period was largely concerned with the redistribution of land in the former Scheduled Areas, particularly what had been the "white highlands." Settlement schemes in the former African Areas were begun much earlier. The colonial government, beginning in 1938, 16 Most of these organized twelve schemes of over 5,000 acres each. schemes were designed to settle surplus population and livestock from overcrowded rural areas. One such scheme was established in Machakos District in 1947 at Makueni (see Map 4.2). The Makueni Settlement Scheme involved bush clearing and allocation of 30-40 acre plots in dry bush country somewhat similar to that in Kikumbulyu. The Makueni scheme has been criticized as a deliberate overstepping of the minimum 16Republic of Kenya, Development Plan, 1966-1970 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1965), pp. 146-47. 135 limit of rainfall necessary for sustained subsistence cultivation.17 It is argued that in this low rainfall area subsistence farmers can never be completely self-sustaining and will suffer from food short- ages in bad years, necessitating periodic famine relief. In spite of these criticisms other settlement schemes have been attempted in the semi-arid areas of Kenya. One of these was established in Lower Kikumbulyu in 1964. The increased availability of water that resulted from the abnormally high rainfall in the early 1960's appeared to make agri- cultural settlement feasible in Lower Kikumbulyu and in 1964 a small settlement scheme was begun at Ngwata. The Ngwata scheme, planned and administered by the Agriculture Department, was never fully imple- mented and only a small number of people were actually given land in the scheme. Surveying was cancelled, apparently due to lack of funds, in 1965 after 283 fifty-acre plots had been laid out between Mason- galeni and Darajani18 (see Map 4.5). Although limited in area and in the number of people directly involved this embryonic settlement scheme did serve as an important stimulus to migration. The Ngwata Settlement Scheme was intended to provide land for the peOple who were again being removed from the Chyulu Hills by the government in an effort to protect the Chyulu catchment area. In fact, most of the Chyulu farmers returned to the Hills after a short 17Leslie H. Brown, "An Assessment of Some Development Schemes in Africa in the Light of Human Needs and the Environment," Proceed- ings and Papers, IUCN 9th Technical Meeting, Nairobi, September, 1963 IUCN Publications New Series No. 4, 1964, pp. 284-85. 18Interview with the Chief of Kikumbulyu Location, June 5, 1969. 136 p“ lO-OOI'I'V H I‘O'I‘I Figure 4.3 The Chyulu Hills, the major catchment area for Mombasa's water supply, seen from the southwest. The western slopes of the Hills are part of a Game Conservation Area but settlement on the eastern slopes has long been a matter of concern to conservationists. National Parks authorities have also expressed interest in the Hills as an addition to Tsavo National Park. If successful in obtaining the Chyulu Hills addition, the National Parks plan to build at least one game lodge in the Hills. 137 time and most of the plots were taken by people from other parts of Kikimbulyu, especially from the area between Kibwezi and Makindu. These immigrants from northern Kikumbulyu were motivated by the desire for a large piece of land; fifty acres represents an enormous land holding to most Kamba. They expected that they would receive legal title to the land they acquired even though many of them settled out- side the surveyed area of the settlement scheme. Even as the plots were being surveyed people began migrating from the northern part of the location to settle in the Masongaleni-Darajani area, anticipating that they would be allotted the land they occupied when it was even- tually surveyed. An additional motive for the migration was the feeling of many of the migrants that if they, the people of Kikum- bulyu, did not settle the land it might be taken by outsiders, such as Kamba from other parts of Machakos District. This latter motive suggests another factor to be taken into account in the study of migration patterns: the confirmation of ancestral tribal occupance, or in this case, sub-tribal or group occupance. The Ngwata Settlement Scheme formed the core around which further settlement developed in Lower Kikumbulyu. The scheme was successful in attracting settlers in spite of the fact that few ser- vices were provided for the immigrants and no administrative structure organized to manage the scheme. Settlement appears to have been hap- hazard from the start. Many people settled on unsurveyed land as migrants rushed in to obtain land in the area. Although no formal declaration of the precise area open for settlement appears to have been made it was soon assumed that all the land between the road and the railroad was open to settlers. This area from the boundary of 138 Dwa plantation to the National Park came to be called the "legal area," implying that settlement there was legal. The area to the west of the road toward the Chyulu Hills and that east of the railway was called the "illegal area." As time went on some settlers began to move into the "illegal areas," first across the road toward the Chyulu Hills and later across the railroad into Block 29, in the hOpe that these areas too would ultimately be declared legal for settlement. The early success of the Ngwata scheme in attracting settlers was due, in part, to the scheme's proximity to the long-settled areas of northern Kikumbulyu. Most of the early settlers came from nearby parts of Kikumbulyu and were able to clear land and build houses in the new area while still retaining their old farms. Thus they were not dependent upon their new land for subsistence and assumed little risk in the process of migration to Ngwata. Many of the people who came from nearby areas have since sold or abandoned their old farms but some continue to retain an interest in their former holdings. A few even continue to operate two farms and travel back and forth peri- odically. After the first influx of settlers from northern Kikumbulyu immigration and settlement continued despite the fact that some of the land was never surveyed and only a portion of the surveyed land adju- dicated and legal title granted. By the end of 1965 (see Map 4.8) settlement had reached the boundary of Dwa plantation in the north and Darajani in the south. At this time the settlement was still confined to the area between the road and the railroad, except for a few farms west of the road near Darajani in the south. Word that land was available for settlement in Lower 139 /. LCHNER . KIKUMDULYU TSAVO NATIONAL 'D PARK c o \ «HH- roi lrood -——— motorablo noel: / TSAVO NATIONAL PARK PO Map 4.8 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, 1965 The heavy line represents the frontier of settlement at the end of 1965. 140 Kikumbulyu spread rapidly and settlers began to arrive also from the northern parts of Machakos District. They came in greatest numbers . from the locations of Mukaa, Kalama, Mbitini, Nzawi, Kilungu, and ' Iveti (see Map 4.2). 'Some settlers did migrate from other locations in Machakos District and a few have even come from outside the dis- trict, including a small number of Kikuyu, some Taita, and a few Luo (see Appendix XI). The six Machakos locations listed above provided the overwhelming majority of settlers, however, from outside Kikum- bulyu. These locations are among those in Machakos District in which local relief, declining soil fertility, and highly fragmented and uneconomically small land holdings combine with rapidly increasing pOpulation to produce overpopulation and severe land pressure (see Table 4.2 and Map 4.3). There are, however, other locations in Machakos where similar conditions exist without such attendant out- migration, suggesting that other factors played a role in the high incidence of migration to Kikumbulyu from these particular locations. The six locations producing the largest number of immigrants to Kikumbulyu range in distance between 30 and 80 miles. Nzawi, the closest, is just 30 miles from Kibwezi and Iveti, the farthest, is 80 miles from Kibwezi (see Map 4.2). There appears to be no consis- tent relationship between distance from Kikumbulyu and the timing of settlement; among the earliest settlers to arrive were large numbers from Mukaa and Kalama, and among those who migrated later were many from Nzawi, the closest location. The relative location of the six locations is such that they all lie on the western side of Machakos District within close proximity of the Nairobi-Mombasa road. None of the six locations is more than ten miles from the road and three, 141 Mukaa, Mbitini, and Nzawi, border on the road (see Map 4.2). It would appear that ease Of access to the Nairobi-Mombasa road has been a significant factor in promoting immigration into Kikumbulyu from these areas. "Push" Factors The movement of Kamba farmers into Lower Kikumbulyu involves "push" factors Operating in the source locations as well as the "pull" factors elaborated above. The most important "push" factor in Machakos District is undoubtedly rural poverty, resulting from over- population and land pressure. Large numbers of Machakos Kamba either have no land at all to cultivate or own a holding so small that it cannot provide an adequate subsistence. Emigration from the district has been the response Of many "landless" Kamba farmers and has served as a safety valve partially alleviating land pressure in Machakos. The emigration rate19 for the Kamba in 1948 was 9.4% with the rate 20 for Kamba males at 12.9%. By 1962, when the next census was taken, the Kamba emigration rate had increased to 12.4% and that of males only to 15.6%.21 There were, in 1962, 115,858 Kamba living outside the home districts out of a total Kamba population of 933,219.22 19The emigration rate has been calculated by subtracting the number of persons enumerated in the census as Kamba, in the traditional home districts Of Machakos and Kitui, from the Kamba total for Kenya as a whole. The resulting figure (the number of Kamba resi- dents outside the home areas) is then expressed as a percentage of the tribal total. 