conservation and use of witu forest, kenya

Conservation and Use of Witu Forest, KenyaBiodiversity and Disturbance Survey and Management Recommendations

Martin R. Nielsen & Claudia Sick

Funded by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund,Verdensnaturfondet / Aase og Ejnar Danielsens FondThe Danish Zoological Society

ISBN 978-87-7056-027-6


Written by Martin R. Nielsen and Claudia SickPhotos by Martin R. Nielsen and Chris Knowles

Cover photo: Dark Backed Weaver in Witu Forest© Dansk Zoologisk Selskab / Danish Zoological Society

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational and non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made.

The report can be downloaded from www.zoologiskselskab.dk orby contacting the corresponding author.

The report and findings were made possible through funding from: Critical Ecosystem Parnership Fund,

WWF Verdensnaturfonden / Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and the Danish Zoological Society

Published in Copenhagen 2008 by Forlaget BIOS forThe Danish Zoological Society

Conservation and Use of Witu Forest, Kenya Biodiversity and Disturbance Survey and Management Recommendations

Research and team leader: Martin R. Nielsen, Danish Zoological Society

Research assistant: Claudia Sick, University of Copenhagen

Reptile and amphibian specialist field assistant:

Chris Knowles, Cambridge University

Bird specialist field assistant: Onesmus Mukua Kioko, Kenya Museum

Bird specialist field assistant: Jonathan Mwachongo, Arabuko Sokoko forest guide

Project co-ordinator: Ditte Dahl Lisbjerg, Danish Zoological Society

Corresponding author Martin R. NielsenHusumgade 29. 2.tv. 2200Copenhagen DenmarkPhone: +4522280847Email: [email protected]


Report prepared by:

Martin R. Nielsen & Claudia Sick

January 2008

The Danish Zoological Society was formed in December 2004 by a group of experienced biologists from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. The mission of the Danish Zoological Society as a nonprofit organization is to support and conduct projects and research that contributes to conserving wild animals and their habitats and increases the knowledge of threatened species ecology, distribution and status. DZS mainly focuses on areas of international biodiversity importance in developing countries with the conviction that intact ecosystems is a perquisite for economic development and poverty alleviation, in turn requiring that these aspects must remain sustainable in the ecological sense. DZS therefore works through including local communities in managing natural resources and by promoting knowledge on the value of ecosystem services provided by natural habitats and biodiversity.

DZS has a strong focus on the Eastern Arc Mountains and Costal forests of Tanzania and Kenya as the founding members has long experience in this biodiversity hotspot in terms of biodiversity and wildlife density surveys, forest use impact assessments, bushmeat and livelihood surveys and participatory forest management and monitoring. DZS members have conducted research and worked for NGO’s, private companies, consultancies and donors including Danish International Development Assistance (Danida) and UNDP in cooperation with community, local, regional and government authorities.

About the Danish Zoological Society

Danish Zoological Society Nielsen & Sick, 2008

List of Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Study Area .................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3. Methods ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12

3.1. Relative Animal Densities and Human Disturbance Surveys ............................................................................... 12 3.2. Biodiversity Surveys............................................................................................................................................. 13

3.2.1. Camera Traps ................................................................................................................................................ 13 3.2.2. Bucket Pitfalls ............................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.3. Mist Netting .................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.2.4. Butterfly Nets ................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.2.5. Casual Observations and Spoors ................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.6. Vegetation and Habitat Quality Survey......................................................................................................... 14

3.3. Stakeholder Surveys.............................................................................................................................................. 14 4. Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17

4.1. Level of Human Disturbance ................................................................................................................................ 17 4.2. Relative Animal Densities .................................................................................................................................... 18 4.3. Species Lists ......................................................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.1. Mammals....................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.3.2. Birds .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 4.3.3. Reptiles.......................................................................................................................................................... 29 4.3.4. Amphibians ................................................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.5. Arthropods .................................................................................................................................................... 32

4.4. Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 42 4.4.1. Prior Management Arrangements ................................................................................................................. 43 4.4.2. Witu Forest Farmers Association .................................................................................................................. 43 4.4.3. Sam Sam Buffer Zone Community Group.................................................................................................... 44 4.4.4. Witu Conservation Self Help Group ............................................................................................................. 45 4.4.5. Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy.................................................................................................. 46 4.4.6. District Forest Office..................................................................................................................................... 47 4.4.7. Kenya Wildlife Service ................................................................................................................................. 47 4.4.8. Kenyan Women Finance Trust...................................................................................................................... 48 4.4.9 Umbrella Organization................................................................................................................................... 48

5. Discussion..................................................................................................................................................................... 49 5.1. Extent of Human Disturbance............................................................................................................................... 49 5.2. Relative Animal Densities .................................................................................................................................... 49 5.3. Value of Witu Forest for Conservation of Biodiversity ........................................................................................ 50 5.4. Stakeholder Involvement ...................................................................................................................................... 52

5.4.1. Provisions in the New Forest Act and Policy................................................................................................ 52 5.4.2. Community Forest Associations ................................................................................................................... 53 5.4.3. User rights ..................................................................................................................................................... 54 5.4.4. Extractive Use and Taxation ......................................................................................................................... 54 5.4.5. Income and Benefit Generation..................................................................................................................... 55 5.4.5. Non-extractive use ........................................................................................................................................ 58

5.4.6. Compensation and Direct Payments .................................................................................................................. 59 5.6. Monitoring of Biodiversity and Natural Resources .............................................................................................. 60 5.7. Building Capacity for Local Management ............................................................................................................ 62 5.8. Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 63

6. Recommendations......................................................................................................................................................... 65 7. Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................................... 69 8. References .................................................................................................................................................................... 70 9. Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................................... 74 10. Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 78

5

Witu forest survey Nielsen & Sick, 2008

Executive summary Considering the deteriorating state of forests in Kenya, new opportunities for local communities involvement in forest management through the new Forest Policy and Forest Act and the fact that very limited biological surveys have been conducted in Witu forest in Lamu district, the aim of this study is to: conduct a survey of mammals and birds in Witu forest and determine the presence of endangered species, evaluate the intensity and effect of natural resource extraction and the opportunities in the new Forest Act for communities to participate in forest management. The study will in addition provide a baseline for monitoring trends in natural resources and evaluating the effect of the implementation of the new Forest Act. Finally, recommendations for procedures for community based monitoring of biodiversity and forest quality will be presented. Witu forest is a component of the globally important Costal Forests of Eastern Africa Biodiversity Hotspot characterized by a particularly high number of endemic species per unit area. Previous studies suggest a potential for new species discoveries and reports unmanaged and potentially unsustainable use of plant products - particularly extraction of timber. Transect lines of a combined length of 5 km were established and relative densities of duikers were estimated. Observations of traps, trails, cut trees and poles, evidence of collection of non-timber forest products, the occurrence of camps and use of fire per km transect were used as measures of human disturbance. Biodiversity surveys were conducted using six camera traps (2655 trap hours), identification of mammals and birds through audio and visual observations and mist netting (30 hours with 94.5 m2 net). Reptiles and amphibians were recorded through random observations and bucket pitfall trapping (3375 hours). Species lists were compiled and presented with information on species status and indicator potential. A stakeholder identification exercise was conducted. Meetings and semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of the identified government institutions, NGO’s, conservancies, associations and local communities. Information on attitudes, objectives, activities and priorities in relation to the forest were collected. A very high intensity of organized illegal logging was observed in both forest interior and along the north and northeastern part of the forest. As a result certain areas of the forest have been completely cleared of larger trees and overall canopy cover is low. Continued logging furthermore threatens to compromise ecosystem services from the forests, in terms of water catchment and harboring of biodiversity, by affecting the structure, composition and function of the forest. Twenty mammal species, including four primates, and eighty-five species of birds were recorded in Witu forest. Recorded mammals include the non-forest dependent IUCN vulnerable listed (VU) Lion (Panthera leo) and African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) and the conservation dependent (CD) African Buffalo (Syncerus caffer). IUCN listed forest dependent species include the conservation depended (CD) Harveys Duiker (Cephalophus harveyi) and Suni (Neotragus moschatus) and the near threatened (NT) Lesser Elephant Shrew (Elephantulas rufescens) and possibly the Somali Galago (Galago gallarum). Duiker densities appeared to be relatively low compared to other locations in East Africa, presumably as a result of differences in habitat type and quality. Bird biodiversity surveys were conducted by two bird specialists provided by Museum of Kenya and Nature Kenya. Bird observations include the near threatened (NT) Southern Banded Snake-

6


eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus) and Fishers Turaco (Tauraco fischeri). In addition the regionally threatened Saddle-billed Stork (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), African Crowned Eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus), Little Yellow Flycatcher (Erythrocercus holochlorus) and Scaly Babbler (Turdoides squamulata) were recorded. Of the observed species the Little Yellow Flycatcher, Mombassa Woodpecker (Campethera mombassica), Chestnut-fronted Helmet-shrike (Prionops scopifrons) and Fishers Turaco are endemic to the Costal Forest Biodiversity Hotspot. Observations also include the Red-tailed Ant-Trush (Neocossyphus rufus) whose eastern subspecies is endemic to the Costal Forest. The Scaly Babbler is otherwise range restricted within Kenya. Observations also include the Cinnamon-chested Bee-eater (Merops oreobates), the Forest Batis (Batis mixta) and the Green-backed Twinspot (Mandingoa nitidula) representing an extension of the known range for these species. It could, however, not be determined weather observations were only stray individuals. The forest also appears to be important for migratory birds. A number of Intra-African migrating birds including the Yellowbill (Ceuthmochares aereus), Broad-billed Roller (Eurystomus glaucurus) and Red Capped Robin-chat (Cossypha natalensis) were recorded in Witu forest at an earlier time than expected in accordance with the described migration patterns. Finally the forest is of utmost importance in containing nine threatened plant species including the critically endangered Euphorbia tanaensis that has only been found in Witu forest, represented by around 20 mature individuals. Based on the recorded species the forest appears to be an important site for conservation of mammal and bird diversity within the Costal Forest of East Africa Biodiversity Hotspot and of particular importance for the conservation of plant diversity. The forest furthermore provides shade, shelter, forage and water for non-forest dependent IUCN red-listed species such as Lion, Elephant and Buffalo. This function may be essential particularly during the dry season and the forest is hence important for maintaining the wider areas large animal assemblage. It is therefore essential that logging is brought to a complete halt and that regeneration of the forest is facilitated. Three local based organizations, WCSHG, WFFA and SSBZCG, with varying incentives and dependence on the forest were identified. All expressed a keen interest in participating in forest management and obtaining benefits from the forest. All had specific plans to or was already engaged in forest related enterprises including seedling nursery, woodlot and beehive management. All three organizations were to some extend conducting patrols or engaged in other activities to protect the forest – currently without permission. During a meeting the three groups agreed to cooperate and form an umbrella organization to increase their ability to influence forest management and benefit from the forest within the provisions of the new Forest Act. The new Forest Act provides for decentralization of forest management to local community level, giving communities both the access to use and the right to manage their forests in accordance with their own management plans through the establishment of a Community Forest Association (CFA). To prevent illegal logging and reverse the deteriorating state of Witu forest WCSHG, WFFA and SSBZCG must be encouraged and assisted in joining and forming a CFA under the Societies Registrations Act. Incentives for protection of the forest must be provided through devolvement of management rights and responsibilities. Kenya Forest Service should provide guidance and support in the preparation of the management plan. The management plan must describe how the communities are going to regulate use of forest resources, methods of conservation of biodiversity and methods of monitoring and protecting wildlife and plant populations with a focus on preventing illegal logging. Recommendations for a simple and cost effective community based natural resource

7


monitoring scheme to ensure informed decision-making are presented. Outside assistance and capacity building may be required for the identified organizations to be able to engage in forest management and to facilitate establishment of an organization characterised by transparent management processes, participatory decision-making and accountable leadership. Benefit generation to finance local management activities and maintain local interest are required and feasible minor income options currently include wealth-stratified taxation of non-timber forest product extraction, tourism and research. Potential future more lucrative income generating options in the wider area include temporal or spatially separated meat culling and trophy hunting. Logging and pole cutting is not recommended until the forest has recovered sufficiently. Options for direct payments as a means to finance management activities and compensate local forest managers for the service they provide should be explored. The success of plans to develop ecotourism in adjacent Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy (KWBC) are likely to depend on the presence of populations of large and charismatic species such as Elephant and Buffalo that in turn depend on Witu forest for shade and forage. Local organizations thus provide an important service for KWBC in patrolling to prevent illegal logging and in combating fire in the forest. The organizations should be compensated for these services by the company leasing KWBC through establishment of a fair benefit sharing scheme that reflect the true importance of the services provided. Provision of benefits should be conditional of conservation performance. The strategy of decentralization of forest management in the new Forest Act has a large potential but is not without uncertainties. Experience with local forest management in Witu forest should therefore be reviewed after an appropriate timeframe. This study provides the necessary baseline data for evaluating the effect on conservation in terms of status of wildlife populations, biodiversity and human disturbance in Witu forest. Suitable follow up of the study can identify benefits and shortcomings in the Forest Act and assist in providing input and developing necessary adjustments to ensure sustainable forest management in Kenya.

8


1. Introduction Increasing concern has been voiced about the deteriorating state of forests in Kenya. Natural forest cover is receding and ecological services are declining. Pressure on forest land continues to increase as does the demand on forest products (Ludeki et al. 2006). Due to these circumstances Kenya’s closed canopy forest was reduced to 1.7 – 2.5% of the total land area in 1995 (Wass 1995; UNEP 2001).1 General forest cover has in the period from 2000-2005 continued to decline by a rate of 0.3% annually (FAO 2007) and media reports and local observations suggest that the amount of closed forest cover is now lower than indicated in the previous inventories (WRI 2007). According to Ludeki et al. (2006) a number of aspects has caused this development and continue to constitute a barrier towards sustainable forest management. These include; insufficient information for informed decision making, inadequate policy, legal and institutional framework, weak governance and corruption among political elites, limited management capacity and lack of community participation, market failure, population growth, rural poverty and a lack of cheaper sources of energy. To change the development in the forest sector a new Forest Policy and Forest Act has been developed - entering into effect February 2007. The new Forest Policy is designed to provide directions for the sustainable development of the forest sector and improve forest conservation by integrating local communities and other stakeholders in conservation and management of forest resources. Kenyan forests include components of the globally important Costal Forests of East Africa Biodiversity Hotspot characterized by a particularly high number of endemic species per unit area (Mittermeier et al., 2004). One such forest is the Witu forest located in Lamu district. Few biological surveys have been conducted in the forest but a study by Washer and Andanje (2004) found that it holds the potential for significant new species discoveries leading to recommendations of detailed specialist forest surveys for rare mammals. The study also reported unmanaged and potentially unsustainable use of plant products and particularly extraction of timber poles for roofing and hardwood logs. The aim of this study is therefore to;

• Conduct a survey of mammals and birds in Witu forest and determine the presence of endangered species

• Evaluate the intensity and effect of natural resource extraction • Evaluate the opportunities in the new Forest Act for communities to participate in forest

management and • Provide directions for local interest groups around Witu forest.

Finally the study will provide a baseline for monitoring trends in natural resources and evaluating the effect of the implementation of the new Forest Act. Recommendations for procedures for community based monitoring of biodiversity and forest quality will also be presented.

1 Just how much indigenous forest Kenya has lost is unclear. Wangari Maathai, the former Kenya assistant environment minister and Nobel peace prize winner, estimate that a country needs to maintain at least 10% indigenous forest cover to achieve sustainable development (People and Planet, 2006).

9


2. Study Area Witu forest (E40° 30' 23; S2° 22' 43) is located in Lamu District in the northeastern corner of Kenya and constitutes one of the forests in the Costal Forests of East Africa Biodiversity Hotspot (Mittermeier et al., 2004), holding globally threatened species. The forest lies in the Northern Zanzibar-Inhambane Coastal Forest Mosaic ranging from coastal Somalia to southern Tanzania, which consists of a mixture of lowland forest and woodland, savanna woodlands, bushland, thickets and edaphic grassland (White, 1983 and Burgess et.al., 2004). The general ecoregion contains exceptional high plant endemism, particularly in forest habitats, and is considered of global conservation importance (Burgess et al., 2004). The forest is dry costal forest habitat primarily characterized by the presence of Terminalia sambesiaca (Luke, unpublished results). The climate is tropical with average temperatures above 25º C, with little variation in day length and a generally high humidity. Rainfall patterns are characterized by two rainy seasons with a distinct dry season from January to March (GTZ, 1992). The long rains are from March to August and the short rains are from October to December. The average annual rainfall at Witu is 1056 mm with some 768mm (72%) falling during the long rains and 250 mm (24%) falling during the short rains. The mean annual potential evapo-transpiration rate is 2300 mm. This means that during the dry season from January to mid March, many plants suffer from water stress. Witu forest was gazetted in 1962 through legal notice nr. 454. An area of 7 km2 (701 hectares) was added in 2002, extending the total area to 46 km2 (4639 hectares). Boundaries were marked in 2003 and boundary alignment was conducted for the entire forest in 2005. The Mungajini forest on the Nairobi ranch is continuous with Witu forest but not included in the area count. No management plan exists. Approximately five km west of the forest is Witu town with a population of approximately 6000 people. South and southeast of the forest are the settlement schemes Witu I and Witu II. The settlement schemes were established by the Ministry of Lands and Housing in 1995. Subsequent development assistance to the area by GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit) concentrated on developing crop husbandry techniques for maize, cotton, cashew, mangoes and coconut as well as developing agro-forestry techniques to improve crop and soil production (GTZ, 1992). The human population density in some southern areas surrounding the forest is currently 100 persons/km² and the settlement schemes have fundamentally changed the areas natural vegetation and the migratory movement patterns of wildlife. Human/wildlife conflicts are escalating and encroachment including illegal logging has been noted (Washer and Andanje 2004).

10

Figure 1. Map of the study area. Adapted from Washer & Andanje (2004).

Figure 2. Map of Witu forest area. Adapted from Washer & Andanje (2004).

11

2. STUDY AREA AND GENERAL METHODS

2.1 STUDY AREA

The study area has been investigated for this report at two scales, the greater area ofKWBC interest in Lamu, Tana River and Ijara Districts, and more local studies focused onNairobi Ranch.

The greater area of KWBC general interest is geographically defined by Nairobi Ranch, thedistribution of CEPF critical sites in the Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests hotspot and thedistribution of other endemic or rare species e.g. hirola. The zone is bounded north andsouth between 0o 48' S and the Indian Ocean and east and west between the internationalboundary with Somalia and the Tana River (Fig. 2.1).

Information has been compiled by creation of maps from existing CEPF databases andhistorical monitoring of wildlife and domestic livestock. The region has been covered by aseries of extensive wildlife and livestock aerial monitoring survey exercises conducted byvarying organisations intermittently between 1976 to 1996. A full review is given by Butynski2000. Important sources used in this report are Bunderson 1981, DRSRS 1996a & b, andButynski 2000. The zone was further visited by aerial reconnaissance (25th March 2004)followed up by driving a circuit on the ground between major villages and towns, visitingcritical sites for hirola, over 4 days in early April 2004 on the on the current survey.

The remainder of the survey time was directed at a more detailed local level study of theNairobi Ranch and immediate environs (for map see below). Historical and backgroundinformation on the ecology and status of Nairobi Ranch are drawn from a study of soils andvegetation (Scholtz et al. 1992) and from more recent descriptive material provided byKWBCT.

Fig. 2.1 General location of Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy study zone.Tana

River

Masalani

Ijara

Witu

Kipini

Mpeketoni

Galmagalla

Bodhei

Kiunga

ToMalindi

0 10 20 30 40 50

kms

LAMU

NAIROBIRANCH

ARAWALE NR

BONI NR

DODORI NR

TANA RIVERNATIONALPRIMATERESERVE

NAIROBI RANCH

Murrum RoadsBush TracksOffroad Tracks

Terrestrial NationalReserves (NR)

Tana RiverWitu Forest

KENYA

KIUNGAMARINE NR

Ras Tenewi(Proposed NR)

Marine NationalReserves (NR)

SOMALIA

District boundaries

KENYA

TANARIVER

DISTR

ICT

IJARA DISTRICT

LAMU DISTRICT

TANA RIVER DISTRICT

32

3.2.6 WITU FOREST

Witu forest reserve is a designated site of critical importance within the globally importantEastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests hotspot identified by Conservation Internationaland supported by the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF). It is the only place inwhich the critically endangered Euphorbia tanaensis is known to grow (IUCN 2003) and isknown to harbour eight other threatened plant species (Section 2.3 & Annex V). It iscontiguous with Nairobi ranch boundary on one side, but also close to human habitation,subject to illegal logging (section 4.3) and identified as a zone of intense wildlife conflict(Section 5). The utilisation and management of this forest is of special importance toKWBC.

• The buffer zone at Witu forest comprises mixed planting of Eucalyptus sp., NeemAzadirachta indica , Casuarina sp. and some Cassia sp. among others, and serves asa wood production lot as well as protective border.

• The south-west buffer zone is considered an area of high wildlife conflict (pers comm.Land Settlements office, Witu) but also presents an ideal location to deploy electricfencing in co-ordination with local supervision and maintenance involving plot holdersin the adjacent Witu settlement schemes.

• In Witu forest itself, true natural forest habitat occupies only a proportion of the areadefined by the gazetted boundary and associated buffer zone (which functionallyencloses an area between the gazetted forest boundary, the buffer zone and Nairobiranch boundary. Brief aerial and ground observations suggest the densest contiguousforest lies mainly lying mainly to the south of the bush track leading to the heart of thegazetted area from the western boundary (Fig. 3.17).

• Forest officers have only recentlybeen supplied with a vehicle topatrol and protect the forest. Inrecent years they have beenrestricted to foot patrols which theyfelt was highly ineffective inpreventing illegal timber cutting.See section 4.3 and Fig. 4.7.

• Local forest officers were not awareof any local cultural functionsspecifically associated with Wituforest.

• The main local uses of the forestreported to us were timberextraction, some medicinal plantcollection and some honeycollection.

• It is a recommendation that allaspects of the role of the forest inthe local community should beinvestigated more thoroughly byKWBC.

Fig. 3.17 Detail of Witu forest, estimated forestextension into KWBC and observed buffer zones.

WITU WITU FOREST

NAIROBI RANCH

Murrum RoadsScheme TracksBush TracksOffroad Tracks

Settlement Schemes

0 1 2 3 4 5Kms

KWBC: FORESTS

GTZ Buffer zone (exotics) ~1.5km2

Enclosed zone ~ 9 km2

KWBC Forest extension ~ 11 km2

Witu IISettlement

Witu Settlement

PanganiSwamp

Munuji

NairobiRanch

MungajiniForest

Witu Forest (Gazetted) ~40km2


3. Methods

3.1. Relative Animal Densities and Human Disturbance Surveys A quantitative survey of wildlife densities and indicators of disturbance was conducted in order to produce a baseline for future monitoring efforts. Selecting low tech methods that can be adapted by local conservation groups as well as being standardised and repeatable was emphasised. Direct observations of wildlife were constrained by vegetation. Instead the density of easily identifiable spoors such as foot and paw prints, scat, dung piles, burrows etc. were applied as a measure of density assuming proportionality to the actual animal densities. Observations of traps, trails, cut trees and poles, evidence of collection of non-timber forest products, the occurrence of camps and use of fire were applied as measures of human disturbance. Line transect sampling (Burnham et al. 1979, 1980) was applied to estimate relative densities of wildlife species from a one-dimensional sampling line through a detection function, assuming decreasing probability of detecting objects at increasing distance from the transect line. The underlying assumptions of the method, relevant to the estimation of densities of immotile objects in this study, are outlined in Buckland et al. (1993) and include:

1. All objects directly on the centre line are observed. 2. Measurements are exact. 3. Lines are placed randomly with respect to the distribution of objects.

Transect surveys were conducted in the dry season in February and March 2007. Transect lines were cut as straight lines from north to south (180º) irrespective of vegetation, ridges, streams and the east-west going road from Lamu to Malindi that dissect the forest in two, in compliance with assumption 3. A distance of one km was maintained between the transects. Transects on the northern and southern side of the road are referred to as a and b respectively. Transect were marked with plastic ribbons at 50 meter intervals. To reduce potential effects of observer bias, the same two local assistants were used throughout the surveys. The applied methods were furthermore, thoroughly explained and demonstrated prior to fieldwork. The surveys were performed moving along the transect lines with an assistant on each side of the line. The perpendicular distance to observed objects were recorded and all distances were measured with a measuring-tape in consideration of assumption nr. 2. Search behaviour was optimised to the detection of objects in the vicinity of the line. Search effort and efficiency therefore decreased with increasing distance from the transect line, observing procedures and assumptions described in Buckland et al. (1993). Moving slowly and emphasizing search effort on and near the line increased compliance with assumption number 1. The speed of the survey was in addition very low (X = 157 m/hour) and by adjusting the speed to the denseness of encountered vegetation, it is assumed that all habitat types were surveyed equally thorough. Whiteside et al.’s (1988) method was applied to determine the density of relevant spoors in preference of more software requiring methods. All data from the line transect surveys were truncated at 5% in order to eliminate outliers, which provide little information for estimating the detection function (Buckland et al. 1993). A histogram of perpendicular frequency classes for each species was constructed to determine the fall-off point. The fall-off point is the interval where

12


sighting frequency is equal to or less than 50% of the preceding level. The distance (FD) at which the fall-off point occurs was used to calculate the effective sighting distance (ESD):

ESD=(Nt/Nf)*FD. Where Nt is the species-specific total number of sightings of groups and Nf is the species-specific number of sightings less than the fall-off distance. The effective sighting distance is an estimate of the distance at which, the number of sightings at greater distance equals the number missed at nearer distances. The transect width is then calculated as two times ESD and the density of observed objects (D) as:

D= Nt/(2*ESD*L). Where L is the length of transect surveyed. Comparison of these estimated relative densities with results from other forests enable an evaluation of the status of populations in Witu forest (see section 5.2.) and provides a baseline for monitoring population trends (see section 5.6.). Trails crossing the transect and spoors with no clear centre were recorded without a distance measurement. The abundance of these observations as well as observations where sample size was inadequate to estimate the density are presented in terms of number of observations per km transect. Finally a non-systematic survey of likely logging sites was conducted based on the local knowledge of various resource persons. GPS positions of logging sites were recorded and the sites were photo documented.

3.2. Biodiversity Surveys Systematic biodiversity surveys were conducted using camera traps, mist netting, bucket pit falls, direct audio and visual identification and indirect identification through foot and paw prints, scat, dung piles, burrows etc.

3.2.1. Camera Traps Eight camera traps were applied to document the mammals present in the forest. Seven of them were I390 Stealth Cam STC-AD3 and one was an infrared I230IR Stealth Cam. Two turned out to be malfunctioning. The cameras were placed in the Mungajini forest extension of the Witu forest on the Nairobi Ranch in the period from the 9th of February to 13th of February and in the Witu forest proper from the 16th of February to 6th of March 2007. Camera traps was placed along the transects, after transect surveys had ended (see section 3.1.), at locations with signs of regularly used trails, burrows etc. The cameras were mounted on trees approximately ½ -1 meter above the ground with a downward pointing angle of the camera aperture. Depending on the assumed species, bait such ad jackfruit, mango or fish were used to some extend to attract animals. The cameras were given a number from 1-8 and checked regularly to transfer pictures to a laptop and to adjust the location and re-bait the traps.

3.2.2. Bucket Pitfalls Ten 25 litre buckets were used as pitfall traps to catch small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects. The buckets were dug down in clusters of five at the 250 and the 750 meter mark on the transects in the northern part of Witu forest between the 16th of February and the 4th of March and

13


between the 9th and the 13th of February at a randomly selected location in the Mungajini forest extension of the Witu forest on the Nairobi Ranch. At the 250 meter mark on transect 2a the soil was too hard to dig in. Instead the five buckets were placed at a small lake approximately 200 meter west of the transect. The buckets were to some extend baited with jackfruit and mango. Buckets were checked, species identified and the buckets emptied every one or two days.

3.2.3. Mist Netting Mist nets were used to catch birds inside the forest. The birds were identified, measured and ringed before release, following standardised procedures developed by Nature Kenya/BirdLife International. Mistnetting was conducted in the period from the 18th of February to the 4th of March 2007 using three nets of 18m x 3,5m and one net of 9m x 3,5m. The nets were open on each of the three transect in the northern part of Witu forest on two consecutive days from 6-11 AM. The nets were raised on poles covering a height from approximately 50 centimetres to 4 meters above the ground placed at different locations along the transect. Bird measurements and ringing information is available from Nature Kenya and Danish Zoological Society on request.

3.2.4. Butterfly Nets Butterflies were caught on an ad hoc basis when encountered during transect surveys and other work in the forest. A photo was taken of each different species before release to enable subsequent identification.

3.2.5. Casual Observations and Spoors All direct observations of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians made on a casual or ad hoc basis through the study period were identified to the extent possible, through audio and visual cues using binoculars and magnifying glasses, and recorded. Observations of foot and paw prints, scat, dung piles, burrows etc. were similarly identified to species and recorded.

3.2.6. Vegetation and Habitat Quality Survey A vegetation and habitat quality survey were conducted on transects in the northern part of the forest following procedures developed by Nature Kenya/BirdLife International. Starting from zero meters height of trees, canopy cover, and amount of dead wood were estimated and ranked and tree breast height diameter measured 30 meters to each side of the transect. Number of cut poles and trees were also recorded. Vegetation and habitat quality survey data is available from Nature Kenya and Danish Zoological Society on request.

3.3. Stakeholder Surveys A stakeholder identification exercise was conducted with local resource persons in Witu town. From this a number of interest groups were identified in terms of government institutions, NGO’s, micro enterprise associations and communities.

14


Semi structured interviews were conducted with representatives of the various government institutions. The discussions focused on clarifying responsibilities and management procedures and developing management recommendations. Meetings were conducted with individual NGO’s, conservancies and associations through the aid of a local assistant translating. Information on attitudes, objectives, activities and priorities in relation to the forest were collected through semi-structured interviews. A meeting was conducted with 25 representatives, including 7 women, from four different communities living at the southern boarder of the forest buffer zone. Participatory rural appraisal was applied to identify and quantify the importance of local resources and forest products (Chambers, 1994). The resources and products from the forest were listed on separate pieces of paper and ranked by each attending person placing a total of four seeds on the listed resources/products considered most important. Problems originating from the forest were listed and ranked similarly. Suggestions on how to turn these problems into resources were discussed. A common meeting were held with representatives from the identified local NGO’s, associations and communities. The focus of the meeting was to identify ways in which these interest groups could increase their ability to influence forest management and benefit from the forest.