20A. w. Southall, 22. cit., p. 169. 218. H. Ominde, op. cit., p. 136. 22Kenya, Ministry of Economic Planning and Development, Kenya Popula- tion Census, 1962, Vol. 111, African Population, Nairobi, 1966, p. 36. 142 Some of these Kamba emigrants have been drawn to the major urban areas, particularly Nairobi, but there are substantial numbers also in Central Province and the Coast Province.23 In the Coast Province 3 large number are within the Shimba Hills Settlement Scheme in Kwale District. There has also been a substantial amount of migration within the Kamba home districts which is not, of course, reflected in the emigration rate. Kamba farmers have been moving into the less densely settled parts of Machakos and Kitui Districts for many years in re- 24 The settlement of Makueni Location Sponse to population pressure. is one such instance and the more recent movement into Lower Kikum- bulyu is another. That landlessness is the major impetus to this movement is best illustrated by the Kikumbulyu migrants' own des- criptions of their reasons for migration.25 When asked why they had left their home locations and migrated to Lower Kikumbulyu most of the new settlers told similar stories Of being unable to support their families because they owned no land or the land they owned was too poor or tOO small to provide the food they required. A man from Iveti who had come to the new settlement in 1968 told how his family was always hungry there because the land they cultivated was just a small strip on the slopes of Iveti Hill, 23Ibid., p. 35. 24Above, p. 112. 25The examples of reasons for migrating that follow were collected during a survey of settlers in Lower Kikumbulyu conducted during June and July 1969. Data on previous residence of each farmer and his father and brothers was gathered as well as a statement outlining his reasons for migrating to Kikumbulyu. A copy of the questionnaire used in the survey is included as Appendix IX. 143 [IDVVER KIKUMBULYU I966 TSAVO NATIONAL —— main road W railroad ./’ TSAVO NATIONAL --— motorablc ,/ track ./ mm 0 5 IO L . I Map 4.9 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, 1966 144 between the rocks. This man had three brothers; one had settled about a mile away and the other two were still in Iveti with his father. He thought that they too might soon move to Kikumbulyu. Another man, who had just arrived in a group Of six peOple migrating together from Kilungu, told a similar story of owning a small, rocky strip of land. The land was so poor, he said, that he had never harvested food from his farm but always ate the crop in the fields because they were so hungry. To support his family he worked as a casual laborer. The piece of land was so small, he went on, that when he sat in his house talking in a low voice, his neighbors on both sides could hear him. Among a group of immigrants from Mukaa who had settled in Block 29 in April 1969 was a man who told how his father's land had been divided among seven brothers, each Of the resulting pieces too small to produce an adequate subsistence. A woman in the same group was divorced from her husband and had returned to her father's home with her two children. She found, however, that there was no land there for her to cultivate, so when she heard of land being settled in Lower Kikumbulyu she joined the group in hOpes of obtaining land. Others in this group of five people related similar circumstances as their reasons for migrating. Another indication Of the intense pressure behind the migra- tion is the determination of the immigrants to stay in Kikumbulyu regardless of the difficulties they might face. The new settlers were asked in the survey what they would do in case of drought and successive crOp failures, and where they would go if they were forced to leave their new farms. The Kikumbulyu immigrants were nearly unani- mous in proclaiming that they could not consider abandoning their new 145 UoVVER KIKUMBULYU 4+H++ rofl,°°d NAT”)MAL Map 4.10 TSAVO NATIONAL ” PA'K ; C q \ Lower Kiku Julyu: Settled Area, 1967 146 land, as they had no place else to go. A woman from Iveti said that if the rains failed and there was famine she would "eat the fruits of the baobob tree" and when there was no life left she would simply die. A man who had come to the new settlement from Nzawi because he could not find enough grazing for his cattle there expressed the same kind of resolve. He said that if there was a drought and his cattle died he would simply wait to die. Another man, from Kalama, was asked where he would go if forced to leave Kikimbulyu. He must stay, he said, for he had been all over Ukambani looking for land and there was nowhere else to go. The intensity of the "push" factors operating in the northern parts of Machakos District combined with the pull of availability of land in the south and increased accessibility into the area produced a growing migration stream from north to south. Pushed from their home locations by overpopulation and land pressure, increasing numbers of Kamba settlers poured into Lower Kikumbulyu and the new settlement grew rapidly. By the end of 1966 the area between Dwa and Darajani was beginning to become crowded and the frontier Of settlement continued to expand slowly southward. More settlers also began to move across the road to the west, into the "illegal area," along the Darajani- Ngwata section of the road (see Map 4.9). The advancing frontier Of settlement was approaching the southern limit at Mtito Andei, where the National Park boundary precludes further southward settle- ment, by the end of 1967 (see Map 4.10). Expansion also continued to the west, generally following the tracks that led to the Chyulu Hills. The tracks in this area had long served to link the Chyulu settlements 147 UOVVER KIKUMBULYU I968 TSAVO NATIONAL 'D PARK ‘ O u. \ — near-road ,/ TSAVO NATIONAL PARK «re-9+ rmlrood ./ -__ motor-able 0/ track /‘/ All“ ? 2 )0 Map 4.11 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, 1968 148 with the towns along the railway. These pathways Of a foot-carried exchange economy now served as avenues of migration, along which the new settlers moved deep into the bush toward the Hills. By mid-1968 virtually no land remained available for settlement between the road and the railroad. With the area to the west of the road also filling up, movement to the east, across the railroad, had begun by the end of 1968 (see Map 4.11). The extremely dense bush in this area re- sulted in settlement closely following the streams and existing tracks. In Block 29, the area east of the railway, most of the tracks had been develOped by professional hunters who used the block regularly for hunting parties, particularly when in search of elephant and rhinoc- eros. By the middle Of 1969 the frontier of settlement in Block 29 had advanced along the Daranjani half way to the Athi River and in the west settlers had come to within a few miles of the Chyulu Hills (see Map 4.12). Social Organization and Group Migration in Ukambani The recent movement of Kamba pioneers into the sparsely set- tled bushland of Lower Kikumbulyu may be viewed as the contemporary manifestation of a long, historic process of Kamba expansion from the overcrowded locations of northern Machakos. This downlepe movement from crowded hill settlements has become a common feature of pOpula- tion mobility in Africa, particularly since the late 19th century when colonial administration brought improved security to large areas of the continent.26 Kamba downhill movement apparently began before 26R. M. Prothero, "Migration in Tropical Africa," The ngulation of Tropical Africa, ed. J. C. Caldwell and C. Okonjo (New York: CO- lumbia University Press, 1968), p. 252. See also M. B. Cleave, "Hill Settlements and Their Abandonment in TrOpical Africa," 149 UOVVER KIKUMBULYU ”no June 1969 NATIONAL --- pacer-able track an.- Map 4.12 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settled Area, June 1969 150 the advent of colonial rule in Kenya27 and has continued into the pre- sent day. A brief look at several aspects Of traditional Kamba social organization and the process of migration by which they expanded aids in understanding contemporary Kamba population movements. Traditional Kamba Social Organization The Machakos Kamba divide themselves into a number of large patrilineal clans. These patriclans (£221) are today widely scattered throughout Ukambani and kinship groups in any one contiguous area are usually represented by extended families of only a few generations. There is evidence, however, that in the original Kamba settlements on the Mbooni range the patriclans were territorially distinct.28 The high degree of 922i scattering evident in Ukambani today is a result Of the traditional mode of migration and settlement. The Utui System. As pOpulation pressure increased in the original hill settlements, individuals and groups of individuals began to emigrate from the Old settlements and move into previously uninhab- ited land. These early pioneers grouped themselves together for mutual aid and security. The people who grouped together in the new Transactions of the Institute of British Gegraphers (London), Vol. XL (1966), pp. 39-49; and by the same author, "Hill Settle- ments and Their Abandonment in Western Yorubaland," Africa, Vol. XXXIII (1963), pp. 343-52; and "The Changing Frontiers Of Settle- ment in the Uplands of Northern Nigeria," Nigerian Geographical Journal, Vol. VIII (1965), pp. 127-41. 27J. Middleton and G. Kershaw, loc. cit. G. Lindblom, loc. cit. 28H. E. Lambert, "Land Tenure Among the Akamba," African Studies, Vol. VI, NO. 3 (September, 1947), pp. 131-47. This summary of the traditional mode of Kamba expansion relies heavily on Lambert's valuable work which is continued in African Studies, Vol. VI, No. 4 (December, 1947), pp. 157-75. 151 settlements were Of mixed origin and each such settlement usually con- tained several 2931' Although the settlers retained their loyalty to the patriclans, their immediate practical interests depended upon re- lationships within the new community, much Of which was outside the traditional range of kinship. Thus, in the new settlements, the BEBE: a group of territorially compact homesteads, replaced the kinship group as the most significant social unit in everyday Kamba life. As expansion continued this method of splitting Off and resettlement in smaller units gave rise to a pattern of settlement that is still evi- dent in Ukambani. This is the 3521 system of residence, which is based on territorial proximity rather than on common kinship. The 2521 was a self-contained unit; as a kind Of miniature tribe it was self-sufficient economically and socially. Being made up Of members of several 223; it was possible for a man to find a wife within the Egg; or at least within a neighboring BEBE: a situation that is unlikely when kinship groups are territorially compact. Even in recent times much of the self-sufficiency of the Egg; remained. Each Egg; was an independent unit with its own men's club, recreation ground, administration, and its own magistrates. In earlier times the Egg; also had its own standing army and war leaders. Because the people living in the BEBE were Of mixed mbai the community lacked the natural bonds Of kinship that would require mutual assistance and enforce socially acceptable behavior. To sub- stitute for the missing kinship ties a new social bond was created to regulate behavior and ensure social order within the BEBE: This new bond was forged by means of a social oath. Each new resident of the community was required to swear the utui oath before he could be 152 accepted as a member of the group. This oath applied only to a par- ticular 2523 and had no force outside of that community. The strictly local nature of the oath is revealed by the fact that when a man moved into a new 3521 he had to swear the BEE; oath regardless of how many 252i oaths he had sworn in other communities. The 252; elders had the power to deny residence in their com- munity to any person they did not feel would be an acceptable member of the 2221. Any man with a reputation for anti-social behavior would be considered undesirable and customarily excluded. The elders' ability to regulate settlement lay in their power to refuse to admin- ister the 253$ oath or accept the customary fee, "the goat of the stockade" (222$ ya mathanzu), paid by every adult male immigrant to the community. In present-day Ukambani the 252; may no longer exercise its former politico-territorial role but the social role of the neighbor- hood group survives and influences the contemporary migration field. The importance of the ties of neighborhood may be seen in the charac- teristics of the Kikumbulyu-Machakos information field, the context Of migration decision making, and in grouping behavior in both the migration and settlement. Group Migration Information Flow. The flow of information into northern Machakos about the Opportunities in Kikumbulyu is largely channeled through neighborhood groups. Typically, a man first learns of the avwailability of land in Kikumbulyu from a friend or neighbor who has returned to his home location after seeing the new settlement, or per- Ififi>s after actually obtaining a piece Of land. Most of the new 153 settlers interviewed had made several trips to Kikumbulyu before embarking on their final migration. In this way a steady flow of information about settlement opportunities in Lower Kikumbulyu is established. It is within the neighborhood group in the home loca- tion that the information circulates after being introduced by eye- witnesses returning from Kikumbulyu. It is also within the neighborhood group that the decision-making process is most often carried out. Group Decision Making. Although some men do migrate individ- ually after having, apparently, arrived at the decision to migrate without lengthy consultation with other people, group decision-making is common. The possibility of migrating to the new settlement is often discussed by groups of neighbors and friends. These discussions may be lengthy, stretching over a period of weeks or months, as the advantages and disadvantages of migration are carefully weighed. Eventually some or all of the group decide that they will travel to Kikumbulyu to try to find land. The Migration and Settlement. Once the decision to migrate has been made it is common for the new migrants to travel to Kikum- bulyu in a group. They usually travel by bus or lorry, although some claim to have walked, and attempt to Obtain land in the same area. They usually succeed in obtaining adjoining plots of land and then return to the home location to prepare for the move to their new land. After gathering what possessions they wish to carry with them, they return as a group to Kikumbulyu to begin their new life. The neighborhood group then functions cooperatively, first building one house for all to sleep in while they clear each other's land for 154 planting and build the rest of the houses. One such group of five people was interviewed in Block 29 in June, 1969. They were all neighbors in Mukaa and had come to begin clearing their new land in April. They explained that they had built the one house because there were many wild animals in the area and they were afraid to be alone and outside at night. By working as a group they expected to be able to have everyone's land cleared and all the houses built in time for planting before the short rains began in late October. This grouping together, in the new settlements, of peOple from the same home loca- tion is further reinforced as other groups and individuals, when look- ing for land, try to locate near the farms of peOple from their home area. Advantaggs of Grogp Migration. The advantages of group migra- tion are several. The economic advantages of group settlement are Obvious; by working cooperatively the group can shorten the time re- quired to establish their new homesteads and materially reduce the economic risk involved. Working with very little capital, most settlers can afford to buy food for only a few months and must get a crOp in their new farms as soon as possible. If they fail to clear and plant during their first season it may be necessary to abandon, at least temporarily, their new land and return home to raise additional capital. A man also knows that the group who helps clear his land will be available to assist him with other agricultural tasks requir- ing joint effort. Thus the man who migrates with a group knows in advance that he will have the assistance he is likely to need to suc- cessfully establish himself in the new settlement. A man can also reduce the social risk of settlement in a new place by group 155 migration. If he were to migrate alone he might then settle among strangers, peOple with whom he had no social ties. By migrating with people from his home location he can settle near people he knows and with whom he shares an existing social bond. The man who migrates by himself or in a small group may also attempt to reduce his social risk by settling near other people from his home area who are already es- tablished in the new settlement. Impact of Grppp Migration. The impact of group migration and the persistence of former social ties can be observed in the spatial pattern of settlement which reveals a pronounced clustering by loca- tion of origin. Map 4.13 shows the settled area in mid-1969 sub- divided into areas in which migrants from particular locations are the dominant group. These areas are not homogeneous in terms of origin; all contain people from a large number of locations, but each of them has a core pOpulation from one of the major locations which dominates the local area. The inhabitants of Lower Kikumbulyu recognize this clustering together and describe certain areas as being made up of peOple from Iveti or Mukaa, etc. Place names have begun to reflect the origins of the settlers in some areas; one community near Kathe- kani is called Kalama because most of the people living in the new settlement came from Kalama location. The "First-footing" Fee. Another interesting link with the traditional Kamba mode of settlement is the apparent survival of the customary "first footing" fee payable by new immigrants into the com- munity. Traditionally this payment was a goat, called "the goat of the stockade" or gpgrwyg mathanzu. Today the new settlers in Kikum- bulyu are required to pay a similar fee in cash. The amount ranges 156 LCMNER KIKUMBULYU TSAVO NATIONAL 'fl ‘ . ‘ stool-:29 ‘ 49% main road mu...“ '/./ TSAVO NATIONAL PARK -—— motoroblo ,/ Neck /./ am.