15

Methods

16

Transects were cut through the forest, and distance from duiker dung to the transect line were measured in order to estimate relative densities.

Camera traps were put up in the forest and baited with fruit e.g.

Snakes. amphibians, insects and butterflies were caught ad hoc and with butterfly nets, photo-graphed and the former two identified.

Identifying birds through vo-cal and visual recognition.

Mistnetting in the forest at dawn. After carefully removing the bird from the net it was identified, measured and ringed before release.

Focus group discussion and participatory rural appraisal with local communitites in order to asses the importance of forest products.

Meeting with local NGO’s in Witu town to discuss umbrella organization.


4. Results

4.1. Level of Human Disturbance Measures of human disturbance in terms of number of observations of relevant indicators are presented in Tab. 1. Table 1. Indicators of human disturbance per km transect for all transects combined.

Observations/km Trails Individual cut trees Logging sites* Other#

Human disturbance 1 5 0.6 0.8 * Including logging camps. # Refers to oil cans for chainsaws and other garbage etc. Particularly transect 2 and 3 were intersected by a high number of human trails leading to logging sites in the interior of the forest. More than 25 individual recently cut trees were recorded during transect surveys in addition to three recently active logging sites, where 10-20 trees had been cut. Camp sites with bonfire and constructions for shelter were observed in relation to all three logging sites. In one site a mosquito net were still set up in the shelter. The net and other equipment was brought to the police. GPS positions and estimated number of cut trees in logging sites observed during the non-systematic survey are presented in Tab. 2. Table 2. Observations of logging during non-systematic surveys (GPS points presented as UTM coordinates in zone 37M).

Location GPS position Trees cut/other 0666532; 9737060 1 0666541; 9737054 5 0666557; 9737062 3 0666686; 9736976 10 0666683; 9736984 10-20 / camping site 0666671; 9737030 10-20 / camping site

Interior of northern part of Witu forest

0666317; 9737260 1 Northern forest edge of Witu forest No position 5 North-eastern corner of Witu forest No position 10-20 / several planks / camp site

A number of logging sites were observed during non-systematic survey near the forest edge on the northern and north-eastern side of the forest (see appendix 2). Logging activities were in addition heard during fieldwork in the forest but unfortunately it was not possible to locate the site. Research assistants on one occasion found a pile of timber in the forest. The stack had, however, been moved when the team returned to photo document it the following day. No signs of pole cutting, medicine plant harvesting or bushmeat hunting were observed.

17


4.2. Relative Animal Densities The length and number of transects surveyed were constrained by the relative short amount of time available. A total of 5 km’s of transect were surveyed divided on three transects (see Tab. 3). This is equivalent to a sampling intensity2 of 0.08% applying an effective sighting distance of 6.5 meters, and is considered adequate for representative estimates of relative densities and for comparison of results with other forests. Table 3. Outline on location and length of surveyed transects in Witu forest (GPS points presented as UTM coordinates in zone 37M).

Transect nr. Grid reference start Grid reference end Length (m.) 1 0664802E – 9737680S 0664776E – 9736684S 1000 2a 0666055E – 9737994S* 0666055E – 9736500S* 1500 2b 0665187E – 9736362S 0665131E – 9735844S 500 3a 0666981E – 9738036S* 0666973E – 9736536S* 1500 3b 0666210E – 9736128S 0666221E – 9735670S 500

* Position estimated from the map due to lack of GPS satellite cover. The estimated relative densities and calculations in the estimation are presented in Tab. 4 for Bushbuck, Harvey’s duiker and Suni. Table 4. Relative density of relevant species in Witu forest calculated according to Whiteside et al.’s method.

Species Fall-off distance (FD) (m).

Total obs. (Nt).

Obs. in fall-off dist. (Nf).

Effective sighting dist. (ESD) (m).

Area surveyed (km2)

Relative density (Dung piles / km2) (95% CI).

Bushbuck 5 26 18 6.9 0.07 360±401 Harvey’s Duiker 5 42 31 6.4 0.06 620±254

Suni 6 96 78 7.0 0.07 1300±725 The number of observations per km transect for trails and footprints crossing the transect, spoors with no clear centre and observations where the sample size were inadequate to estimate a density are presented in Tab. 5. The number of the various observations on the individual transects are presented in Tab. 19 in the appendix.

2 The sampling intensity is calculated as the percent of the forest area covered by the survey and therefore applies the transect width, calculated as the fall-off distance in the method of Whiteside et al. (1988) multiplied by two. The multiplication by two is required because observations were recorded from both sides of the transect line.

18


Table 5. Number of observations per km transect for all transects combined.

Observation/km

Foot

prin

t

Tra

il

Slee

ping

site

Dig

ging

Hol

e

Dun

g

Skel

eton

Dir

ect o

bs.

Elephant Shrew 3.4 Porcupine 0.4 Giant Pouched Rat 0.8 Mongose 0.2 Civet/genet 0.2 Aardvark 0.6 0.2 Elephant 0.2 0.2 2 Bushpig 1 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 Buffalo 4.2 4 0.2 5.4 Bushbuck 6 0.2 Harvey’s Duiker 6.2 0.2 Suni 7.2 26 0.6 Small/medium/large unidentified 0.6/6.6/2.8

4.3. Species Lists The species list for Witu forest is based on accumulated survey information as presented in Tab. 6. (see also section 3.2.). Camera trap number 2 and 4 appeared to be malfunctioning as pictures either failed to be transferred to the laptop or the camera failed to detect and photograph any animals that had been within the sensor area eating the bait. 558 hours of camera trapping time by these two cameras are therefore deducted from the total. Information about camera and bucket pitfall trap GPS-positions, date and time of set-up and removal, pictures taken and animals caught are presented in Tab. 21 and 22. in the appendix. Table 6. Accumulated survey information.

Method Survey effort Camera traps 2364 hours (6 cameras) in Witu forest.

291 hours (4 cameras) in Mungajini forest

Bucket pitfalls Transect 1: 1300 trap hours Transect 2: 123 trap hours Transect 3: 800 trap hours Mungajini forest: 1152 trap hours

Mist netting 30 hours with 94.5 m2 net

Point observations for bird biodiversity index Transect 1: 14 x 10 minutes Transect 2: 15 x 10 minutes Transect 3: 15 x 10 minutes

Casual observations 25 days work in the forests.

19


The resulting combined species list for Witu forest is presented in Tab. 7-10., with information on relevant species IUCN red-list status and indicator potential regarding human disturbance and habitat quality. The following IUCN standard abbreviations are applied: LR = low risk, LC = least concern, NT = near threatened, CD = conservation dependent, VU = vulnerable, E = endangered, CR = critically endangered. Furthermore the following abbreviations are applied to describe the means of documenting the presence of the various species: PH = regular photography, CT = camera trap, MN = mist netting, C = caught by bucket pitfall, butterfly net or other means, V = visual observation, A = audio and SP = spoor.

4.3.1. Mammals Taxonomy follows Kingdon (1997). Table 7. Mammal species list for Witu forest and the Mungajini forest.

Common name (means of documentation)

Scientific name IUCN redlist status

Remarks

Yellow Baboon (CT) Papio cynocephalus LR/LC Sykes Monkey (V) Cercopithecus mitis LR/LC Greater Galago (CT) Otolemur crassicaudatus LR/LC

Lesser Galago (Somali or Senegal Galago) (A)3

Galago gallarum or senegalensis brachus

LR/NT or LR/LC

Epauletted Fruit-bat sp. (V)4

Epomophorus labiatus, minimus and/or wahlberg LC

Lesser Elephant Shrew (V) Elephantulas rufescens NT

May indicate high number of herbivores due to the dependence of certain prey insects on dung and plant litter (Kingdon, 1997).

Four-toed Elephant Shrew (PH) Petrodromus tetradactylus

LC

May indicate the presence of a complex plant/animal community that sustains a rich leaf-litter micro-fauna (Kingdon, 1997).

Red-bellied Coast Squirrel Paraxerus palliatus LC

Crested porcupine (S) Hystrix cristata LC Gambian Giant Pouched Rat (CT) Cricetomys gambianus

LC

Dwarf Mongoose (CT) Helogale parvula LR/LC Blotched Genet Genetta tigrina LR/LC African Civet (CT) Civettictis civetta LR/LC Lion (A) Panthera leo VU

Aardvark (CT) Orycteropus afer LC

May indicate low level of bushmeat hunting (Topp-Jørgensen & Pedersen, unpubl.). Many small mammals, reptiles and birds are extremely dependent on the holes dug by the aardvark (Kingdon, 1997).

African Elephant (S)5 Loxodonta africana VU Sensitive to dehydration and heat,

3 Not possible to identify the exact species based on vocalization. 4 Not possible to identify the exact species based on vocalization. Three of six Epauletted fruit bat species are present within the range: E. labiatus, E. minimus, E. wahlbergi All 3 species are listed as LC.

20


dependent on shade and retreat into forests and swamps in the dry season (Kingdon, 1997).

Bush Pig (V) Potamochoerus larvatus LR/LC African Buffalo (V) Syncerus caffer LR/CD Bushbuck (S) Tragelaphus scriptus LR/LC Harveys Duiker (V) Cephalophus harveyi LRCD Suni Neotragus moschatus LR/CD

4.3.2. Birds Taxonomy follows Stephenson & Fanshawr (2006). Table 8. Bird species list for Witu forest and the Mungajini forest.

Common name (documentation A and / or V)


Remarks

Black-headed Heron Ardea melanocephala LC

Saddle-billed Stork Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis LC Regionally threatened (Bennun & Njoroge, 1999).

Hadada Bostrychia hagedash LC Egyptian Goose Alopochen aegyptiacus LC

Knob-billed Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos LC

African Fish Eagle Haliaeetus vocifer LC Hooded Vulture Necrosyrtes monachus LC

Southern Banded Snake-eagle Circaetus fasciolatus NT

Confined mainly to coastal and riverine forest and undergoing range reduction (Birdlife, 2007).

Lizard Buzzard Kaupifalco monogrammicus LC African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro LC

Bat Hawk Macheiramphus alcinus LC

African Crowned Eagle Stephanoaetus coronatus LC Regionally threatened (Bennun & Njoroge, 1999).

Bateleur Terathopius ecaudatus LC Crested Guineafowl Guttera pucherani LC

Yellow-necked Spurfowl Francolinus leucosepus LC Particularly susceptible to trapping with snares (Hoyo et al., 1994).

Red-necked Spurfowl Francolinus afer LC African Green-pigeon Treron calvus LC

Tambourine Dove Turtur tympanistria LC Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata LC

Fisher’s Turaco Tauraco fischeri NT Endemic to costal forests of Kenya and Tanzania (Hansen et al., 2007).

Thick-billed Cuckoo Pachycoccyx audeberti LC Black-and-white Cuckoo Oxylophus jacobinus LC

African Cuckoo Cuculus gularis LC Klaas’s Cuckoo Chrysococcyx klaas LC Yellowbill Ceuthmochares aereus LC Migratory in costal Kenya locally

5 One skeleton observed.

21


numerous in May-September. Rare at other times of the year (Fry et al. 1988).

White-browed Coucal Centropus superciliosus LC African Wood Owl Strix woodfordii LC Little Swift Apus affinis LC African Palm Swift Cypsiurus parvus LC Böhm’s Spinetail Neafrapus boehmi LC Speckled Mousebird Colius striatus LC Blue-naped Mousebird Urocolius macrourus LC Narina Trogon Apaloderma narina LC Grey-headed Kingfisher Halcyon leucoecphala LC

Cinnamon-chested Bee-eater Merops oreobates LC

Mountain forest species (Fry et al. 1988). Not previously recorded in this region of Kenya according to Hansen et al. (2007).

White-throated Bee-eater Merops albicollis LC

Intra-Tropical migrant breeding in Kenya March-May (Hoyo et al., 2001).

Broad-billed Roller Eurystomus glaucurus LC Intra-African migrant present January-April and September-November (Hoyo et al., 2001).

Green Wood-hoopoe Phoeniculus purpureus LC Common Scimitarbill Rhinopomastus cyanomelas LC

Crowned Hornbill Tockus alboterminatus LC Partially depend on cavities in trees (Fry et al., 1988). May indicate presence of old trees.

Trumpeter Hornbill Bycanistes bucinator LC Partially depend on cavities in trees (Fry et al., 1988). May indicate presence of old trees.

Yellow-rumped Tinkerbird Pogoniulus bilineatus LC

Brown-breasted Barbet Lybius melanopterus LC Greater honeyguide Indicator indicator LC Scaly-throated Honeyguide Indicator variegatus LC

Pallid Honeyguide Indicator meliphilus LC

Mombasa Woodpecker Campethera mombassica LC Endemic to costal forests of Kenya and Tanzania (Hansen et al. 2007).

Lesser Striped Swallow Hirundo abyssinica LC

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica LC Palearctic migrant present September-April (Hoyo et al., 2004).

Wire-tailed Swallow Hirundo smithii LC African Pied Wagtail Motacilla aguimp LC Eastern Nicator Nicator gularis LC Common Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus LC

Fisher’s Greenbull Phyllastrephus fischeri LC

Near endemic to costal forests of East Africa but occurs also in Eastern Arc forests at low altitude (Keith et al., 1992).

Zanzibar Sombre Greenbul Andropadus importunus LC

Yellow-bellied Greenbul Chlorocichla flaviventris LC White-browed Robin-Chat Phyllastrephus fischeri LC

22


Red-capped Robin-Chat Cossypha natalensis LC Intra-African migrant, abundant in coastal regions from May-November (Keith et al. 1992).

Red-tailed Ant-Trush Neocossyphus rufus LC Eastern subspecies endemic to costal forests of Kenya and Tanzania (Hansen et al. 2007).

Eastern Bearded Scrub-Robin Cercotrichas quadrivirgat LC

Spotted Morning-Thrush Cichladusa guttata LC Winding Cisticola Cisticola galactotes LC

Tawny-flanked Prinia Prinia subflava LC

Grey-backed Camaroptera Camaroptera brachyura LC Black-headed Apalis Apalis melanocephala LC Ashy Flycatcher Muscicapa caerulescens LC

Forest Batis Batis mixta LC Represents an extension of the known range as described in Hansen et al. (2007).

African Paradise-Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis

LC

Blue-mantled Crested Flycatcher Trochocercus cyanomelas LC

Little Yellow Flycatcher Erythrocercus holochlorus LC

Regionally threatened (Bennun & Njoroge, 1999). Endemic to the costal forests of Kenya and Tanzania (Hansen et al. 2007).

Scaly Babbler Turdoides squamulata LC Regionally threatened (Bennun & Njoroge, 1999).

Eastern Olive Sunbird Cyanomitra olivacea LC

Collared Sunbird Hedydipnia collaris LC

Tropical Boubou Laniarius aethiopicus LC Black-backed Puffback Dryoscopus cubla LC

Chestnut-fronted Helmet-shrike Prionops scopifrons LC

Endemic to the costal forests (Hansen et al. 2007). Witu forest represents the northern limit of the range.