- ‘I 2 4" Map 4.13 Lower Kikumbulyu: Settlement by Location of Origin 157 from 10 to 20 shillings and is variously described as being "for the elders," "to build a school," or sometimes a portion for the elders and the rest for a school. If a man comes for land but does not have the fee he may be shown where he will be allowed to settle but is not permitted to demarcate or begin work on the land until the fee is paid. When new settlers were asked what would happen if they did not pay the fee the answers varied. Some said that they would not be given land, others that the land would be given to someone else, and a few thought that they would be beaten and driven away if they attempted to start clearing the land before paying. There is, of course, no legal necessity that the migrants pay a fee. The land is not in private ownership - it is government land theoretically Open to all settlers, although it has never officially been declared open for settlement. To put it another way, all settlement outside the boundaries of the Ngwata Settlement Scheme was, strictly speaking, illegal, and no one had the authority to permit settlement or to charge a fee for so doing. The general willingness of the migrants to pay the fee without complaint suggests that they consider such pay- ments to be proper and in accord with customary practice. The Persistence of Settlement: Livelihoods and Prospects Agriculture. The Kamba pioneers who came to settle in Lower Kikumbulyu brought with them their traditional agricultural techniques and crop- ping patterns. As in most of Ukambani maize is the staple subsis- tence crop and is planted in both seasons. Several legumes common 158 throughout Machakos District are also grown in the new settlements. Pigeon peas is the most frequently cultivated of these, with cow peas and green grams also fairly common. Some millet and sorghum is grown but these grains appear to be of minor importance. Cassava is planted in small plots by many farmers as a famine crOp. Small amounts of bananas and sugar cane are produced where conditions are favorable, most of the crOp being sold for cash. Cotton and castor beans are other cash crops that have been tried by some farmers. Cotton has not generally done well in this area but some farmers have had good yields of castor in the better years. Surplus maize and pigeon peas are also sold for cash in good years. New farms in Kikumbulyu are first cleared of bush; larger trees, too difficult to remove, are left standing. Fields are then burned, the fire consuming the bush cuttings and grass. The fields, when prepared for planting, are irregularly shaped and of varied size. The soil is broken with hand hoes and the seed broadcast sown. There is apparently no attempt to space plants and no evidence of row plant- ing of maize or any other crop was seen in the farms observed. Sev- eral instances Of near total failure of crOps of pigeon peas due to overly close spacing of plants were observed. Interplanting is com- mon, especially of pigeon peas and cow peas with maize in the short rainy season planting. These legumes require the full two rainy sea- sons tO mature and are planted with the short rain maize. When the maize is harvested the legumes are left in the field and are then ready to harvest in July after the long rains. Millet and sorghum are also often interplanted with the short rain maize crop. Acreages and yields are difficult to gauge accurately under these circumstances 159 but reasonable estimates were Obtained from the survey of farmers con- ducted in June-July, 1969. Farmers were asked what crOps they had planted in each season and the yield for each since beginning their farms. The longest record of farm Operation went back to 1965 but most of the farms recorded had only been in Operation for two or three years. All the farmers interviewed were able to recall the details of crOpping in past seasons without difficulty and with apparent preci- sion. Farmers were also asked to point out the fields in which each crop was planted. The size of each field was then estimated by an experienced Agricultural Assistant. Results of this survey indicate that per season maize yields for the period 1966-69 averaged two and one-half bags29 per acre. The average yeild for the 1968 short rain maize crOp was approxi- mately two bags per acre despite exceptionally high rainfall. Total rainfall for 1968 was the highest in over ten years and most stations in southern Machakos recorded double the long-term average yearly rainfall (see Table 4.2). An average yield of 2-2g bags per acre, then, may represent close to the maximum maize yield obtainable in the area under the present methods of cultivation. It is unlikely that even this rather low average yield can be maintained over any ex- tended period of time with repeated cropping. Declining yields can be anticipated as repeated cropping drains the fertility present in the freshly cleared land. In addition to the gradual decline in fer- tility that can be expected, the low annual rainfall presents an apparently insurmountable barrier to successful farming in this area. 29A bag is equivalent to 200 lbs. of grain. 160 Except under special circumstances the 30" isohyet of annual rainfall in East Africa is generally considered to mark the boundary of land which can be successfully farmed. In areas with less than 30" total annual rainfall cropping becomes unreliable and permanent culti- vation on a sustained basis unfeasible.30 This is particularly true when the rain comes in two distinct seasons rather than in one concen- trated rainy season. Only the drought-resistant millets and sorghums are likely to yield reasonably well in these areas, maize being par- ticularly ill-suited to such moisture deficient conditions. Average annual rainfall in Lower Kikumbulyu is closer to 20" than 30", well below the accepted minimum. Variability of rainfall presents another obstacle to farming in dry areas. Droughts are common and have been a feature of the rainfall pattern in southeastern Kenya in the past. Periodic total crOp failures are to be expected every several years. Such failures can be disastrous for farmers who have been unable to build up stores of surplus grain because low yields even in good years provide barely enough foodstuffs to meet subsistence require- ments. It would appear inevitable, then, that maize-based subsis- tence agriculture, such as that being practiced by pioneer farmers in Kikumbulyu, cannot succeed on a permanent basis. Charcoal Most of the pioneer farms in Lower Kikumbulyu, in fact, have not been self-sufficient and other sources of income have been 30L. H. Brown, pp. cit., pp. 280-87, discusses the minimum rainfall necessary for reliable cropping in East Africa and presents ex- amples of the consequences of overstepping the environmental limits. l6l LOWER KIKUMBULYU aumnuswmau TSAVO NATIONAL ./ ts-wo NATIONAL PARK Map 4.14 Lower Kikumbulyu: Charcoal Stations 162 essential. The most important source of additional income for the settlers has been charcoal making. From the early days of the settle- ment, in 1965, large amounts of charcoal have been produced in this area and shipped to the Mombasa market. The intensity of this activ- ity and its importance to the settlers suggests that the Opportunity to earn cash through charcoal burning may have been a significant inducement to settlement in this agriculturally sub-marginal area. There can be little doubt that charcoal burning has played a major role in the economic survival of many farmers. When all other sub- sistence activities fail charcoal provides one certain source Of cash for Kikumbulyu farmers. Organization of the Charcoal Trade. The charcoal trade in Lower Kikumbulyu is organized by licensed charcoal buyers who operate in this area. There were, in mid-1969, twenty-eight charcoal buying licenses in operation between Kibwezi and Mtito Andei. The number of charcoal buyers is probably several times this figure, however, as license sharing, with a number of people buying on the same license, is becoming common, especially among the newer buyers in the southern part of the area. Licenses may be shared by individual buyers who each trade independently or by groups who pool their capital and buy jointly, Operating as a company. The holders of fourteen of these charcoal-trading licenses were interviewed during a survey of charcoal buyers conducted in June, 1969 (see Appendix 10). Eight of the licenses were held by single buyers, two were shared by individual buyers, three were held by single companies of buyers, and one was shared by four companies and one individual. The companies recorded in the survey were made up of 163 o ,9. . I" ' g . . 0,. >' o. - -pf '! a. g! ""'.'.I. Cut wood is care- Figure 4.4 Charcoal-making in Lower Kikumbulyu. fully piled and then covered with dirt before firing. Once fired the pile Figure 4.5 Charcoal pile shortly after firing. smolders for several days. 164 from three to seven peOple but such companies were said by the buyers to range in size from two to ten persons. Altogether the fourteen licenses involved fifty-one people. Sixteen of these were individual buyers operating on a total of eleven licenses and the rest made up the seven companies which traded on four licenses. As the fourteen licenses represents exactly half of the total number of licenses in the area we may estimate that approximately one hundred people are actively engaged in charcoal buying in Lower Kikumbulyu. The charcoal buyers interviewed reported buying a total of 600 bags of charcoal a week. The largest buyers averaged 70 bags per week while some of the newer buyers handled as little as six or seven bags per week. The total amount of charcoal produced in the area can be estimated at 1,200 bags per week. At an average price paid to the burner of sh.3/50 per bag this represents a total cash income of sh.l6,8OO a month for the charcoal burners. The importance of this trade is apparent; on a yearly basis charcoal burners in Lower Kikumbulyu earn nearly sh.200,000 from their activity, making it by far the most important cash crop in the area. The burners are paid on the average 3 tO 4 shillings a bag by the charcoal buyers. The price varies seasonally, being highest in the rains when burning is most difficult and demand is greatest. The price paid to the burner also varies depending on whether the charcoal is delivered to the buyer's station (see Map 4.14) or has to be picked up by the buyer. A few buyers will pick up charcoal at the burning site but the price paid is from -/50 to l/- less than if delivered to the station. Another factor affecting price is whether the buyer pays 165 In”; '0' t a «mi- - Figure 4.6 Bags of charcoal stacked next to the Nairobi-Mombasa road. w W9¢ Ullmrsé’fwt-Jn' ”r ku-«ma ”w , Figure 4.7 A more elaborate charcoal station located at the junc- ture of the Nairobi-Mombasa Road and the road to Masongaleni. From these stations the charcoal is trucked to the Mombasa market by local charcoal buyers. 