Retz’s Helmet-shrike Prionops retzii LC Fork-tailed Drongo Dicrurus adsimilis LC Square-tailed Drongo Dicrurus ludwigii LC African Black-headed Oriole Oriolus larvatus LC

Black-bellied Starling Lamprotornis corruscus LC

Black-headed Weaver Ploceus cucullatus LC Dark-backed Weaver Ploceus bicolor LC

Green-backed Twinspot Mandingoa nitidula LC Observation represents an extension of the known range according to Hansen et al. (2007).

Bronze Mannikin Lonchura cucullata LC

23

Mammals

Yellow Baboon, Papio cynocephalus

Greater Galago, Otolemur crassicaudatus

Sykes Monkey, Cercopithecus mitis

Lesser elephant shrew, Elephantulas rufescens

Red-Bellied Coast Squirrel, Paraxerus palliatus

Gambian Giant Pouched Rat, Cricetomys gambianus

Dwarf mongoose, Helogale parvula African civet, Civettictis civetta24

Mammals

Blotched genet, Genetta tigrina

African buffalo, Syncerus caffer

Aardvark, Orycteropus afer

Bushbuck (female), Tragelaphus scriptus Suni, Neotragus moschatus

Skeleton of African elephant, Loxodonta africana

25

Birds

Saddle-billed Stork, Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis

African Goshawk, Accipiter tachiro Crested Guineafowl, Guttera pucherani

Red-necked Spurfowl, Francolinus afer White-throated Bee-eater, Merops albicollis

26

Birds

Eastern Bearded Scrub-Robin, Cercotrichas quadrivirgata

Eastern Olive Sunbird, Cyanomitra olivacea

Grey-backed Camaroptera, Camaroptera brachyura

Dark-backed weaver, Ploceus bicolor

Trumpeter Hornbill, Bycanistes bucinator

27

Birds

African Fish Eagle, Haliaeetus vociferHadada, Bostrychia hagedash

White-throated Bee-eater, Merops albicollis Blue-mantled Crested Flycatcher, Trochocercus cyanomelas28


4.3.3. Reptiles Taxonomy follows Spawls et al. (2004). Table 9. Reptile species list for Witu forest and the Mungajini forest.



Remarks

Leopard Tortoise (C) Geochelone pardalis Not listed Does not normally occur in forests according to Spawles et al. (2002).

Yellow-bellied Hinged Terrapin (V) Pelusios castanoides LR/LC

Tropical House Gecko (V) Hemidactylus mabouia Not listed Normally absent from dense forest

according to Spawls et al. (2002). Tree Gecko (V) Hemidactylus platycephalus Not listed White-headed Dwarf Gecko (V) Lygodactylus picturatus Not listed

Tree Skink (V) Mabuya planifrons Not listed

Striped Skink (V) Mabuya striata Not listed

Possibly not previously recorded in this region of Kenya based on comparison with range chart in Spawls et al. (2002) and Branch (2005).

Red-headed Rock Agama (V) Agama agama Not listed

Flap-necked chameleon (V) Chamaeleo dilepis Not listed

Central African Rock Python (S)6 Python sebae Not listed

Brown House Snake (black morph) (C) Lamprophis fuliginosus Not listed

South-eastern Green-snake (V) Philothamnus hoplogaster Not listed

Speckled Green-snake (V) Philothamnus punctatus Not listed

Spotted Bush Snake (V) Philothamnus semivariegatus Not listed Occur predominantly in forest clearings (Spawls et al. 2002).

White-lipped Snake (V) Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Not listed Common Egg-eater (V) Dasypeltis scabra Not listed Black-necked Spitting cobra (S)5 Naja nigricollis Not listed Normally not found in forests

according to Spawls et al. (2002). Puff Adder (S)5 Bitis arietans Not listed

6 Identified from shed skin.

29

Reptiles

Yellow-bellied Hinged Terrapin, Pelusios castanoides

Tree Gecko, Hemidactylus platycephalus

Tropical House Gecko, Hemidactylus mabouia

White-headed Dwarf Gecko, Lygodactylus picturatus

Tree skink, Mabuya planifrons Red-headed Rock Agama, Agama agama

Flap-necked Chameleon, Chamaeleo dilepis

30

Reptiles

South-eastern Green-snake, Philothamnus hoplogaster

South-eastern Green-snake, Philothamnus hoplogaster

Speckled Green-snake, Philothamnus punctatus

White-lipped Snake , Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia

31


4.3.4. Amphibians Taxonomy follows Channing and Howell (2006). Table 10. Amphibian species list for Witu forest and the Mungajini forest.


Scientific name Status Remarks

Common Squeaker (C) Arthroleptis stenodactylus LC African common Toad (C) Bufo gutturalis LC

Steindachner’s Toad (C) Bufo steindachneri LC Marbled Shovel-snout Burrower (C) Hemisus marmoratus LC

Yellow-spotted Tree frog (C) Leptopelis flavomaculatus LC

Possibly not previously recorded in this region of Kenya based on comparison with range chart in Spawls et al. (2002), Branch (2005) and Channing & Howell (2006).

Short-legged Spiny Reed Frog (C) Afrixalus brachycnemis LC

Possibly not previously recorded in this region of Kenya based on comparison with range chart in Branch (2005) and Channing & Howell (2006).

Spiny Leaf-folding Frog (C) Afrixalus fornasin LC

Possibly not previously recorded in this region of Kenya based on comparison with range chart in Branch (2005) and Channing & Howell (2006).

Argus reed frog (C) Hyperolius argus LC Parker’s Reed Frog (C) Hyperolius parkeri LC Water Lily Frog (C) Hyperolius pusillus LC Galam White-lipped Frog (C) Amnirana galamensis LC

Mascarene Frog (C) Ptychadena mascareniensis LC Sharp-nosed Rocket Frog (C) Ptychadena oxyrhynchus LC

A number of additional species was photographed and awaits identification.

4.3.5. Arthropods A number of arthropods, including 25 different butterflies, were observed and photo documented during the survey. No attempt was made to identify species due to time constraints. All arthropod observations thus await species identification. Pictures are, however, presented below.

32

Amphibians

Common Squeaker, Arthroleptis stenodactylus

Steindachner’s Toad, Bufo steindachneri

African Common Toad, Bufo gutturalis

Short-Legged Spiny Reed Frog, Afrixalus brachycnemis

Yellow-Spotted Tree Frog, Leptopelis flavomaculatus

Spiny Leaf-folding frog, Afrixalus fornasini (right: ustriped morph)

33

Amphibians

Argus Reed Frog (female), Hyperolius argus

Parker’s reed frog, Hyperolius parkeri

Galam White-Lipped Frog, Amnirana galamensis

Mascarene Rocket Frog, Ptychadena mascareniensis

Sharp-nosed Rocket Frog, Ptychadena oxyrhynchus

34

Arthropods - Butterflies

35


36


37

Arthropods - Other

38

Arthropods - Other

39

Arthropods - Other

40

Arthropods - Other

41


4.4. Stakeholder Analysis The stakeholder survey identified two registered local interest groups with objectives regarding forest management - Witu Conservation Self Help Group (WCSHG) and Witu Forest Farmers Association (WFFA). One additional interest group, the Sam Sam Buffer Zone Community Group (SSBZCG), was established as a result of this study bringing together headmen and people from four communities living on the southern boarder of the forest. The group has, however, not been registered yet. In addition to these NGO’s there is a forest officer in Witu representing the district forest office (DFO) under the Forest Department. There is also a local office of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS). Witu forest is also within the wider zone of interest of the Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy (KWBC). Furthermore there is the Kenya Women Financing Trust (KWFT) a micro credit organisation working in the area that could be brought to have an influence on forest management as well as poverty alleviation in the area. The various stakeholders and their primary objectives and activities in relation to Witu forest, are presented in Tab. 11. as described by respective resource persons during interviews. Table 11. Results of the stakeholder analysis.

Stakeholder Objective Activities District Forest Office (DFO)

Manage and protect the forest from logging and other illegal activities and fire.

Patrols are carried out infrequently due to lack of funds and equipment. Are in possession of a few outdated rifles but no vehicles.

Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS)

Protecting wildlife and providing security against bandits.

Conducts semi-regular heavily armed patrols using numerous cars. Over-flights are conducted a couple of times per month to record disturbance, infractions etc.

Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy (KWBC)

The forest is within its wider zone of interest for plans to integrate community development, conservation and sustainable use.

None in relation to Witu forest but the conservancy’s rangers are patrolling around the Mungajini extension of the forest on the Nairobi ranch to the south east.

Witu Conservation Self Help Group (WCSHG)

Participating in and acquiring benefits from management and protection of the forest.

Are currently excluded from entering the forest to conduct patrols etc. But members report violations to the authorities and have on occasion conducted civil arrests.

Witu Forest Farmers Association (WFFA)

Manage the buffer zone forest to reduce the pressure on the indigenous forest.

In effect running a micro enterprise in terms of a woodlot in the buffer zone that provides poles that can be sold in the surrounding communities.

Sam Sam Buffer Zone Community Group (SSBZCG)

Conserving ecosystem services provided by the forest and benefiting from these.

None but planning establishment of tree seedling nursery and woodlot.

Kenyan Women Financing Trust (KWFT)

Empowering women and contributing to poverty alleviation through promoting savings and providing access to credit.

None in relation to relevant communities.

Contact information is presented in Tab. 23. in the appendix.

42


4.4.1. Prior Management Arrangements According to informers in Witu town, local Boni people previously had a major stake in managing the forest. They patrolled the forest to prevent illegal exploitation and were in turn allowed to collect honey and harvest other non-timber forest products. Some level of logging and pole cutting was allowed for domestic purposes under the supervision of the local headman. Much of people’s involvement in forest management originated from 14 small houses that were constructed in the forest on the south side of the Lamu-Malindi highway. Local people were according to members of WCSHG excluded from participating in the management of the forest in the 1980’ies. Simultaneously it was made illegal for unauthorised people to enter the forest. However, according to the District Forest Office (DFO) the exclusion took place already in 1962 when the forest was gazetted and the period mentioned coincides better with the year where a total ban on logging was introduced. After exclusion of the local people, the houses in the forest no longer under observation, were destroyed allegedly by either bandits regularly crossing the boarder from Somalia or people from Mpeketoni town involved in illegal logging. The period up until today has also been plagued by illegal logging. Logging is primarily conducted by local people working for timber merchants from Mpeketoni and Lamu and middlemen in Witu town. Often Boni people living in Pantanguo are hired to locate valuable timer in the forest due to their local knowledge about the area. Timber is cut during the night to avoid alerting people to the use of chainsaws and the loggers sleep in the forest during the day. Several such camps were located inside the forest (se section 4.1.). Timber is transported out of the forest on byways in the north-eastern corner of the forest and further on allegedly by officials falsifying papers declaring that the timber was cut in a shamba (farm/field). A cattle ranch operated for a number of years by a family from Witu town in the area of the north-eastern corner of the forest, were according to the DFO successful in preventing illegal logging in the forest while it was in operation. The local forest office has been plagued by a high turnover of staff with as much as three different forest officers in Witu town in one year. Local people accuse previous foresters for allowing illegal logging for bribes. Regardless of whether or not this is true, it is clear that the level of trust between the community and the forest officers is low.

4.4.2. Witu Forest Farmers Association In 1991 GTZ created a 9 km long and 100 meter wide buffer zone along the southern border of the forest. The purpose was to provide income for community development and reduce the pressure on the natural forest by providing a source of poles and a physical barrier towards intrusion into the forest. In 2000 local communities were mobilized to manage the forest through the creation of the Witu Forest Farmers Association (WFFA). Initially a pilot committee was selected to manage affairs under GTZ supervision. The pilot project continued until 2004 and in 2005 WFFA was registered as an independent association. The association currently has 166 members and it costs 200 Ksh per person to join. The day-to-day management of the organization is conducted by an executive committee of five members that refers to the WFFA committee. The committee meets once per month to discus harvest and replacement and is according to the constitution required to plant twice as much as is harvested. Particularly casuarinas pole supplies have, however, become low during the last few years and the association is currently unable to meet demand. Concurrently the initial savings have been spent

43


and the organization is facing economic problems. WFFA, however, claims some success in preventing illegal exploitation in Witu forest and a number of arrests are claimed to have lead to prosecution. With a membership fee of 200 Ksh many local people has been prevented from joining the association although the option to pay the fee in instalments has been introduced. Local people furthermore feel that they have not been sufficiently informed about the benefits of the program. Other reasons for not joining the association include lack of transparency and accountability. Allegedly a general assembly has not been held and accounts have not been evaluated by an external auditor. Finally there is some resentment towards the fact that the committee members and mangers pointed out by GTZ are not local people. To overcome the financial crisis WFFA have already constructed 10 bee hives and is planning to extend these activities. WFFA is in addition developing plans for ecotourism in relation to a nearby hippo pond that are also frequented by elephants.

4.4.3. Sam Sam Buffer Zone Community Group Prior to the 1990’ies the area immediately south of Witu forest proper consisted mostly of forest patches and the pressure on forest resources was limited due to low human densities. People started moving into the area from 1995 in connection with a large-scale settlement scheme. Today no vacant plots exist and approximately 130 families are living in the area. Only a few residents have title deeds to their land. Many plots are officially owned by wealthy outsiders speculating in purchasing land and the families living on these plots are in reality squatters. A legal process has been initiated to give them title deeds. The communities’ resources were listed and ranked. The most important resources outside the forest are trees followed by the two cash crops - green gram/mug bean (Vigna radiate) and sim sim (unknown crop) (see Tab. 12). It was specifically pointed out the trees are important in providing timber, poles, shade and for attracting rain. Most of the large trees outside the forest have, however, been cut down. Often land owners are paid 300-800 Ksh for someone to cut and remove all timber from the plot.

Table 12. Resources outside the forest. The resources importance was ranked by each participant placing a number of seeds according to importance on pieces of paper where the various resources were written.

Resource Score Livestock: goat/sheep, cows, poultry 4, 3, and 3. Cash crops: cotton, cashew nut, Sim sim, bixa 3, 5, 7 and 1. Other crops: Sugarcane, green gram, maize, coconut 1, 8, 6 and 1. Vegetables: onion, pumpkin, tomato, watermelon. 1, 1, 1 and 2. Fruit: banana, mango, lemon, orange, papaya, passion fruit. 2, 2, 2, 1, 2 and 1.

Resources from the forest considered most important were medicine herbs (see Tab. 13). This was followed by timber, wild fruits, and materials for making bee hives, honey and fuel wood. It was stated that some forest products had become scarce and difficult to find. These include honey and poles. Poles are primarily available from the forest as the poles sold by WFFA were considered too expensive for most local people. It is possible to apply for a permit to cut poles for domestic use. The permit is free and the forester oversees the cutting in the forest. Trees were also mentioned as a resource that has become scarce inside as well as outside the forest. Most people have cleared their

44


land for trees and it is now considered difficult to find large trees outside the forest. Only a few pocket forests remain. It is acknowledged that they are important for water retention.

Table 13. Resources from the forest. The resources importance was ranked by each participant placing a number of seeds according to importance on pieces of paper where the various resources were written.

Resource Score Collecting medicine herbs and wild fruits 14 and 7. Cutting timber and collecting firewood. 8 and 5 Making beehives and collecting honey. 6 and 6. Making charcoal and canoes 2 and 0.