166 the burner immediately or not. Many buyers Operating with limited capital are unable to pay the burners until they have received payment from the Mombasa dealer they sell to. A few buyers, however, have sufficient capital to pay cash to the burners upon delivery and they are able to obtain their charcoal at sh.-/50 to l/- less than the price paid by other buyers. Thus the price a burner receives for his charcoal may vary from sh.2/- to sh.5/- depending on season and other factors. The charcoal buyers receive sh.6/- to 7/- a bag from the Mombasa dealers. The buyers must pay sh.ll- per bag for trucking to Mombasa so their net return averages sh.2/- per bag. Method of Charcoal Making. The procedure used by the Kamba for making charcoal is quite simple. Wood, from one large tree or (several small trees, is cut and piled on the ground nearby. The pile is carefully made with the pieces all parallel and close together. When finished the pile is usually about 8-10 feet long, 3 feet high, and 5 feet across at the widest point. The finished pile of wood resembles in shape an upturned canoe. Dry grass is then stuffed into the spaces between the pieces of wood and the pile is covered with dirt, the burner being careful to leave a few air holes so that the fire will receive enough air for partial combustion. The pile is then fired and left to smolder for several days. When the fire has completely died out the dirt is removed and the charcoal is spread out to cool and then bagged for shipment to a buyer. Impact on Vegetation. The impact of charcoal burning on the natural vegetation of Lower Kikumbulyu is a selective one. Charcoal burners select only those species of trees and shrubs which produce good charcoal, and avoid the rest. The Kamba burners appeared to have 167 considerable knowledge of the local trees and shrubs and were able to list an impressive number of species that were not good for charcoal manufacture. The most important charcoal-producing species identified by the burners are Acacia mellifera, Acacia brevispica, Newtonia hilde- brandtii, and Combretum zeyheri. Among the Species unsuitable for charcoal are BaObOb (Adansonia digitata), Fig (Ficus spp.), and Commi- phera (Commiphera spp.). This concentration of the charcoal burners on a few species may well have a profound effect on the natural land- scape. As Spencer has pointed out in reference to the impact Of charcoal burning in the arid areas of the world: . the selective impact upon the wild vegetation of a region may be very marked, since the selection process in time may well reduce or clean out selected species from the vegetation association.31 Considering the magnitude of the charcoal industry in Lower Kikum- bulyu it seems likely that a marked alteration of the natural vege- tation will rapidly take place. The precise consequences of such alteration are uncertain but that there will be change, not only in the native flora but in the fauna as well, would appear to be inevi- table. The Impact on Regional Ecology Ecolpgical Chapgg, Poaching, and Disturbance The immigration of large numbers of agricultural pioneers into Lower Kikumbulyu has undoubtedly already caused considerable changes in the natural vegetation and affected wildlife populations. This 31J. E Spencer, "On Charcoal Burning, and the Role of the Char- coal Burner," The Cultural Landscape, ed. C. L. Salter (Belmont, Calif.: Duxbury, 1971), p. 120. 168 increasing human activity has affected wildlife numbers and distribu- tion chiefly through the effects of ecological change and poaching. We might add another less tangible impact of human activity: dis- turbance. Although this disturbance factor is difficult to measure it probably plays a not insignificant role in the changing patterns of wildlife distribution near expanding human settlements.32 An increase in poaching, or illegal hunting, by the Kamba settlers could be expected. The Kamba traditionally were renowned hunters and the Kenya Game Department considers poaching in the Kamba areas of south- ern Machakos to be their most serious illegal hunting problem. Poach- ing is often most severe in newly settled districts and this has proven to be the case in southern Machakos where much new settlement has taken place in recent years.33 Ecological change is an inevitable consequence of agricultural settlement and could only be prevented by forbidding settlement. Bush clearing to permit planting of crOps is the first task each new set- tler undertakes. Although the Kamba do not practice shifting culti- vation they do, when land is available, clear new fields every few years and allow the old fields to regenerate under bush fallow. In 32One aspect of the disturbance factor may be the occupation by human settlement, even at low densities, of areas of special importance to wild animals at certain times of the year. This thesis has been put forward in regard to human settlement in the Miombo Forest zone of southern Tanzania by G. E. Matzke in "Settle- ment Reorganization for the Production of African Wildlife in Miombo Forest Lands: A Spatial Analysis" (Unpublished Master's thesis, Oklahoma State University, 1971). See especcially pp. 13-22, 55-61, and 79-80. 33Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Game Department Annual Report, 1961 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1962), p. 15; and Game Department File 19/2, Game Warden, Kiboko, Annual Report, 1968. 169 K Figure 4.8 An uncontrolled fire on the eastern slopes of the Chyulu Hills, probably caused by farmers burning off their fields prepara- tory to planting. The house visible in the right center of the picture is evidence of the continuing settlement on the foothills of the eastern Chyulus. 170 Lower Kikumbulyu where settlers have staked out large farms of about fifty acres this means that although a farmer may only cultivate sev- eral acres a season he will in a relatively short time have cleared and planted most of his land. Old fields in bush fallow will then be all second growth bush in different stages of secondary seccession. Farmers may also, inadvertently, produce ecological changes over wider areas. One of the traditional techniques of Kamba farmers is to burn their fields just prior to planting. These fires often get out of control and burn large areas of the surrounding bush. The effect of such burning over any length of time is to inhibit the growth of woody vegetation and to favor grass. In fact, controlled burning of grasslands to prevent encroachment Of bush has long been an important management tool in East Africa. The Chyulu Hills have been subjected to uncontrolled fires started by farmers for many years and it would appear that the extensive areas of grassland in the Hills are a product of this human activity rather than a naturally produced vegetation association. Charcoal making is another important instru- ment of ecological change. Large amounts of woody vegetation are consumed by charcoal makers and this activity has been particularly widespread in the newly settled areas of Lower Kikumbulyu. The com- bined impact of bush clearing, uncontrolled burning, and the removal of large amounts of selected species of trees and shrubs to produce charcoal can effect great changes in dominant vegetation types and alter the whole ecological balance of the area. The Impact of Settlement on Wildlife in Block 29 Block 29, the eastern half of Lower Kikumbulyu, provides a 171 good illustration of the impact of agricultural settlement and its associated human activities on wildlife. In mid-1969 the effects of human activity were just beginning to become noticeable in this part Of Lower Kikumbulyu. In the past this area has been one of Kenya's most productive hunting blocks, but it is now threatened with des- truction as a wildlife area by the influx of pioneer farmers. Block 29 covers about 450 square miles, most of which carries a dense cover of dry thornscrub vegetation. The dominant vegetation type of Acacia-Commiphera bush provides good habitat for a wide variety of game animals and is particularly suitable for elephant and rhinoceros. Elephant. The number Of elephant present in Block 29 varies as these animals are wide-ranging and appear to move in and out of the block at different times of the year. The elephant population of the block has always been large enough, however, to make it one of Kenya's most pOpular hunting blocks. The area, in fact, is part of the Tsavo ecological region which contains the largest population of elephant in Africa.34 Block 29 has long had the reputation of produc- ing large trOphy elephants. The Game Department records of the weight Of all large ivory taken on license in 1964 show that only ten ele- phants, carrying a total of 200 pounds of ivory, were taken in all of Kenya. Four of these were shot in Block 29. Four elephants with over 180 pounds of ivory were also recorded, and two of these were taken in 34For the distribution of elephants in the Tsavo area, including Block 29, see J. Glover, "The Elephant Problem at Tsavo," East African Wildlife Journal, Vol. I (August, 1963), pp. 30-39. 172 Block 29.35 The chance of shooting a really large elephant continued to draw hunters as recently as 1968 when 65 hunting parties registered to hunt in the block.36 Rhinoceros. Block 29 has also long been considered to be among the best rhino areas in Kenya. In the late 1950's, when there was serious concern over the suspected decline in rhino numbers throughout the territory, it was decided*to capture and translocate rhino in an attempt to restock depleted areas. One of the sites chosen for the capture effort was in Block 29, and a large number of animals were trapped and moved to other parts of Kenya.37 This inten- sive trapping operation appears to have resulted in no permanent reduction in the block's rhino pOpulation, for in a census conducted in 1968 Goddard estimated the rhino population of Block 29 at 300- 400.38 This pOpulation, unlike that of the elephant, is a permanent one. Studies of the home range and behavior of the black rhinoceros have shown that the species is very sedentary. Rhino occupy a small home range and tend to remain attached to that area for life. Indeed it appears that pOpulation dispersal into available niches in adjacent 35Republic of Kenya, Game Department Annual Report, 1964 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1967), p. 9. 36Republic of Kenya, Game Department, File 19/2, Game Warden Kiboko. Annual Report, 1968. 37Colony and Protectorate of Kenya, Game Department, Annual Rgport, 1958/59, p. 5; and Annual Report, 1960, p. 13 (Nairobi: The Government Printer, 1961). 38J. Goddard, "Aerial Census of Black Rhinoceros Using Stratified Random Sampling," East African Wildlife Journal, Vol. VII (August, 1969), p. 112. . I — fl * “‘— a 173 areas does not occur at all among adult rhinoceros.39 The absence of dispersal behavior among adults suggests that the rhino can be elimi- nated from a region rapidly by overhunting or habitat destruction and that recolonization of such areas by rhino would be, at best, an extremely slow process. Other Animals. Large numbers of other animals, including giraffe, buffalo, zebra, oryx, and lesser kudu share the range with the rhino and elephant. No accurate counts of these species has ever been made in Block 29, but as most of them range fairly widely it is likely that their numbers vary seasonally. From the number of rhino and elephant present and the numbers of other animals observed from the air during a survey of the block (see below) it may be assumed that the range can support at least moderately high densities of these other species. Hunting Block 29, then, has for many years been one Of Kenya's prime wildlife areas, producing excellent hunting on a sustained basis with no apparent depletion of its wildlife populations. At least this was the case until 1968 when increasing human activity in the area began to affect the wildlife and its habitat. It was in 1968 that pioneer farmers first began to move across the railroad and settle in the hunting block. Since 1968 immigrants have continued to pour into Block 29 and by the middle of 1969 they had moved, at one point, half way across the block (see Map 4.12). Game Census. In order to determine the density and distribu- tion of wildlife and to establish, if possible, the effectcnfincreased 39J. Goddard, "Home Range, Behavior, and Recruitment Rates of Two Black Rhinoceros POpulations," East African Wildlife Journal, Vol. V (August, 1967), pp. 135-36. 174 human activity in Block 29, as aerial game census was conducted in June, 1969. The southern portion of the block, between the Mtito Andei River and the Darajani track was chosen for the census, as this area had been subject to the heaviest settlement pressure (see Map 4.12). The main objective of the census was to locate and record rhinoceros and elephant distribution. Each rhino and elephant spotted was recorded on previously prepared maps of the census area. A tally of other animals seen was also kept, although these were not located on the maps. Flights were conducted during the first and last three hours of daylight, when sun angle and shadow length provide maximum visibility of rhinoceros from the air. The altitude and airspeed were also chosen to facilitate the spotting of rhino.40 The census was carried out on June 21 and 22, 1969, using a Cessna 180 aircraft with two observers and pilot. Parallel north-south traverses 1000 meters apart were flown at an altitude of 100-300 feet and an airspeed Of 90-100 miles per hour.41 The census recorded a pOpulation of 19 rhinoceros, 140 elephant, over 200 buffalo, 100 zebra, 39 giraffe, and 33 oryx. It should be 40For a description of the most effective procedures for censusing rhinoceros from the air, see J. Goddard, "The Validity of Census- ing Black Rhinoceros Populations from the Air," East African Wild- life Journal, Vol. V (August, 1967), pp. 18-23. 41Flights were conducted on the afternoon of June 21 and both the morning and afternoon of the 22nd. Weather was excellent for the two-day period. The sky was cloudless during the morning flight and there was less than 2/10 cloud cover during the two afternoon flights. There was some smoke haze over the census area at the time of all three flights but this caused only a slight reduction in visibility, which was good to excellent for the census period. The starting point for each northbound traverse was located by reference to the Mtito Andei River, which contains many meanders that serve as ideal landmarks from the air. At the end Of each 175 mOHOOOGHAm new usmnaoam mo codusnwuuman "Anuoomv mm xOOHm ma . a do: 99.9.3. Song 2.2.3.30. 3 3.2.2. II. a. "I - . m £036.93»; $00.59. 1.1 mon,: 039.203. II 2.! 9.3591! $0.? too. 50! II to... tattoo: I ooo-fia.‘ 2.3 32.3 .234 Essa... see a .2382. 2.0 G .0233 .023 E! o mo‘tQ cum»: . \\ o o ' ' . so G $ ‘ ‘ O \ \\ ‘ O \I. « C I ¢ III a. w \ .5323. a. \ “ h‘.\.&°q \ a. . l \ ’/ (a \ \\ II :3. a a < m a . .\\\\ /// \IIIIIIIIIIII \\\\\ A < Z O _ a. < Z \\\\ O> .mm\omma .muuommm Hmacc< quEuqumQ mEmO mhcmx ”mousom m II «N nu NH nu mm uu ON nu mm nu mNH uu mH uu NHH nu Ono un omH omH Nm No Nam mod Hmuoe mucmvfimmm omofi CH no mMOuHmH> mmoauomma QmDmmH mmmzmoHA UZHHZDm H xwpcmam< moxcoz «dam xoxcoz manoHou nowuumo mummuwu munmN h>muo no“; “one: phenom; monsooawcm acaaaoam cam ucmsamfim uma pufim pang mum>wum smanaa flash pmommH mmuamowq 201 202 .Ooau vac ¢M\wn¢d muhoqmm Hun—:5 ucwEuumauo 0:50 whcmx "mouaom oa NN NN ca Na NN an N 0N consume a n- q -- -- n- m -- m scene: «nan «N N oN aN n NN NN .. NN oaoauaaa m.uuu:== ON n ma NN o NN «N a oN sane sausage osN an nNN NoN cc NNE NNN on Nm acaau on AN NH an NN NN NH NN N owaom me n no NN a we as a Na nuaoN m.s>uuu an NNN NNa Nmo ANN can Nam Non NaN caucusm H nu a N N un nu nu un masuuoaomaNx «NH 0 NNN aNN NH NNN NNN N oNN auuaooa Nm NH Na co NH Na mm NH nN coaa ammuzncoz me n ma mN m oN a» N NN scan Nana: «NH NH Nod sea AN «a omN 0N «NH monouoaaam on Na mN NN NH GN mN a . GN acaaaon acN GNN as NNN ooN as aaN oaN am EON uaaaaon Ema --mmozmuNa aaNommm can -- -- Nam -- -- oNo.N .. .. swam oeN NNN mm mmN aNH 0N asN Nan N can; mua>apm Na NN ON Na an mm mm Nn on suanqN Nae mNa NoN man man nNN ANo oaa aNN NNam flouoh mucmpwmmm muouwmw> Hmuos mucopammz mucuamw> Hmuoa mucmpammm mucuwmw> oeaa amaN mmaa ausmaN numaouaa ooaauwnoa Gunman mumzuUHA quHZDm Avoscqucouv H xuvcoaa¢ 203 an «H aH HN mNN «m NOH New omH aw ooH mm «m moH mam mmH on men Nance HN NH Ho cm «H com om mm MH mm mmH Hm «mm mucmpHmmm nomH mm mH qu mm mm omq 05H Na mm mm mm mmH Hq mm mNN mNONHmH> 00 mm mH wwH mm NOH owm H mmH mm mm mm mm NwH on qu mo NNo Hence «ma HHH am new mucmpHmmm NomH AposcHucoov H prcoma< No mm NH an mH mm one H moH mm 50 mm mH qu on mN umH mucuHmH> an «m HH moH Hq «a man onH mm on HHH Hm mmH mow MNH mm «Nu Hence mwm mm HH am qu NH NHm wuampHmmm HomH momHuHomH QMDmmH mNUZMUHH UZHHZD: .mooHnHooH .wuuomom Hmscc< ucosuumaoo memo mxcox Nm Hm w HmH mm om can qu «a HR ooH NN qu mm mH new mNOuHmH> ”oousom :oHuumo moxco: osHm maonua< m.uouc:: apax umummuo pcmHm owcom munmN m.%>muu onHHDm masonomoaaH: pumaooH coHH Hmmmznaoz coHH Homes moumooaHnm “canaon aaN unusamHu umH unmeZNUHH HHum saunaH Nana pmammH mooamoHH HUNTING LICENCES ISSUED 1964-1965 Licences Issued Visitors Full 307 l4-day 34 Private Land 62 Bird -- SPECIAL LICENCES lst Elephant 163 2nd Elephant 20 Rhinoceros 47 Masai Lion 118 Non-Masai Lion 25 Leopard 224 Buffalo 450 Grevy Zebra 51 Bongo 15 Eland 204 Greater Kudu 21 Lesser Kudu 157 Antelope (H) -- Blue Monkey 3 Ostrich 44 Duiker Blue 6 Duiker Red 3 - Duiker Black 4 Gerenuk 176 Forest Hog (G) 33 Giraffe 5 Klipspringer 60 Monkey (P) -- Monkey (Pat) 1 Monkey (C) 3 Oryx (F.E.) 158 Beisa Oryx 97 Reedbuck (C) 26 Suni 4 Topi 47 1965 Residents 636 11 97 525 57 7 2 21 13 45 347 29 19 66 9 81 204 Appendix I (continued) Total 943 45 159 525 220 27 49 139 38 269 797 80 34 270 30 238 l 3 61 6 3 4 233 40 29 65 Visitors 227 47 39 124 17 49 9O 28 161 343 37 25 159 95 25 11 6 32 1964 Residents 591 20 104 672 42 4 8 22 18 27 346 18 18 54 21 28 1 14 Source: Kenya Game Department Annual Reports, 1964-1965. Total 818 67 143 672 166 21 57 112 46 188 689 55 43 213 38 98 124 Appendix II GAME ANIMALS WHICH MAY BE HUNTED AND KILLED ON LICENCE Bushbuck, Tragelaphus scrip- £22 (Pallas). Crocodile. Crocodilus nilo- ticus (Laurenti). Dikdik. Rhyncotragus kirkii (Gunther), and R; guentheri (Thomas). Both species combined. Duiker, Grey. Sylvicapra grimmia (Linn.). Gazelle, Grant's. Gazella granti (Brooke). All races combined. Gazelle, Thomson's. Gazella thomsonii (Gunther). Hartebeest, Coke's. Alcela- phus buselaphus cokii. Gunther. Impala. Aepyceros melamphus. Lichtenstein. Oribi, Cotton's Haggard's and Kenya. All species and races of genus Ourebia Laurillard combined. Reedbuck, Bohor. Redunca redunca (Pallas). Steinbok. Raphicerus