Crop damage primarily by baboons was identified as the major problem for the communities in relation to the forest (see Tab. 14). Larger animals were generally not considered a problem in relation to crop damage but animals like buffalos and elephants can be dangerous to people (Washer & Andanje, 2004). Local communities suggested poisoning baboons and rats to diminish the negative consequences of crop damage. It was in this respect mentioned that the major reason why remaining pocket forest is being cut down is because it attracts and provide shelter for baboons. It was furthermore felt that it should be allowed and would likely have minimal impact to shoot a buffalo or two per month.

Table 14. Problems in relation to the forest. The magnitude of problems was ranked by each participant placing a number of seeds according to importance on pieces of paper where the various issues were written.

Problem Score Elephants, buffalo and wild pigs. 3, 2, and 1. Baboons and hyenas 42 and 2. Rats, blesmols and porcupines. 5, 1 and 2. Weevils 2 Army worms 2

The communities are acutely aware of the benefits and potential income that can be generated from forest based enterprises. They have considered making tree seedling nurseries and establishing a woodlot on a private plot. There are, however, two major barriers to wood production outside the forest: First, the water in the area is allegedly becoming hard/salty due to declining subsoil water levels so trees can not grow. The communities suggest establishing a well and using the water that are under the remaining pocket forests to overcome this problem. They have applied for permission to manage the pocket forest from the DFO. Second, it is increasingly difficult to come by seeds of indigenous trees. Seeds are however, offered for free to registered groups participating in the national tree planting program. To overcome both of these barriers the communities must be registered as an association. During the meeting the four headmen present agreed to establish an association called the Sam Sam Buffer Zone Community Group and apply for management rights to the pocket forests again.

4.4.4. Witu Conservation Self Help Group WCSHG was registered under the Societies Act, August 19th 2005, following a sensitising and mobilization project conducted by KWS. The organization replaced a previous NGO differing by now being exclusively managed and consisting of local people. Many of these people were involved in managing the forest prior to the 1980’ies (see section 4.4.1). WCSHG currently has 67 members and it costs 50 Ksh to join. The members hereafter contribute to finance activities according to their

45


ability. An office building has been made available by the government. But the house needs extensive renovation at an estimated price of 2-250.000 Ksh, which is unrealistic for WCSHG to produce. WCSHG focus on Witu forest as it is considered the habitat under the largest pressure. Proposed activities for the organization include providing training for their members in order to be able to monitor, patrol and participate in management of the forest. According to their own statements they, however, lack information about the provisions regarding community forest management in the new Forest Act. WCSHG also propose re-establishing an abandoned ranch on the south eastern corner of the forest as a community corporative. A large number of arrests and confiscations of timber were made by managers of the ranch when it was in operation (see section 4.4.1.) and the idea is supported by the DFO. Finally there are plans to establish nurseries for indigenous hardwood trees as a long-term strategy to provide tangible economic benefits from the forest to local people. Two acres of poles have been planted and can be harvested in a few years. WCSHG is currently attempting to establish bee hive and honey production in order to finance their activities. The major barrier to the organizations involvement in forest management was the limitations in the previous Forest Act and lack of funds and equipment to carry out plans and activities. WCSHG has no experience in attracting funds directly from donors. There is limited or no corporation with the forest department but KWS provides some assistance in terms of advice on application procedures etc. WCSHG needs basic stationeries, means of communication and transport to conduct monitoring and patrolling in the forest.

4.4.5. Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy The Nairobi Ranch was originally purchased by the Sherman family in 1979 for cattle ranching. Realising the natural potential of the land the Shermans instead became Protector and initiator of the Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy. KWBC was registered in January 2004 following the signing of a management agreement between Nairobi Ranching Ltd. represented by Farouk Sherman and the KWBC Trust. KWBC aims to create a new initiative in coastal land use, based on integrating community development, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources in Lamu, Tana River and Iljara Districts, in collaboration with Kenya Wildlife Service and other strategic conservation partners. KWBC is mainly comprised of the Nairobi ranch that shares direct boundaries with the Witu forest. A wider zone of interest, still covered with natural vegetation, has been identified to ensure conservation of larger species and to form a corridor of unspoilt and varied natural habitats linking the coastline to the hinterland. Seven of the northernmost critical sites of the Costal Forest biodiversity hotspot, holding globally threatened species, fall within this zone of interest. The conservancy finances a vigilant ranger corps that conducts regular patrols on conservancy land to prevent illegal encroachment, logging, hunting and use of fire. Prior to establishment of KWBC a substantial amount of land was sold to the government to establish the Witu I and Witu II settlement schemes. Witu II is likely to have been placed in preferred elephant habitat constituting a migration corridor linking the important shelter and foraging area of Witu forest to the costal bushlands and therefore create intense human-wildlife conflict (Washer & Andanje, 2004). Plans to establish the exact layout of this corridor and bringing it back into KWBC are underway.

46


Some measure of community development projects, in terms of construction of school buildings and prayer houses, has been initiated by Farouk Sherman with funds from various donors. The projects have apparently largely been given as gifts with little community involvement in prioritization or decision making. Moreover no agreement has been made with the communities regarding conservation obligations etc. in return for development. KWBC has thereby missed an opportunity to involve the communities in conservation of the areas forests and other wildlife habitats in return for tangible immediate benefits. Farouk Sherman in this respect indicated that he considered community involvement unnecessary and counterproductive to conservation efforts, somewhat at odds with the conservancy’s objectives and visions. Nevertheless KWBC trust were in the fieldwork period in the process of securing 350.000 $US for buffer zone development from EU which hopefully will include communities in the process.

4.4.6. District Forest Office The District Forest Office is in the process of preparing work plans for boundary and firebreak cleaning and maintenance and for forest patrolling and protection of Witu forest. This is based on boundary marking and alignment conducted in 2003 and 2005 respectively. Strategies for improved protection of the forest by involving local communities in accordance with the provisions in the new Forest Act are being considered. These provisions in the Forest Act, however, seem to be viewed with some ambiguity. Initially the DFO will conduct an information campaign for the communities on the new possibilities in the Act. The local forest office in Witu town consists of one forest officer and two forest officer assistants that are paid when patrols are conducted. Current constraints to effective protection, according to the forest assistants, include lack of funds for salaries and lack of equipment. New rifles to replace the few outdated rifles that the local Forest Office has are mentioned as top priority due to the alleged frequent incursion of bandits from Somalia. The next priority is a vehicle and means of communication. Due to these deficiencies patrols are only carried out infrequently and are not able to cover a significant part of the forest. Suggestions to improve the protection of the forest include constructing a house and control point on the Lamu-Malindi road near the access road in the western part of the forest and improving the corporation between local communities, KWS and the DFO in relation to patrolling in the forest. The lack of reporting from patrols conducted in the forest by KWS is in this respect seen as a major problem by the DFO.

4.4.7. Kenya Wildlife Service The local branch of the Kenya Wildlife Service is in comparison to the DFO better armed, equipped and can conduct large scale operations in the forest and respond to urgent issues. Unfortunately KWS is according to the manager of the local branch office in Witu town, primarily concerned with threats to wildlife and tourists and not with illegal logging. Records show that patrols are conducted approximately twice per month and apparently mainly in response to rumours of the presence of bandits in the forest. Trespassers, including illegal loggers are brought to the police. Often, however, the culprits are released by the police immediately after paying a fine. The amount of the fines is according to KWS insufficient to deter illegal loggers and is simply factored into profit considerations by the middlemen.

47


In addition to patrols by vehicles, KWS conduct regular over flights of the forest to detect the presence of bandits and other types of disturbance to wildlife. No photo documentation etc. is, however, produced from these over flights.

4.4.8. Kenyan Women Finance Trust KWFT aims to empower women and contribute to poverty alleviation by promoting savings and providing access to credit. The criterion for receiving aid from the KWFT is that the women have to have an income generating activity. It does not have to be large or particularly successful but they have to demonstrate that they are in possession of will and entrepreneurship. Women are accepted by the organization in groups on a community basis and receive training in organizing, saving, leadership and women’s rights. Micro credits are made available following procedures similar to those developed in relation to the famous Gram Bank from Bangladesh where the group vouches for the individual member’s loan. Environmental impact assessments are conducted in relation to each proposed enterprise before loans are granted. Communities are, however, selected somewhat ad hoc and the environmental impact of the organization could benefit from targeting communities adjacent to important areas for conservation of biodiversity. Women in the Sam Sam Buffer Zone Community Group are currently making mats, baskets, and merry go rounds (toys). The men are making bee hives and canoes. SSBZCG were encouraged to contact KWFT and apply for being included in the activities in the district.

4.4.9 Umbrella Organization A meeting was held with representatives from WCSHG, WFFA, SSBZCG and KWS. It was agreed that there are benefits to working together and the first tentative steps towards establishing an umbrella organization for the three NGO interest groups were taken. Funding opportunities were discussed and it was agreed to write combined applications.

48


5. Discussion

5.1. Extent of Human Disturbance Human disturbance in terms of illegal logging of indigenous species was found to be very high in Witu forest. The results indicate that illegal logging occur both in the forest interior and at the forest edge in undisturbed areas. The presence of campsites with mosquito nets and empty oil cans support statements of resource persons from WCSHG regarding the methods used (see section 4.4.1.). The presence of the research team in the forest may have caused the loggers to temporarily halt their activities. On two occasions shots were fired over the transect where the research team was working. Local assistants informed that it was rumoured that this was commissioned in order to scare the team away so that the loggers could continue their work undisturbed. These events and the ability to organize the rapid removal of the timber piles found in the forest by research assistants (see section 4.2) suggest that the illegal logging is relatively well organised. As a result of past and present illegal logging, certain areas of the forest have been completely cleared of larger trees and overall canopy cover is low. Some areas of the forest are now mainly comprised of secondary growth, bushes and palms. Continued logging furthermore threatens to compromise ecosystem services from the forests, in terms of water catchment and harboring of biodiversity, by affecting the structure, composition and function of the forest. Patches of old indigenous forest with tall trees of many different species, however, still occur. Some of these species, including Manilkara sulcuta and Afzelia quanzensis are important forage trees for various wildlife species as well as for local medicine. The forest in general is also important in providing shade, shelter and forage for far-ranging species such as elephants, particularly during the dry season, as well as for migrating birds (see section 5.3). It is therefore essential that logging is brought to a complete halt and that regeneration of the forest, and particularly the indigenous trees, is facilitated.

5.2. Relative Animal Densities Comparison of relative wildlife densities with other forests in the Eastern Afromontane biodiversity hotspot indicate that duiker populations in Witu forest are relatively low (see Tab. 15). No indication of bushmeat hunting, in terms of traps etc. was, however, observed in the forest. Table 15. Relative duiker densities in other locations.

Species

Relative density (Dung piles / km2) (95% CI).

Location Habitat type Hunting pressure

Blue duiker / Suni 8719±6699

Harvey’s duiker 7624±5984

West Kilombero Scarp Forest Reserve, Udzungwa Mts. Tanzania (300 km2)

Montane - upper montane evergreen forest (1600-2100 m)

Low

Blue duiker / Suni 764±531 New Dabaga Ulongambi Forest Reserve, Udzungwa

Secondary montane evergreen forest (1800-

High (32 traps/km2)

49


Harvey’s duiker 522±371 Mts. Tanzania (37 km2) 2100 m)

Reference: Nielsen, 2006. Many duiker species furthermore have a wide tolerance for logging with the direct effect of habitat alteration having only negligible consequences on densities compared to associated losses from indirect factors such as hunting (see Davies et al. 2001 for a review). In some cases, the density of duikers may even increase in degraded or secondary forest (see Davies et al. 2001; Nummelin 1990; Wilkie & Finn 1990) although this is controversial (Struhsaker 1998). Present logging activities in Witu forest therefore does not seem to explain the low duiker densities. Instead it is assumed that the comparatively low densities primarily are caused by differences in habitat type and quality as a result of variation in rainfall pattern and soil.

5.3. Value of Witu Forest for Conservation of Biodiversity Twenty mammal species, including four primates were recorded in Witu forest. Recorded mammals include the non-forest dependent IUCN vulnerable listed (VU) Lion (Panthera leo) and African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) and the conservation dependent (CD) African Buffalo (Syncerus caffer). IUCN listed forest dependent species include the conservation depended (CD) Harveys Duiker (Cephalophus harveyi) and Suni (Neotragus moschatus) and the near threatened (NT) Lesser Elephant Shrew (Elephantulas rufescens) and possibly the Somali Galago (Galago gallarum) (observation by vocalization prevents more precise identification). Further surveys in the forest may record additional species. A number of species including, vervet monkey (Cercopithecus pygerythrus), honey badger (Mellivora capensis), slender mongoose (Herpestes sanguinea), blotched genet (Genetta tigrina) and leopard (Panthera pardus), were recorded during surveys in KWBC by Washer & Andanje (2004) and are likely to occur in connection with the forest. Eighty-five species of birds were recorded in Witu forest. Observations include the near threatened (NT) Southern Banded Snake-eagle (Circaetus fasciolatus) and Fishers Turaco (Tauraco fischeri). In addition the regionally threatened Saddle-billed Stork (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), African Crowned Eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus), Little Yellow Flycatcher (Erythrocercus holochlorus) and Scaly Babbler (Turdoides squamulata) were recorded. Of the observed species the Little Yellow Flycatcher, Mombassa Woodpecker (Campethera mombassica), Chestnut-fronted Helmet-shrike (Prionops scopifrons) and Fishers Turaco are endemic to the Costal Forests of East Africa. Observations also include the Red-tailed Ant-Trush (Neocossyphus rufus) whose eastern subspecies is endemic to the Costal Forest. The Scaly Babbler is otherwise range restricted within Kenya. Observations also include the Cinnamon-chested Bee-eater (Merops oreobates), the Forest Batis (Batis mixta) and the Green-backed Twinspot (Mandingoa nitidula) representing an extension of the known range for these species. The Cinnamon-chested Bee-eater is considered a mountain forest habitat species (Fry et al. 1988). Unfortunately it could not be determined weather not be determined weather observations were only stray individuals. The forest also appears to be important for migratory birds. A number of intra-African migrating birds were recorded in Witu forest at an earlier time than expected according in accordance with the described migration patterns (Fry et al., 1988; Keith et al., 1992; Hoyo et al. 2001 & 2004). These include the Yellow bill (Ceuthmochares aereus), Broad Billed Roller (Eurystomus glaucurus) and Red Capped Robin-Chat (Cossypha natalensis). The Robin-Chat is for instance not expected to migrate to the coast until May where it stays to November (Keith et al., 1992).

50


Reptiles, amphibians and insects were primarily recorded through casual observations. No endemic species or species with a IUCN redlist status were, however, recorded. This may be the result of low and non-systematic catch effort. It is therefore not possible to make conclusions regarding the importance of Witu forest for conservation of reptiles, amphibians or insects compared to other forests in the Costal Forest Biodiversity Hotspot. Finally the forest contains a number of threatened plant species (CEPF, 2003; Luke, unpublished results). Witu forest reserve is known to hold at least nine species of threatened plants, including the critically endangered (CE) Euphorbia tanaensis that has only been found in Witu forest, represented by around 20 mature individuals (CAMP Workshop, 1998). Based on the recorded species the forest appears to be an important site for conservation of mammal and bird diversity within the Costal Forest of East Africa Biodiversity Hotspot and of particular importance for the conservation of plant diversity (Burgess, 2000; WWF-US, 2003; CEPF, 2003). The forest also provide shade, shelter, forage and water for IUCN listed species such as Lion, Elephant and Buffalo. This function may be essential particularly during the dry season and the forest is therefore important for maintaining the wider areas large animal assemblage.