cam- pestris (Thunberg). Warthog. Phaecochoerus aethio- picus (Pallas). Waterbuck, Common. Kobus allipsrprymnus (Ogilby). Number Number Number which may which may which may be hunted be hunted be hunted and killed and killed and killed under a under a under a full l4-day Bird licence licence licence 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 2 1 - 1 - _ 1 - - 2 - - 1 - - 206 Appendix II (continued) Waterbuck, Defassa. Kobus defassa (Ruppell). Wildebeest. Connochaetes taurinus (Burchell). A11 races combined. Zebra, Common or Burchell's. Eguus burchelli (Gray). All races combined. Geese and Ducks, including Teal. All members of the family Anatidae. Francolins, Partridges, Quails and Guinea Fowls. All members of the families Phasianidae and Turnicidae. Lesser Bustards. All mem- bers of the genera Egpodotis, Lpphotis and Lissotis, but excluding the Greater Bustards of the gen- era Ardeotis and Neotis. Snipe. All members of the genera Rostratula, Capella and Lmno- cryptes. Sandgrouse. All members of the family Pterocli- didae. Pigeons and Doves. All members of the family Columbidae. Source: Number Number Number which may which may which may be hunted be hunted be hunted and killed and killed and killed under a under a under a full l4-day Bird licence licence licence 1 - - 2 1 - 3 1 - unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited Republic of Kenya, Legal Notice No. 131/64, The Wild Animals Protection (Amendment of Schedules) Notice, 1964, Third Schedule, Part II. Appendix III SPECIAL LICENCE FEES Number of Special Licences which Fee per Animals which may be Hunted and may be Issued Special Killed under Special Licence to a Holder of Licence a Full Licence Sh Bongo, Boocercus eurycerus (Ogilby) l 250 Buffalo, Syncerus caffer (Sparrman) 3 50 Duiker, Blue Cephalophus monticola Thunberg. A11 races combined. 1 20 Duiker, Red or Harvey's Cephalophus natalensis A. Smith. All races combined. 1 20 Duiker, Foster's or Hook's Black Fronted Cephalophus nigrifrons Gray. All races combined. 1 20 Eland, Taurotragus Oryx (Pallas) l 100 Elephant, Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach) 2 1,500 lst Licence 2,500 2nd Licence Gerenuk, Litocranius walleri (Brooke) 1 50 Giant Forest Hog,_hybchoerus meinert- zhageni Thomas 1 30 Giraffe, Common and Reticulated, Giraffa Camelppardalis (Linn.) and g. reticulata De Winton. All races of both species combined. 1 750 Hirola or Hunter's Antelope. Damaliscus hunteri (P.L. Sclater) 1 150 Klipspringer, Oreotragus oreotragus (Zimmerman) l 30 Kudu Greater, Tragelaphus strepsiceros (Pallas) 1 200 Kudu Lesser, Tragelaphus imberbis (Blyth) 1 100 Leopard, Panthera pardus (Linn.) l 500 Lion Masai, Panthera leo massaica (Neumann) (i.e. all licences for Narok, Kajiado, Taita, and Machakos and Samburu Districts) 1 400 Lion. Other races of Panthera leo (i.e. licences for any other District) 1 200 Monkey, Blue or Sykes, Cercopithicus mitis (Wolf). All races combined. 1 20 207 Appendix III (continued) SPECIAL LICENCE FEES Number of Special Licences which may be Issued to a Holder of a Full Licence Animals which may be Hunted and Killed under Special Licence Monkey, Putty Nosed, Cercopithicus nictitans (Linn.). All races combined. Monkey, Red or Patas, Erythrocerus patas (Schreber). All races combined. Monkey, Black and White Colobus. All races of Colobus ahyssinicus (Oken) and Q. Angolensis P.L. Sclater, combined. Oryx, Fringe Eared, Oryx beisa callotis Thomas. Oryx, Beisa, Oryx Beisa beisa (Ruppell) and Q. Beisa annectens Hollister. Both races combined. Ostrich. Struthia camelus Linn. All races combined. Reedbuck, Chanler's Mountain, Redunca Fulvorufula chanleri (W. Rothschild) Rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis Linn. Suni, Nesotragus moschatus von Deuben. All races combined. Topi, Damaliscus korrigum (Ogilby). All races combined. Zebra, Grevy's, Equus grevyi Oustalet Fee per Special Licence Sh. 3O 30 40 8O 80 100 30 2,000 20 40 150 Source: Republic of Kenya, Legal Notice 94, The Wild Animals Protection Act (Amendment of Schedules) Order 1967. Appendix IV CONTROLLED AREA FEES First Column Bongo. Boocercus eurycerus (Ogilby) Male Bongo. Boocercus eurygerus (Ogilby) Female Buffalo. Syncerus caffer (Sparrman) Bushbuck. Tragelaphus scriptus (Pallas) Crocodile. Crocodilus niloticus (Laurenti) Dikdik. Rhynoctragus kirkii (Gunther), or 3. Guentheri Thomas Duiker, Grey. Sylvicapra grimmia (Linn.) Duiker, Blue. Cephalophus monticola Rhunberg Duiker, Red or Harvey's. Cephalophus natalensis A. Smith Duiker, Foster's or Hook's Black Fronted. Cephalophus nigifrons Gray Eland. Taurotragps oryx (Pallas) Elephant. Loxodonta africana (Blumenbach)-- (a) when the total weight of both tusks is less than 140 1b. (b) when the total weight of both tusks is 140 lb. or more, but less than 200 lb. (c) when the total weight of both tusks is 200 lb. or more Gazelle, Grant's. Gazella granti (Brooke) Gazelle, Thomson's. Gazella Thomsonii Gunther Gerenuk. Litocranius walleri (Brooke) Giant Forest Hog. hylochoerus meinertzhageni Thomas Giraffe, Common or Reticulated. Giraffa camelopardalis (Linn.) or g. reticulata De Winton Hartebeest, Coke's. Alcelaphus buselaphus Cokii Gunter Hirola or Hunter's Antelope. Damaliscus hunteri (P.L. Sclater) Impala. Aeypceros melampus Lichtenstein Klipspringer. Oreotragus oreotragus (Zimmerman) Kudu Greater. Tragelaphus strepsiceros (Pallas) Kudu Lesser. Tragelaphus imberbis (Blyth) Leopard. Panthera pardus (Linn.) Lion, Masai. Panthera 1eo massaica (Neumann) (i.e. hunted, killed or captured in Narok, Samburu, Kajiado, Taita, or Machakos Districts) Lion, other races, or Panthera 1eo (i.e. hunted, killed or captured in other districts) Monkey, Blue or Sykes. Ceropithicus mitis (Wolf) Monkey, Putty Nosed. Ceropithicus nictitans (Linn.) Monkey, Red or Patas. Erythrocerus patas (Schreber) 209 Second Column Sh. 500 2,000 100 30 so 10 20 40 40 40 200 200 500 1 , 000 20 20 100 60 1,500 50 300 20 60 400 200 1 ,000 800 400 40 60 60 210 Appendix IV (continued) CONTROLLED AREA FEES Second First Column Column Sh. Monkey, Black and White Colobus. Colobus abyssinicus (Oken) or Q. Angolensis P. L. Sclater 80 Oribi, Cotton's, Haggard's or Kenya. All species and races of genus Ourebia Laurillard 20 Oryx, Fringe Eared. Oryx beisa callotis Thomas 160 Oryx, Beisa. Oryx Beisa beisa (Ruppell) or Q. beisa annectens Hollister 160 Ostrich. Struthia camelus Linn. 200 Reedbuck, Chanler's Mountain. Redunca fulvorufula chanleri (W. Rothschild) 60 Reedbuck, Bohor. Redunca (Pallas) 30 Rhinoceros. Diceros biocornis Linn. 2,000 Steinbok. Raphicerus campestris (Thunberg) 20 Suni. Nesotragus moschatus von Deuben 4O Topi. Damaliscus Korrrgum (Ogilby) 80 Warthog. Phacochoerus aethiopicus (Pallas) 20 Waterbuck, Common. Kobus ellipsiprymnus (Ogilby) 50 Waterbuck, Defassa. Kobus defassa (Ruppell) 50 Wildebeest. Connochaetes taurinus (Burchell) 40 Zebra, Common or Burchell's. Equus burchelli (Gray) 50 Zebra, Grevy's. Equus grevyi Oustalet 300 Source: Republic of Kenya, Legal Notice 93, The Wild Animals Protection Act (Controlled Areas) (Changes in Fees) Order 1967. Appendix V CONTROLLED AREA FEES African Wild Cat. All races of Felis lybica Forester Baboons. All species and races of the genus Papio Brisson Bushpig. Potomochoerus_pprcus (Linn.) Bushbabies and Galago. All species and races of the genus Galago Geoffrey Chameleons. All species of the genera Microsaura, Chaemeleo and Rhampholeon Civet Cats. All Species of the genera Civettictus Pocock and Nandina Grey Genet Cats. All species of the genus Genetta Oken Hedgehogs. All species of the genus Atelevix Pomel Honey Badgers or Ratels. All species of the genus Mellivora Storr Hyaenas. All Species of the genera Crocuta Kaup and Hyaena Mayer Jackals. Canis aureus (Heller), g. adustus (Heller) and g. mesomelas (Heller) Mongooses. All species of the genera Herpestes Illinger, Myonax Thomas, Helogale Gray, Atilax Cuvier, Mungos Geoffroy, Ichneumia (Geoffroy), Bdeogale (Peters), and Rhyncogale Thomas Monkey, Vervet. A11 races of Cercppithecus aethions Linn. Polecats, Zorillas and Striped Weasels. All Species of the genera Ictonyg Kaup and Poecilogale Thomas 211 Sh. 10 Nil 10 Nil 10 10 10 Nil 10 10 10 212 Appendix V (continued) Sh. Porcupines. All Species of the genus Hystrix Linn. 5 Spring Haas. All species of the genus Pedetes Illinger. 5 Squirrels. All species of the families Scuiridae Gray and Anomaluridae Gill 5 Tortoises. All Species of the family Testudinidae 5 Geese and Ducks, including Teal. All members of the family Anatidae 5 Francolins, Partridges, Quails and Guinea Fowls. All members of the families Phasianidae and Turnicidae 5 Lesser Bustards. All members of the genera Eupodotis, Lophotis and Lissotis, but excluding the Greater Bustards of the genera Ardeotis and Neotis 5 Snipe. All members of the genera Rostratula, Capella and hymnocryptes 5 Sandgrouse. All members of the family Pteroclididae 5 Pigeons and Doves. All members of the family Columbidae 5 Source: Republic of Kenya, The Wild Animals Protection (Controlled Areas) Notice, 1964, Fourth Schedule. Appendix VI ANIMALS PROTECTED THROUGHOUT KENYA All game animals when obviously immature, i.e. not full grown. All game animal mothers when-- (a) pregnant; (b) in a condition that indicates they are suckling young, whether or not the young are apparent; or (c) accompanied by their immature offspring, whether or not the offspring are dependant. Females of the following species: (a) Lion. Panthera leo (Linn.). All races. (b) Giraffe, Common (Giraffa camelopardalis Linn.) and Reticulated (g. reticulata de Winton). All individuals of the following species, subspecies,or groups: Aard-wolf. Proteles cristatus (Sparrman). Aard-wark. Oryctoropus afer (Pallas). Bat-eared Fox. Otocyon megalotis (Desmarest). Birds. All birds other than game birds (Third and Fourth Schedules), queleas (members of the genus guelea), and mouse birds (members of the genus colius). Caracal. Felis caracal (Schreber). Cheetah. Acinoqyx_jgbatus (Schreber). Dugong. Dugong dugong (MUller). Duiker, Yellow Backed. Cephalophus silvicultor (Afzelius). Elephant. Loxodonta africana (Blumanbach). All elephants which do not carry tusks weighing more than twenty-five pounds in aggregate. Golden Cat. Felis aurata (Temminck). Hartebeest, Jackson's, Lelwel, Kenya, Nakuru and Neumann's. All races and hybrid races of Alcelaphus buselaphus (Pallas) other than the race known as Coke's Hartebeest. .