Box. 1. Potentials in additional surveys The critically endangered Ader’s duiker (Cephalophus adersi) was recently recorded in nearby Dodori forest constituting a significant range extension for this species (Washer & Andanje, 2004). The chairman of KWBC furthermore claims that this species has been observed on Nairobi Ranch. It is, however, considered unlikely that additional surveys will record this species in Witu forest due to lack of the preferred habitat features. Ader’s duiker has very specific habitat requirements (Williams et al., 1996). On Zanzibar the species is only found in old growth forest and primarily in undisturbed tall thickets (Williams et al., 1996). In Arabuko-Sokoke forest it primarily occurs in Cyanometra forest on red soil characterized by dense thickets and many lianas (Finnie, 2004). Individuals are, however, occasionally observed in secondary thicket (Kanga, 1999). A primate census in forests south of the Tana River Primate Reserve similarly established a wider and more southern distribution of the critically threatened Tana River red colobus (Procolobus badius rufomitratus) than previously observed (Muoria et al., 2003) and the chairman of KWBC claims that this species has been seen on Nairobi ranch. This species primarily occur in forest dominated by Pachystela sp. and Barringtonia sp. and it is particularly dependent of the fruits and leaves of Ficus sycomorus (Kingdon, 1997). Neither Pachystela sp. nor Barringtonia sp. has been recorded in Witu forest, which is dominated by Terminalia sambesiaca (Luke, unpublished results). Although Ficus sycomorus occur in the forest (Luke, unpublished results) it is considered unlikely that additional surveys will record Tana River Red Colobus in Witu forest due to the condition and isolated nature for the forest relative to other forest containing Tana River Red Colobus. Finally it is considered unlikely that additional surveys will record the Golden-Rumped Elephant Shrew (Rhynchocyon chrysopygus) in Witu forest due to lack of the required/preferred habitat features. Golden Rumped Elephant Shrew primarily occurs in habitats with a thick leaf litter and it is thus particularly susceptible to logging and consequent reduction in canopy cover but also as a result of loss of hollow trunks for refuge (FitzGibbon & Rathbun, 2006). Very limited leaf litter, low degree of canopy cover and a high intensity of illegal logging was observed in Witu forest. Golden Rumped Elephant Shrew was furthermore not considered likely to occur in Witu forest by Rathbun (1979) as a result of the forest being a ground-water forest.

51


5.4. Stakeholder Involvement There is a growing consensus that the long-term protection of forests and other wildlife habitats depend on the goodwill and cooperation of people who live adjacent to these areas (Lewis et al., 1990; Brandon & Wells, 1992; Eltringham, 1994; Newmark et al., 1994; Kock, 1995). To ensure long-term conservation local people need to be given incentives in terms of tangible economic benefits linked to the conservation or sustainable use of natural resources and a stake in management (Gibson & Marks, 1995; Songorwa, 1999). It is furthermore expected that people are more willing to follow rules and regulations regarding management of natural resources that they have been involved in developing (Gibson et al., 2000; Agrawal, 2002). The legal basis is attained through decentralization or devolving of management and property rights to the communities, which has been described as essential for successful conservation, because people will only restrain their exploitation and conserve resources for future use if they can exclude others from harvesting their future benefits (Child, 1996; Noss, 1997; Songorwa, 1999). It can furthermore be expected that local people has a higher degree of knowledge about the status of local resources enabling more rapid management responses. Evaluating 29 CBC projects Salafsky et al (2001) showed that the degree of local involvement in management, the extent to which locals owned the enterprises and the degree of community policing were all clearly linked with conservation success. This pattern compellingly suggests that community involvement is a critical component in any conservation strategy.

5.4.1. Provisions in the New Forest Act and Policy At independence the central government was entrusted with managing Kenya’s forests. Due to lack of funds the forest department, however, was largely unable to patrol and enforce regulations in an exclusionary approach introduced during colonial rule. Local people, having no other deterrent to abstain from using resources they had traditionally depended on, continued to do so (Ludeki et al., 2006). With increasing human population and levels of poverty the government failed to manage forest resources sustainable. Today resource degradation is pronounced in most parts of the country and poverty levels have escaladed, especially in rural areas where natural resources remain the primary source of livelihood (WRI, 2007). Recognizing this, the government through the new forest act and policy, as one aspect of a number of initiatives (see Box 2), proposes to devolve management responsibilities to local communities. A new Forest Act recognizes the necessity of involving local communities to achieve effective forest resource management. It provides for decentralization of forest management to the local community level, giving communities both the access to use and the right to manage their forests in accordance with their own management plans within the legal provisions of the Forest Act. The communities have several options for how they can engage in forest management. This includes establishing Community Forest Associations (CFA) to which management rights and responsibilities can be devolved.

52


Box 2. Kenya’s new forest bill in short. The government of Kenya has, with the new Forest Policy and Forest Act of 2005, acknowledged that traditional state led forest management approaches has failed and that it must be replaced by decentralized institutions that take into account various stakeholders interests. It also recognizes that the contribution of the forest sector to both local and national economies has been underestimated. The focus of the previous Forest Act was protection with a strong government control that did not recognize other stakeholders’ ability to manage the forest and disregarded local communities’ traditional user rights. It therefore lacked incentives for communities and private sector involvement in the forestry sector. The new Forest Act of 2005 (entered into effect February 2007), in comparison to the previous, has clear provisions for participatory forest management and acknowledges local communities’ traditional user rights. It establishes the Kenya Forest Service as an autonomous organization that can devolve forest management rights and responsibilities to Forest Conservation Committees and Community Forest Associations. It also has clear provisions for developing forest conservation agreements and plans that provide for development of local license and taxation systems for managing and controlling resource extractions. The ecosystem services provided by the forest in terms of water catchments, biodiversity etc. and its crucial importance for agriculture, the economic backbone of the country, are emphasized. It contains clear provisions for the conservation and management of all catchments areas with linkages to the agriculture and water sector and for the conservation and management of all indigenous forests. The dependence of rural households on forest resources is acknowledged and the ability of healthy forests to contribute to socioeconomic development and poverty alleviation promoted. Rural development is envisioned to be promoted through income generation based on forest and three products. Forest management plans that guarantee local communities access to government forest reserves for forage, medicine plants, fruits and other productsembodied within the traditional lifestyles are envisioned as long the extraction does not compromise national interests and goals of forest conservation. Incentives are provided for commercial tree growing by the private sector, farmers and communities through land tax exemption and through allowing free market forces to determine the price of forest products. Unnecessary impediments to market efficiency and access will be removed, and provided that social and environmental objectives are met, the government will keep regulations to a minimum. Environmental impact assessments, public consultations and parliament approval are required before de-gazettement of forest reserves where the Minister previously had almost absolute powers. In general Environmental Impact Assessments will be required for all major development undertakings that may have potential impacts on forest, water and other land resources. Higher penalties are also introduced for illegal activities. The Act establishes a Forest Management and Conservation Fund, which can receive funds from other sources including donor organizations, from international agreements and conventions on natural resources and the environment. Sources: Ludeki et al., 2006.

5.4.2. Community Forest Associations For the communities to obtain legal rights to use, benefit and participate in management of Witu forest the identified stakeholders should utilize the opportunities in the new Forest Act. WCSHG, WFFA and SSBZG must be encouraged and assisted in joining and establishing a CFA under the Societies Registration Act. Once registered, the CFA can apply to the local authority to enter into a management agreement for all or part of any state or indigenous forest within its jurisdiction. The first step has been taken during this study, by bringing the identified groups together to discuss the

53


possibilities and terms in establishing an umbrella organization (see section 4.4.9.). There are, however a number of barriers that must be addressed before local communities can be expected

anage the forest effectively (see section 5.7.).

in order to formulate a management plan that will be accepted by Kenya Forest Service (KFS).

acilities for income generation in relation to tourism, recreational and ceremonial use f the forests.

al monitoring system through which the communities can report rough has not been developed.

mply with the agreed management plans may result in cancellation of management agreements.

e livelihood ecurity of the poorest part of the population in slack seasons (Lund & Nielsen, 2006).

m When the CFA has entered into management agreements with the local authority the CFA will be in a position to make their own forest management plan. This must describe how the communities are going to use the forest resources, methods of conservation of biodiversity and methods of monitoring and protecting wildlife and plant populations. Excessive bureaucratic procedures such as requirements of management plans living up to a standard that local communities are unable to fulfill has, however, in some locations been used as means of maintaining central government control (Larson, 2005). Outside assistance may therefore be required

5.4.3. User rights All user rights must be specified in the management plan. Devolved user rights may in accordance with the new Forest Act include rights to collect medicinal herbs, harvest honey, timber and wood for domestic use as well as grazing and grass cutting for community livestock. More commercialized use can include use of forest products for community based industries, eco-tourism, science and education, agroforestry and silvi-cultural activities. The CFA may set and collect charges for the use of forest services and products and can in cooperation with KFS develop programs and fo After approval of the management plan by the KFS the CFA will be responsible for ensuring legal use of the identified resources in accordance with the management plan. The CFA shall also keep the KFS informed about any developments, changes and occurrences within the forest that is critical for the conservation of biodiversity. Identification of these developments and changes should be based on monitoring of trends in the status of natural resources. Particularly the status of resources in relation to communities’ exercised customary rights of extraction must be monitored and the procedure and monitoring mechanism are required to be clearly indicated in the management plan (see section 5.6.). As yet a nationth Failure to co

5.4.4. Extractive Use and Taxation The new Forest Act acknowledges the traditional dependence of rural households on forest resources and envisions that taxation on sustainable use of forest resources could contribute to socioeconomic development and poverty alleviation. Revenue will also be required to compensate local forest mangers and finance the CFA’s management activities. Tangible economic benefits may in addition be required to maintain the communities’ interests and compensate local forest managers for their work/time (Songorwa, 1999; Topp-Jørgensen et al., 2005). The income that can be generated through sustainable extraction is, however, probably low. This is particularly so for forest that are characterized by high catchment and biodiversity values and hence restrictions on extractive use (Topp-Jørgensen et al., 2005). The role of extractive use may thus realistically not be to lift people out of poverty but rather to mediate the effects of poverty by sustaining ths

54


A number of surveys in other locations have illustrated that the poorest part of the population is particularly dependent on forest resources (Cavendish, 2000; Campbel et al., 2002; Narain et al., 2005; Nielsen, 2006) and that these resources are particularly important in providing safety nets, and income shock mitigation in times of hardship (Pattanayak & Sills, 2001; McSweeney, 2005). Introduction of charges or taxation for the use of forest services and products should therefore only be considered with great attention to the effect on the poor, for instance through introducing a level of taxation based on user income group stratification. An appropriate system could assist in redistributing wealth within the community as the more wealthy part of the population often has the highest income from natural resource extraction in absolute terms (Pattanayak & Sills, 2001). Acceptance of taxation on access is furthermore highly dependent on the perception of the integrity of managers (Lund & Nelsen, 2006). This issue may considering the current mistrust in the Forest Officers (see section 4.4.1.), become particularly relevant in relation to Witu forest until people come to accept and believe that that they are the de fact managers of the forest.

h benefits can be generated from the forest ee Tab. 16). A number of these are discussed below.

large number of CFA’s will be formed with e sole purpose of gaining access to timber resources.

harvesting practice, threatens to undermine successful ractices in forest harvesting (FAO 2007).

benefits for local communities and revenue for financing forest management activities s holders.

5.4.5. Income and Benefit Generation The stakeholders suggested a number of ways in whic(s Logging and Pole Cutting Logging and pole cutting were not directly suggested by the stakeholders as desired activities in order to generate benefits. The possibility was, however, implied and the DFO as well as Forest Action Network (FAN) expects and is concerned that a th Logging is a potential major source of income to the communities and sustainable use is theoretically possible. Reduced-impact logging methods such as low-intensity and selective harvesting cause minimal environmental damage and are economical sustainable (FAO 2004). A FAO code of conduct of forest harvesting practices in Africa has been developed (FAO 1996) and regional codes so far exist for West and Central Africa. Illegal logging practices, however, undermine fair market conditions and a widespread lack of awareness or concern for the economic, environmental and social benefits of good p Table 16. Options for generating uggested by local stake

Activity Strengths Weaknesses Collection of medicinal herbs and wild fruits (SSBZCG).

bited since gazettement of e forest.

pact must be monitored.

Emphasized by local communities asthe most important benefit from the forest. Has probably continued despite being prohith

Introduction of a charge will likely be considered unacceptable and may be harmful to the poor. Products have no income generating potential. Maycompete with wildlife foraging and im

Collection of firewood (SSBZCG). fit

robably have minimal impact.

g of poles and live branches etc.

Emphasized as an important benefrom forest but is currently onlycollected outside Witu forest. Collection of deadwood would p

Introduces problems in relation to controlling cuttin

55


Construction of beehives (WCSHG, WFFA, SSBZCG). rom

als or d and

managed by the CFA.

stainability should be monitored.

Relative easy to monitor and low impact compared to collection fnatural beehives. Tax could be introduced for private individubeehives could be owne

Construction of beehives isunfeasible for low income households. Collection of honey from natural beehives would be required to be allowed to continue bylow income households. Impact and su

Logging and pole cutting (not directly suggested). high demand

for wood and poles.

es in

driven

cosystem

ration d recovery of the forest.

Sustainable use is theoretically possible and there is a

Contrary to national prioritirelation to indigenous and catchments forest, and conservation of biodiversity. Illegal loggingby outside interests currently threatens to compromise eservices and biodiversity conservation by affecting the structure and function of the forest. Pole cutting prevents regenean

Establishing tree seedling nurserieand woodlot

s s (WCSHG, WFFA,

SSBZCG).

s.

ition provide ecosystem rvices.

bles

e communities (see section 4.3.3.).

High demand for specific specieMay provide long-term profits through appropriate management. Woodlots with indigenous species may in addse

Shortness of land, low water taand lack of access to seeds of indigenous tree species but may be overcome by means as suggested by th

Intensified agriculture focusing on cash crops (KWBC, KWFT). l

l he status of natural

sources etc.

e

of a host of osystem services.

Agricultural extension services may be offered in return for environmentaprotection obligations. These could include abstaining from clearing of pocket forest, patrolling against illegause, monitoring tre

An exclusive focus on agricultural intensification may encourage further clearing of pocket forests on privatplots that are important refuge for wildlife and providersec

Meat culling (WCSHG, SSBZCG).

l

spatial n relation to other

activities.

nts of meat

d the

of

y control and eezing capacity.

The wider area contains a large buffalo population. Given appropriatemonitoring, culling could produce a sustainable source of benefits to locacommunities in terms of meat. May require appropriate temporal orseparation i

Forest dependent species, such as duikers and monkeys, is unlikely to generate substantial amouor income due to the low productivity of tropical forest anspecies life history strategies. Marketing of buffalo meat for revenue generation from outsidelocal communities may require unfeasible veterinarfr

Trophy hunting (not directly suggested)

buffalo

ourist s such as Lamu and

Malindi.

-how

uld

re currently prohibited in enya.

Large potential for added value to meat culling through trophy hunting based on the wider areas largepopulation and facilitated by relatively easy access to major tdestination

Requires cooperation with outside partners with the required knowon international marketing etc. Would to a large extend be outside local community control and it wohence be necessary to ensure fair benefit sharing. Game hunting is furthermoK

56


Lethal control of baboon population (SSBZCG)

of pocket forests on private plots.

table

a decrease in atural predators.

Crop raiding, predation on domestic animals and the threat to children bybaboons is mentioned as a primary reason for clearing

Baboon is a widespread, adapand common species whose population may have increased substantially due ton

Ecotourism (WCSHG, WFFA, KWBC) arily

ourist

-rest will, however, be

ifficult.

ments in vehicles.

Some potential in relation to bird watching in Witu forest but primin the wider area facilitated by relatively easy access to major tdestinations such as Lamu and Malindi. Competition with ArabukoSokoke fod

May require cooperation with outside partners with the required know-howand it is hence necessary to ensurefair benefit sharing. May require invest

Tax on research permits (not directly suggested)

troduced on research in the forest.

h rojects taking place in the forest.

Fees or charges could be in Necessary to ensure that fees a retained for forest management or development projects in relation to Witu forest. Low number of researcp

In Witu forest illegal logging currently threatens to compromise the ecosystem services and biodiversity values provided by affecting the structure and function of the forest. Continued pole cutting will in addition hamper the ability of the forest to recover and establish canopy cover where trees have been cut. It is therefore recommended that the prohibition of timber and pole cutting is maintained in future management plans, until the forest has regenerated sufficiently and that a trategy to enforce this is developed.

sure on the forest and provide income for local communities and r financing forest management.

es should therefore be considered for land-tax exemption as rovide for in the new Forest Act.

opriate management, in terms of usiness management, replanting schemes etc., may be required.

s Establishing woodlots The communities suggest establishing tree seedling nurseries and woodlots as an income generating activity and to supply the communities own requirements. There is a high national demand for poles of specific species and if managed appropriately woodlots can become a continuous source of income. Woodlots can reduce presfo Woodlots will in addition increase the area of forest cover and provide ecosystem services in terms of carbon sequestration, precipitation and higher subsoil water levels. It is, however, not just a question of increasing the area of forest to obtain these services (DFIF 2005). Many introduced tree species, especially fast growing species such as pines and eucalyptus, actually contributes to drying out the land and others like black wattle (Acacia mearnsii) have become invasive (DFID 2005). Only planting of indigenous specip A number of barriers exist in terms of shortness of land, low water tables and lack of access to seeds of indigenous tree species. Access to indigenous tree seeds should be facilitated and options for providing water explored. Capacity building of the CFA on apprb

57


Meat culling and trophy hunting The communities express a desire to conduct meat culling. Sustainable culling of species, such as duikers and monkeys, is unlikely to generate substantial amounts of meat or income due to the low productivity of tropical forest and the particular life history strategies of forest dependent species (Nielsen, 2006). The wider area, however, contains a large buffalo population and given that appropriate monitoring is undertaken (see section 5.6.), culling could constitute a sustainable source of benefits to local communities. Marketing of buffalo meat for revenue generation from outside of local communities’ economy would, however, require veterinary control and freezing capacity that

currently unfeasible.

be outside local community control and it ould hence be necessary to ensure fair benefit sharing.

ners to profit from wildlife and for the ban on all hunting being lifted (Northon-Griffiths, 1998).

epend on clear agreements on benefit sharing. A number f these suggestions are discussed below.

opulations and habitat quality ensuring long rm incentives for sustainable use and conservation.

is A higher income generation potential exists in the introduction of trophy hunting on buffalos. Trophy hunting could constitute a sustainable and potentially substantial (Siege, 2001) and stable source of income to local communities (Child, 1996; Murphre, 2001). Relatively easy access to tourist destinations such as Lamu and Malindi would facilitate marketing. Development and marketing of this product, however, requires cooperation with players with the necessary know-how and contacts. The enterprise would thus to a large extendw Trophy hunting furthermore requires that the national ban on hunting is lifted. Many see a pressing need for policy change that allows for landow

5.4.5. Non-extractive use The stakeholders suggested a number of ways in which benefits can be generated from the forest through non-extractive use (se Tab. 16). Common for most of these are that they may require involvement of outside partners and thus do Ecotourism Development of ecotourism was considered a major opportunity for income generation by WCSHG and WFFA. The main features of interest were considered bird watching in Witu forest and the nearby historic and wildlife features. In addition to income from transportation, accommodation, guide fees and other types of labor, taxes or charges could also be imposed in terms of permits for tourists to enter the forest. Such permits could also be introduced for researchers. In theory these activities entail a direct link with the status of wildlife pte An example from Tanzania illustrates that the income generating potential of bird watching and research fees is very limited despite high levels of biodiversity and endemism unless very unique species are present that can attract enthusiasts and researchers (Topp-Jørgensen et al. 2005). Such species have not been documented during this survey. Competition with nearby Arabuko-Sokoke forest, hosting six IUCN listed birds and three mammals, in addition make this niche unfeasible. In relation to wildlife viewing, the enterprise would also have to compete against well established parks and game reserves with guarantees of seeing charismatic species. As the pressures on these destinations have increased and impact is starting to materialize, the search for new alternatives, however, have become more intense. Development of tourism potentials in the wider area could hence become feasible due to the relatively easy access to major tourist destinations such as Lamu

58


and Malindi. In this respect it would be important to ensure appropriate temporal or spatial

outside partners is made contingent on transparent mechanism that ensure fair benefit sharing and that money are captured at the local

ment initiatives.

ell as international players benefit from these efforts, e.g. through creased carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation, currently without compensating local

s should be compensated for these services by the company leasing KWBC through stablishment of a fair benefit sharing scheme that reflect the true importance of the services

one development rogram that according to the chairman of KWBC is currently being drafted. Funding and support

and other forest management activities. They should also cover the costs of crop amage and injuries and loss of life inflicted by wildlife from the conservancy (see Washer &

differentiation of hunting and ecotourism activities. Lack of the appropriate training, technology and capital to run the necessary infrastructure will likely require that the communities establish cooperation with outside entrepreneurs and investors in possession of required know-how and contacts. This may result in leaking of profits out of the community. Koch (1997) for instance estimates that as much as 55-90% of tourist spending goes back overseas. It is hence necessary that any cooperation with

level through jobs and investments in develop

5.4.6. Compensation and Direct Payments Local organizations conduct a valuable service in contributing to fight illegal logging and fire in the forest. These efforts are likely to increase as a CFA is registered and the communities’ gain management rights and responsibilities, including the right and obligation to conduct patrols in the forest. A number of national as winforest managers for their efforts. KWBC has for instance recently been leased to a company planning to establish ecotourism and who is currently building timeshare houses in the conservancy. The success of this initiative is based on the presence of populations of large and charismatic species such as Lion, Elephant, Buffalo and various antelopes, such as critically threatened (CR) Hirola (Beatragus hunteri). Elephants and other larger species in the area are probably dependent on Witu forest for cover and for forage and water during the dry season. Local communities thus provide an important service for KWBC in patrolling to prevent illegal logging and in combating fire in the forest. The communitieeprovided. The current practice that has character of KWBC buying the communities silence through gifts must be abandoned for real involvement and establishment of joint management agreements that specify conditions for provision of services and benefits (see section 4.4.5.). KWBC’s current focus on communities in the Witu II settlement should be extended to include those in Witu I settlement that neighbor the forest. These communities should also be included in the EU buffer zpfor local communities should be made conditional on conservation performance. Payments and provision of benefits for the communities should be explicitly tied to conservation performance (Ferraro, 2001). Indicators should reflect good conservation outcomes such as evidence that populations of relevant species is increasing. Ideally the payment or benefits should be equivalent to the opportunity cost of not logging and pole cutting and cover the costs in relation conducting patrolsdAndanje, 2004). Direct payments have the advantage of having unambiguous linkage and encourage an active role of the communities. It is inherently independent on change in market conditions and the money stay in

59


the area. But payments have to be large and continuous suggesting that a permanent funding mechanism should be created. Resources need to be monitored effectively to ensure conservation

erformance and measures to accommodate stochastic variation in populations have to be devised

nreasonably low payment or compensation in comparison to the actual value of their services (Ferraro, 2001).

y an outside mediator.

ped programs are also often unable to ontribute to biodiversity conservation because they are ineffective in integrating information into

general nature to lead to actions (Danida, 2000). or the monitoring system to be sustainable, it furthermore needs to be based on locally available

d education, little equipment and few financial resources. It hould build on existing traditional ecological knowledge and be possible to conduct while doing

l cycles and trends and those related to nthropogenic stress (Danielsen et al., 2000). Finally, equal priority should be given to bio-physical

To saspects

p(Ferraro, 2001). The system is, however, not free of opening a number of possibilities for coercion by the communities and entrepreneurs can in turn pressure communities to accept an u

Negotiation of agreements should therefore be supervised b

5.6. Monitoring of Biodiversity and Natural Resources Monitoring of the status of natural resources and forest quality is a prerequisite for informed management decisions, long term sustainability and indeed for the success of the strategy inherent in the new Forest Act. Many biodiversity monitoring schemes in developing countries, however, suffer from being unrealistically large, complicated and impossible to sustain with the locally available funds and human resources (Danida, 2000). They therefore commonly collapse almost immediately when donor funding stops. Externally develocdecision making (Danielsen et al., 2000; Danielsen, 2003). Monitoring programs need to be realistic and at the same time useful for guidance rather than living up to an ideal in relation to scientific studies (Danielsen et al., 2000). What really matters is that biodiversity monitoring is management-oriented. The program should focus on addressing priority issues, having short time-span from data sampling to management action, and providing input to protected area management that is of a sufficientlyFpersonnel and resources (Danielsen et al., 2000). The most cost-effective and realistic monitoring program in relation to Witu forest would be based on forest patrols conducted by community or CFA members. The system should be developed in cooperation with the CFA and DFO. It should be as simple as possible using standardised methods that require a minimum of training ansregular patrols to prevent illegal use. Indicators should be selected that describes the state of biodiversity and natural resources as unambiguously as possible, highlight emerging changes in biodiversity and resource use and extraction, and drawing attention to the effectiveness of management policies and actions (Danielsen et al., 2000). Observations should furthermore be easy and cost-effective to collect, meaningful to local people and avoid variations in people’s ability to identify species. Species where the reason for possible change in status can be relatively easily established should, however, be preferred. The combined set of indicators should furthermore be able to function over a wide range of stress, be able to differentiate between naturaaand socio-economic information (Danielsen et al., 2000).

ob erve these recommendations a monitoring program for Witu forest should contain two :

60


• Standardised recording of observations in relation to wildlife and resource use during regular timed CFA forest patrols.

community groups.

T m n

• Occasional focus group discussions with Suggested indicators are presented in Tab. 17.

able 17. Suggested indicators for co munity based natural resource mo itoring in Witu forest.

Category Method of documentation Indicator examples Frequency of detection of specific indicator species.

entification through direct sighting or observation of spoors.

f t litter.

Visual id Lesser elephant shrew: Indicator of high herbivore numbers due to the dependence ocertain prey insects on dung and planFour toed elephant shrew: Indicator of the presence of a complex plant/animal community Aardvark: Indicator of no or low bushmeat hunting intensity. Elephant: IUCN vulnerable listed keystone species. Leopard, lion and other predators: Indicatorof sound herbivore populations.

ornbills: Depend on cavities in trees and Hmay indicate presence of old trees. Spurfowl: Indicates low levels of snaring.

Frequency of detection of general entification through

Bushpig, Buffalo, Bushbuck, Harvey’s species.

Vd

isual idirect sighting or observation of

spoors. duiker, Suni etc.

Frequency of signs of resource sturbance.

Audio and visual identification. , extraction and human di

Traps, shoots fired, cut trees and poleslogging camps, oil cans, cut bark, dug up bee hive, evidence of use of fire etc.

Changes in stakeholder perceptions.

Stakeholder interviews.

n

stances of unlicensed/illegal harvesting observed.

Amount of resources harvested per amountof effort. Harvesting equipment used. Number of people involved in harvesting. Number of outsiders observed harvesting ihe forest. t

In

The final indicators should be selected in corporation between the CFA and DFO. Tables for standardised recording of observations should be developed. Recording income generated from

rest management on the same tables would increase transparency and facilitate perception of a

dures. Open iscussions in the communities should be encouraged. This will contribute to building capacity in

fodirect link between protection of the forest and income generation (Topp-Jørgensen et al. 2005). Trends in recorded aspects should be analyzed by the CFA and DFO for informed management decisions, acknowledging that results may be biased due to simple collection procedenvironmental management and understanding of sustainability by local communities.

61


Substantial challenges lies in moving from monitoring results to identifying appropriate management decisions (see section 5.7.). It is in this respect important for maintaining community interest and facilitate management learning that the CFA is able to make, implement and enforce management decisions in a transparent and accountable manner and that relevant support is

d the conditions before the decentralization rocess (Colfer & Capistrano, 2005). In Kenya many traditional local resource management

ce base was very limited in terms of money, materials and manpower. Finally ey had no knowledge about their rights and the services they could require from the district

epted and the onstitution must ensure accountability in terms of enabling the board of the CFA to be held

n. On a longer timeframe the institutional means for small communities to network and arn from each other and to enable them to bolster their interests from state interference may be

for local capacity building and

provided by the DFO/KFS.