é- buselaphus cokii Gunther. Hippopotamus. Hippopotamus amphibius Linn. Hyrax, Rock and Tree. All members of the genera Dendrohyrax Gray, Heterohyrax Gray, and Procavia storr. Kob, Thomas's or Uganda. Adonota kob thomasi (P. L. Sclater). Monkey, Mangabey. Cercocebus_galeritus Peters. All races. Monkey, Red Colobus. Colobus badius Peters. All races. Monkey, de Brazza's. Cercopithecus neglectus Schlegel. All races. Marine Turtle, Green. Chelone mydas (Linn.). Otters, River and Clawless. All members of the genera Lutra Brisson and Aonyx Lesson. Appendix VI (continued) ANIMALS PROTECTED THROUGHOUT KENYA Pangolin, Tree and Ground Pangolins or Scaly Ant-eaters. All members of the family Manidae. Potto. Perodicticus potto (MUller). All races. Roan Antelope. Hippotragus gguinus (Desmarest). All races. Sable Antelope. Hippotragus niger (Harris). Serval Cat. All races of Felis brachyura Wagner, and Felis serval Schreber. Sitatunga. Tragplaphus spekii (P. J. Sclater). All races. Wild Dog. Lycaon pictus (Temminck). Source: Republic of Kenya, Legal Notice No. 131/64, The Wild Animals Protection (Amendment of Schedules) Notice, 1964. Appendix VII NUMBERS OF ANIMALS SHOT IN VARIOUS CONTROLLED AREA BLOCKS, Controlled Area Block Nos... 1 2 3 Bush Buck -- -- -- Crocodile -- -- -- Dikdik -- -- 5 Duiker Grey -- -- -- Gazelle Grant 4 7 -- Gazelle Thomson's -- -- -- Hartebeest Cokes -- -- -- Impala 1 -- 3 Oribi -- -- -- Reedbuck -- -- -- Steinbuck -- -- -- Warthog -- -- __ Waterbuck Common -- -- -- Waterbuck Defassa -- -- -- Wildebeest -- -- _- Zebra Common 4 -- 13 Bongo -- -- -- Buffalo 5 -- -- Duiker Blue -— -- -- Duiker Black —- -- -- Eland -- -- -- Elephant 2 -- -- Gerenuk 8 -- 3 Forest Hog -- -- -_ Giraffe -- -- -- Hartebeest Hybrid -- -- -- Klipspringer -- -- 1 Kudu Lesser -- -- -_ Kudu Greater -- -- -- Leopard -- -- 1 Lion Masai -- -- -- Lion Other -- -- -- Monkey Blue -- -- -- Monkey P/Nosed -- -- -- Monkey Patas -- -- -- Monkey Colobus -- -- -- Oryx Fringed Eared -- -- -- Oryx Beisa 9 -- 2 Ostrich —- -- -- Reedbuck Chanlers -- -- 2 Rhinoceros -— -- -- Suni -- -- -- Topi —- -- -- Zebra Grevys 12 -- 7 Source: Kenya Game Department Annual 215 Report, 1965 10 11 1965 12 216 Appendix VII (continued) NUMBERS OF ANIMALS SHOT IN VARIOUS CONTROLLED AREA BLOCKS, Controlled Area Block Nos... Bush Buck Crocodile Dikdik Duiker Grey Gazelle (G) Gazelle (T) Hartebeest (C) Impala Oribi Reedbuck Steinbuck Warthog Waterbuck (C) Waterbuck (D) Wildebeest Zebra (C) Bongo Buffalo Duiker Blue Duiker Red Duiker Black Eland Elephant Gerenuk Forest Hog Giraffe Hartebeest (H) Klipspringer Kudu (L) Kudu (G) Leopard Lion (M) Lion (0) Monkey (B) Monkey (P) Monkey (Pat) Monkey (C) Oryx (F.E.) Oryx (B) Ostrich Reedbuck (C) Rhinoceros Suni Topi Zebra (G) 13 14 15 16 17 18 4 19 20 21 22 23 (DJ-\w U‘llt-‘VL\ 1965 N $5 u—‘ l HWN'P—‘HIQLA| \Dwtoli') 217 Appendix VII (continued) NUMBERS OF ANIMALS SHOT IN VARIOUS CONTROLLED AREA BLOCKS, 1965 Controlled Area Block Nos... Bush Buck Crocodile Dikdik Duiker Grey Gazelle (G) Gazelle (T) Hartebeest (C) Impala Oribi Reedbuck Steinbuck Warthog Waterbuck (C) Waterbuck (D) Wildebeest Zebra (C) Bongo Buffalo Duiker Blue Duiker Red Duiker Black Eland Elephant Gerenuk Forest Hog Giraffe Hartebeest (H) Klipspringer Kudu (L) Kudu (G) Leopard Lion (M) Lion (0) Monkey (B) Monkey (P) Monkey (Pat) Monkey (C) Oryx (F.E.) Oryx (B) Ostrich Reedbuck (C) Rhinoceros Suni Topi Zebra (G) 25 27 28 3O 2 32 33 34 35 36 Appendix VII (continued) NUMBERS OF ANIMALS SHOT IN VARIOUS CONTROLLED AREA BLOCKS, Controlled Area Block Nos... Bush Buck Crocodile Dikdik Duiker Grey Gazelle (G) Gazelle (T) Hartebeest (C) Impala Oribi Reedbuck Steinbuck Warthog Waterbuck (C) Waterbuck (D) Wildebeest Zebra (C) Bongo Buffalo Duiker Blue Duiker Red Duiker Black Eland Elephant Gerenuk Forest Hog Giraffe Hartebeest (H) Klipspringer Kudu (L) Kudu (G) Leopard Lion (M) Lion (0) Monkey (B) Monkey (P) Monkey (Pat) Monkey (C) Oryx (F.E.) Oryx (B) Ostrich Reedbuck (C) Rhinoceros Suni Topi Zebra (G) 37 38 39 4O 41 -- 2 -- 4 -- 5 -- 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- 8 -- 2 -- 1 42 43 2 8 1 l 2 44 45 46 47 1965 48 219 Appendix VII (continued) NUMBERS OF ANIMALS SHOT IN VARIOUS CONTROLLED AREA BLOCKS, 1965 Controlled Area Block Nos... Bush Buck Crocodile Dikdik Duiker Grey Gazelle (G) Gazelle (T) Hartebeest (C) Impala Oribi Reedbuck Steinbuck Warthog Waterbuck (C) Waterbuck (D) Wildebeest Zebra (C) Bongo Buffalo Duiker Blue Duiker Red Duiker Black Eland Elephant Gerenuk Forest Hog Giraffe Hartebeest (H) Klipspringer Kudu (L) Kudu (G) Leopard Lion (M) Lion (0) Monkey (B) Monkey (P) Monkey (Pat) Monkey (C) Oryx (F.E.) Oryx (B) Ostrich Reedbuck (C) Rhinoceros Suni Topi Zebra (C) 49 50 51 52 53 55 54 56 57 2 15 12 36 8 39 l 6 2 15 33 13 58 59 4 8 49 77 83 41 l 3 13 1 17 100 60 220 Appendix VII (continued) NUMBERS OF ANIMALS SHOT IN VARIOUS CONTROLLED AREA BLOCKS, 1965 Controlled Area Block Nos... Bush Buck Crocodile Dikdik Duiker Grey Gazelle (G) Gazelle (T) Hartebeest (C) Impala Oribi Reedbuck Steinbuck Warthog Waterbuck (C) Waterbuck (D) Wildebeest Zebra (C) Bongo Buffalo Duiker Blue Duiker Red Duiker Black Eland Elephant Gerenuk Forest Hog Giraffe Hartebeest (H) Klipspringer Kudu (L) Kudu (G) Leopard Lion (M) Lion (0) Monkey (B) Monkey (P) Monkey (Pat) Monkey (C) Oryx (F.E.) Oryx (B) Ostrich Reedbuck (C) Rhinoceros Suni Topi Zebra (G) 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Appendix VII (continued) 221 NUMBERS OF ANIMALS SHOT IN VARIOUS CONTROLLED AREA BLOCKS, Controlled Area Block Nos... Bush Buck Crocodile Dikdik Duiker Grey Gazelle (G) Gazelle (T) Hartebeest (C) Impala Oribi Reedbuck Steinbuck Warthog Waterbuck (C) Waterbuck (D) Wildebeest Zebra (C) Bongo Buffalo Duiker Blue Duiker Red Duiker Black Eland Elephant Gerenuk Forest Hog Giraffe Hartebeest (H) Klipspringer Kudu (L) Kudu (G) Leopard Lion (M) Lion (0) Monkey (B) Monkey (P) Monkey (Pat) Monkey (C) Oryx (F.E.) Oryx (B) Ostrich Reedbuck (C) Rhinoceros Suni Topi Zebra (G) 73 74 75 76 79 8O 81 82 83 1965 84 maa.NmH mmm.enH aoo.me Ham.mN qmme osm.oH ooN.o NNN.N SNN.N Humamv swam HacoNuaz o>ume NNS.NNN SSH.moN HNN.NNH mmN.am spam Haaoauaz Naouauz moaH mean NaaH mass Naaa «can ooaH «can Nsaa sass Naaa sNaa coma sass stanzas nemHnocmH mam .H mo mmmH‘SZ HHH> xwacuaaa 222 223 .om .m .momH .HnouHmz .umucHum acmEcNm>oo one .womH .Nwwuom oHanoom .mhamx Ho oHHosamm .momHuoomH .HoouHmz .oooHnmomH pow momumsue use NM monommm .mxumm HmcoHuoz oxaox "moousom aqq.maN «mmammuu «Na.NN mmw.m «Na.om aaN.mN Hmm.oHH NoaH mass soaN sass amo.mNN Hso.NNH HHN.NNH qaeoe mmmammuu mmmammuu. «MHammuu. swam HacoNumz mamas upon amm.HH mNH.a omo.a spam HmcoHuaz News mmN.m aoa.m omo.N manna Hacofluaz :Hauasoz nunn nunn ow m>hmmmm HocoHumz anomumz omo.NN Nam.mN New.aa Hummzv spam Ha=0Nuaz o>mma qu.mN osm.cH amN.NH Humane spam HmaoNuaz o>ama on.HHH maa.soH oNN.NNH xumm HmcoNuaz NaouHaz acaH mass moaH mass soaN mass mesa sass Sosa sNaa maaH sass mcmancmH mxm mo mmmZDZ AvoocHucoov HHH> prcoag< Appendix IX LOWER KIKUMBULYU SETTLER SURVEY Map Reference Name Location Total Area Cultivated Crops Area Yields Amt. Sold Where Sold Income Cattle Sheep Goats Chickens Lives tock Sold Income Charcoal Sold Buyer Where Sold Income Other Economic Activity Total Cash Income Last Year Structures in Homestead Household Members Age of Household Head 224 225 Appendix IX (continued) Date of Settlement Previous Residence Residence of Father Residence of Brothers Reason for Migrating Did relatives or neighbors also migrate? Were present neighbors there at time of settlement? Did any come after? Land Elsewhere Intend to Remain? If move Where to? Other Observations QQVOU§UNH O 0.. O 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. Buyers Operating On Licence (a) (b) (e) (d) («3) Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual Company of 4 3 Individuals 4 Individuals Company of 7 Company of 5 Company of 7 Company of 5 Company of 5 Company of 3 Individual Appendix X Date Began Buying Charcoal Bought 1969 1967 Jan. 1968 Nov. 1964 June 1969 Feb. 1965 Sept. 1968 Oct. 1968 July 1968 Feb. Jan. Jan. 1966 July 1968 March 1968 April 1969 March 1969 April 1969 April 1969 June 1969 June 1969 226 SURVEY OF CHARCOAL BUYERS Bags Location of Station per week 45 Thange 70 Between Thange & 70 Thange 25 Thange 20 Chyulu Track 50 Between Thange & 60 Chyulu Track 30 Between Thange & 20 Masongaleni Road Main Road 50 Masongaleni Road Main Road 50 Ngwata Road 40 Masongaleni Road Main Road 35 Masongaleni Road Main Road 8 Kambu 6 Kambu 8 Kambu 7 Kambu _.§_ Kamba 600 Dwa Dwa Dwa at at at Appendix XI ORIGIN OF KIKUMBULYU SETTLERS Number Place of Place of Interview of persons Origin at homestead Kambu Thange 103 Mukaa 15 20 68 68 Kikumbulyu 10 12 46 53 Mbitini 7 27 19 31 Kalama 3 22 6 25 Kilungu 8 8 9 19 Nzawi 2 9 8 9 Iveti 8 -- l 7 Mbooni l -- 6 6 Kangundo 1 4 l 4 Okia -- -- 4 3 Makueni -- 1 2 3 Maputi l 1 l 2 Wamunyu 1 l -- 2 Kiambu (Central Province) 1 -- l 2 Kisumu (Nyanza Province) -- -- 2 1 Mitabooni 1 -- -- l Kitui -- 1 ~- 1 Loitokitok -- l -- 227 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES ll!IlmlllmlIIIHIIWIIIIIIIIIIIllllHllmlltllIrlmlwl 31293102723560