5.7. Building Capacity for Local Management Decentralization in itself does little to ensure appropriate and sustainable management (see Colfer & Capistrano, 2005). Decentralized management of natural resources is particularly vulnerable to effects of elite capture (Larson, 2005). The success furthermore to a large degree depends on the nature of the institutions to which power is devolved anpinstitutions have collapsed as a result of centralization. An organizational capacity assessment of community groups engaged in PFM in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda revealed a number of shortcomings in their ability to manage forests (EMPFORM, 2006). The groups were characterized by weak structures as many were formed by people with no experience. Very few had a constitution and the leaders possessed little or no management skills. The groups’ resourthcommunity office. These problems are reflected in the identified stakeholder organizations in relation to Witu forest. It is, however, important to build on the institutions that are already in place by strengthening and shaping them for achieving the new goals in relation to registering a CFA and assuming management rights and responsibilities for the forest. To accommodate the task and take full advantage of the possibilities in the new Forest Act, the CFA must adopt a clear and common vision and mission for what the organization seek to achieve. WCSHG, WFFA and SSBZG’s interests must be accounted for in the vision and mission statement and the CFA must establish good governance by ensuring all inclusive participation of these diverse interest groups. The degree to which people are empowered to participate in decision-making processes must become a measure of the CFA’s quality of governance. All management processes must be transparent to the extent that decision-making follows processes that are clearly understood and broadly acccresponsible for their decisions, actions and their consequences (EMPAFORM 2006). In order to achieve this, the communities surrounding Witu forest should be educated on their role in electing good leaders and the CFA must be assisted in building an appropriate organizational culture. Leaders must also be trained and coached on good governance and participatory leadership (EMPAFORM 2006). Thus an information campaign for the communities, and extensive capacity building of the aspiring members of the CFA board, may be required in order for them to be able to establish the required community trust and management abilities for a well functioning organizatiolerequired. CFAs cannot be expected to become fully fledges forest managers within a short timeframe. Continued support and advice from KFS is a prerequisite

62


development of sound management practices. Sufficient resources to supply the needed support should therefore be ensured by central government authorities.

atural resource exploitation will contribute to poverty alleviation nd generate long-term local incentives for sustainable use and protection of forest resources and

t also implies that the generated enefits must be able to compete with the income from continued illegal exploitation and from

e CFA an and will make and effectuate management decisions that are directed towards the most

p forest loss rather than slowing it down. It is also difficult to find any evidence at people of higher economic standards are more positive to protected areas than poor people

to the sustainability of practises should be identified and commendations for adjustments to optimise and ensure effective management developed in

5.8. Monitoring and Evaluation The general expectations of the new Forest Act is that the bestowed management responsibilities and rights to collect revenue from nabiodiversity (Ludeki et al., 2006). These expectations are generally based on a number of assumptions regarding the involved communities (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999). These include that sustainable levels of natural resource exploitation can be determined and maintained (Ludwig et al. 1993; Struhsaker, 1996; Barnes, 2002), and that this can generate sufficient incentives/income to compensate local forest managers for their work and/or can be used or distributed in a way that will ensure the interest and compliance of the communities in relation to preventing illegal exploitation and other types of habitat degradation (Barrett & Arcese, 1995; Struhsaker, 1996; Shyamsundar, 1996; Northon-Griffith & Southey, 1995; Norton-Griffiths, 1995; Hackel, 1999). The concepbalternative forms of land use (Hackel, 1999; Kremen et al., 2000). Sustainable forest management by the local communities also depends on their ability to collect accurate monitoring information depicting the development in forest resources and that thcimmediate threats against natural resources and biodiversity (Topp-Jørgensen et al., 2005). Substantial criticism has, however, been directed against these assumptions (Robinson, 1993; Ludwig et al., 1993; Kremen et al., 1994; Barrett and Arcese, 1995; Gibson and Marks, 1995; Noss, 1997; Struhsaker, 1998; Hackel, 1999; Oates, 1999; Songorwa, 1999). There is particular reason for scepticism in relation to tropical forest and densely populated areas. An issue at the heart of the problem is the perceived link between development or poverty alleviation and conservation. Barret and Arcese (1995) conclude that development increase consumerism, makes people less reliant on their local resources and hence less sensitive to environmental degradation. It furthermore weakens cultural institutions for sound environmental practice. Wunder (2001) finds that poverty reduction generally speeds uth(Marcus, 2001). It is, however, clear that there are few realistic alternatives due to the limited economical resources in the Kenyan central administration and that the strategy inherent in the new Forest Act is innovative and has a large potential. It is therefore important to proceed with the development of the strategy and monitoring and evaluation of the initiatives is essential in this respect. Experience with local forest management in Witu forest should thus be reviewed after an appropriate timeframe. Potential problems relatedrecooperation with the CFA.

63


This study provides the necessary baseline data for evaluating the effect of devolvement of forest management rights and responsibilities to local communities on conservation in terms of status of

ildlife populations, biodiversity and human disturbance in Witu forest. Suitable follow up of the tudy can identify benefits and shortcomings in the strategy and assist in developing necessary djustments to ensure sustainable forest management in Kenya.

wsa

64

6. Recommendations

Table 18. Recommendations for improved forest management, involvement of local communities and generation of benefits.

Recommendation Rationale and description Responsible Priority Involvement of local communities

WCSHG, WFFA and SSBZCG must form and register as a CFA under the Societies Registration Act.

Local communities will be most affected by loss of forest and associated ecosystem services and should therefore play an active role in management of the forest. The stakeholders already patrol inside the forest (currently illegally), fight fire and manage woodlots and tree seedling nurseries to the benefit of forest management. Through establishment of a Community Forest Association (CFA) the communities can obtain legal rights and responsibilities for forest management and rights to use and benefit form the forest within the provisions of the new Forest Act. This will contribute to financing management initiatives, compensate forest managers and create incentives for protection and sustainability.

DFO/KFS should provide guidance. Nature Kenya can assist. Recommendations in this report.

1

The CFA must be assisted in capacity building.

Communities are often poorly equipped to handle the many different aspects of engaging in forest management and negotiation with authorities and cooperation partners. They may therefore require training on organization, leadership and management. Particular relevant is to ensure that members are aware of their role in electing good leaders and that a culture of good governance is established through a constitution that facilitates transparency and accountability. Courses on forest management, micro enterprises etc. should furthermore be developed and offered to the newly established CFA.


2

The CFA must be assisted in drafting a management plan.

Management agreements with the local authority must be based on a management plan. The plan must address and provide a strategy for stopping illegal logging as the primary threat towards the forest (see later recommendations). Other issues include boundary demarcation and clearing, fire fighting and specifying species and amounts that can be harvested, regulation procedures and means of monitoring communities’ extractive use of the forest as well as the status of wildlife populations, biodiversity and habitat quality.


2

Promotion of the education of a local forest officer.

A major problem for local forest management is the lack of continuity of forest officers and the fact that they are not local. It is apparently very difficult to find forest officers that are willing to work in Witu town. This has lead to a very high turnover in forest officers and a lack of trust from local communities. It also hampers cooperation with other stakeholders. Education of a local forest officer should therefore be promoted. Training to become a forest officer is, however, time consuming and expensive and hence unlikely to attract local applicants. A compromise should therefore be sought by offering a local person with some level of formal education the minimum required courses to fulfill this position. Placing a local individual in this position would ensure continuity, community trust and long term behavior.

KFS

3


Monitoring and patrolling A community based natural resource monitoring program must be developed and implemented.

Monitoring of the status of natural resources and forest quality is a prerequisite for informed management decisions, long term sustainability and indeed for the success of the strategy. The most cost-effective monitoring can be conducted by local communities’ forest patrols. Simple procedures for monitoring natural resources must be developed by the CFA and other relevant local stakeholders through guidance and support from KFS. Indirect measures of densities of indicator species and relevant resources should be collected systematic through regular patrols in the forest. Recording income generated on the same tables would increase transparency and facilitate perception of a direct link with sustainability. Open discussions of the results in the communities should be encouraged to build capacity on environmental management and understanding of sustainability. A link to the DFO/KFS should be established to identify most appropriate management response to occurring problems and provide information to central authorities on the progress of PFM and forest conservation.

CFA based on recommendations in this report. DFO/KFS should provide guidance and support. 2

Cooperation between authorities and involvement of local stakeholders in patrols.

Added values to current patrols in the forest can be obtained by increased corporation between KWS, DFO and the CFA. Combined patrols will ensure that all interests are represented and that use of available resources (cars etc.) is optimized. Increased cooperation may also facilitate a change in the current relationship between these stakeholders which is characterized by mistrust, exclusion and accusations of corruption/illegal activities. A mobile phone or short wave radio would enable the CFA to request assistance from KWBC ranger corps or KWS upon detection of illegal logging etc.

May require outside facilitation. KWBC could finance the mobile phone or short wave radio.

1

Increased cooperation and documentation on over flights.

KWS conduct over flights of the forest approximately twice per month. The survey is focused on detecting incursion of bandits and disturbance of wildlife. Valuable information for forest management decisions could be obtained if the DFO and/or CFA participated in the over flight. The opportunity should furthermore be used to photo document incursions of the forest boundary, the state of the forest, instances of illegal logging and use of fire etc. as a component of the monitoring system.

KWS and DFO

2

Construction of guardhouse and promotion of a community cooperative ranch to assist enforcement of the Forest Act.

There are two major access points for transport of illegally logged timber from the forest. One is the road entering the northwestern part of the forest from the Lamu-Malindi road and the other is a rudimentary access road through a ranch at the northeastern corner of the forest. Construction of a guardhouse on the northwestern part of the Lamu-Malindi road would provide the DFO and CFA a base for patrolling and monitoring activities in the forest and would facilitate control of timber transports on the road. Managers of the ranch were previously successful in preventing illegal logging in the northeastern part of the forest. Community/CFA initiative must be supported and options for land-tax exemption provided for in the new Forest Act must be tested for facilitating reestablishment of the ranch as a community cooperative. Establishment of a community cooperative ranch has potential also in relation to ecotourism and income generation in general and should have high funding priority for donors. Funding and support for such initiatives should be made conditional on conservation performance.

DFO/KFS guidance and Nature Kenya/donor support.

3

66


Financing and generation of benefits Extractive use of non-timber forest products and meat culling should be permitted

Collection of medicine plants, wild fruits and honey should be allowed (to continue) for domestic use without any fee or a level of tax dependent on user income group stratification. A system for registering users and the intensity of extraction should be developed by/in cooperation with the CFA. Impact and potential competition with wildlife must be monitored closely. Low intensity, selective logging and pole cutting are potentially sustainable income generating activities, if managed carefully for reduced impact. Logging is, however, not recommended at present due to the currently high intensity of illegal logging creating a need to facilitate regeneration, and the importance of the forest for water catchments, conservation of biodiversity and provision of cover and forage for wildlife. Meat culling of Buffalo in the wider area is a sustainable benefit generation option but is currently prohibited by law. Relevant institutions and NGOs should in the long term lobby for lifting of this ban. All extractive use must be clearly described in the management plan and monitored closely.

DFO/KFS guidance and Nature Kenya support.

2

Establishment of indigenous woodlots and tree seedling nurseries should be promoted

Woodlots with indigenous species will reduce the pressure on the forest and provide income for local communities and forest management. The CFA as well as private plot owners and communities in general should be encouraged to establish woodlots and tree seedling nurseries for indigenous species. Planting of introduced species that may contribute to depress ground water levels further should, however, be discouraged The first step would be to provide information about the possibility for land-tax exemption provided for in the new Forest Act. Secondly, access to indigenous tree seeds should be facilitated and options for providing water explored. Capacity building on appropriate management may be required.

Experienced community members, DFO/KFS and Nature Kenya can provide guidance.

2

Benefit sharing in relation to ecotourism and trophy hunting must be ensured.

The wider area has a relatively high potential for ecotourism and trophy hunting (given appropriate spatial or temporal differentiation of these activities and effective monitoring), due to the location on the road between the major tourist destinations Lamu and Malindi and the presence of a large Buffalo population. Communities are in this respect, trough traditional ecological knowledge, able to provide information on the seasonal distribution of relevant species, comment on local history etc. It may, however, be necessary to establish cooperation with outside entrepreneurs and investors in possession of required know-how and contacts. It is necessary to ensure that local communities’ interests are safeguarded through use of local employees and establishment of fair benefit sharing agreements that compensate local forest managers for their activities.

Nature Kenya could facilitate the process.

3

Local forest managers must be compensated for the services they provide for KWBC

KWBC has been leased to a company planning to establish ecotourism and who is currently building timeshare houses in the conservancy. The success of this initiative is based on the presence of populations of large and charismatic species such as Lion, Elephant, Buffalo and various antelopes etc. Elephants and other larger species in the area are dependent on Witu forest for cover and for forage and water during the dry season. The CFA will thus provide an important service for KWBC in patrolling to prevent illegal logging and in combating fire in the forest. The communities should be compensated by KWBC through establishment of a fair benefit sharing scheme that reflect the true importance of the services provided. The current practice that has character of KWBC buying the communities silence must be abandoned for real involvement and establishment of joint management agreements that specify

DFO/KFS and the CFA. Nature Kenya should facilitate the process and safeguard the communities’ interests.

1

67


conditions for provision of services and benefits. KWBC’s current focus on communities in the Witu II settlement should be extended to include those in Witu I settlement that neighbor the forest. These communities should also be included in the EU buffer zone development program that is currently being drafted. Funding and support for any initiatives in this respect should be made conditional on conservation performance.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Initiatives The effect of initiatives based on the new Forest Act should be monitored and evaluated.

The access to use and right to collect revenue from extraction and other natural resource dependent activities in relation to the forest is inherently in the new Forest Act expected to finance management activities and create incentives for protection of the forest. The effect of devolving these rights and management responsibilities to a CFA on conservation and poverty alleviation in relation to Witu forest must be evaluated after an appropriate timeframe in order to detect potential problems and conduct the necessary adjustments to the strategy in order to ensure appropriate and sustainable forest management. This study provides baseline information for evaluating the effect on conservation in terms of status of wildlife populations, biodiversity and human disturbance in the forest. Suitable follow up of the study can identify benefits and shortcomings in the strategy and assist in developing necessary adjustments to ensure sustainable forest management in Kenya.

Danish Zoological Society

3

68

7. Acknowledgements This project was conducted through financial support from the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and a grant from WWF Denmark: Verdensnaturfonden Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond. Thanks also to Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy for providing accommodation and logistical support during part of the fieldwork period. The project was conducted in collaboration with Nature Kenya where Director Paul Matiku assisted in arranging the support of two bird specialists, Onesmus Mukua Kioko and Jonathan Mwachongo, for the fieldwork. Thanks also to field assistant Chris Knowles, reptile and amphibian specialist, from the University of Cambridge. Thanks to Lars Dinesen, Elmer Topp-Jørgensen and Helle Hansen for constructive comments to earlier drafts and to Anthony Ochino and Jackson Kiplagat from Forest Action Network for useful information and literature. Finally, thanks are due to Professor Jon Fjeldsaa and Dr. Neil Burgess for support and encouragement in the initial phase and to John Watkin and Monali Patel from Conservation International for constructive dialogue. The fieldwork was dependent on the assistance of numerous local field assistants including Abdalla Buya, Bacari, Adan and many others. Coordination of local assistants, transportation and many other things were arranged by Chande from Witu Conservation Self Help Group. Food was prepared by Jay from Domo Restaurant. In general the assistance from local people in Witu town was essential for this study’s completion and we are hugely grateful for this.


8. References Agrawal, A. 2002. The regulatory community: Decentralization and the environment in the van panchayats (forest

councils) of Kumaon’. Paper presented at the World Resource Institutes workshop on Decentralization and the environment, 18-22 February, Bellagio, Italy.

Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C. C. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource management. World Development 27(4), 629-649.

Barnes, R. F. W. 2002. The bushmeat boom and bust in West and Central Africa. Oryx 36(3), 236-242. Barrett, C. B. and Arcese, P. 1995. Are Integrated Conservation-Development Projects (ICDP’s) Sustainable? On the

Conservation of Large Mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 23, 1073-1084. Bennun, L. & Njoroge, P. 1999. Important Bird Areas in Kenya.Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Birdlife

International. BirdLife International (2007) Species factsheet: Circaetus fasciolatus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on

23/9/2007 Branch, Bill. 2005 A photographic guide to snakes, other reptiles and amphibians of East Africa. Struik Publishers,

Cape Town. Buckland, S. T., Anderson. D. R., Burnham. K. P. & Laake. J. L. 1993. Distance sampling: Estimating abundance of

biological populations. Reprinted 1999 by RUWPA, University of St Burnham, K. P. Anderson, D. R. & Laake, J. L. 1979. On robust estimation from line transect data. Journal of Wildlife Management 43: 992-996.

Burgess, N.D. 2000. Global importance and patterns in the distribution of coastal forest species. In The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. N.D. Burgess & G.P. Clarke, eds. IUCN: Cambridge and Gland. Pp. 235–248.

Burgess, N.D., J.C. Lovett & S. Muhagama. 2001. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management in the Eastern Arc Mountains. Unpublished Report prepared for GEF/PDFB Eastern Arc Strategy Process.

Burnham, K. P. Anderson, D. R. & Laake, J. L. 1980. Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildlife Monographs 72.Andrews, Scotland. 446pp.

CAMP Workshop, Kenya. 1998. Euphorbia tanaensis. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 09 September 2007.

Campbel, B.M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutamba, M. & Zindi, C. 2002. Household Livelihoods in Semi-Arid regions. Options and Constraints. Jakarta, Center for International rorestry Research.

Cavendish, W. 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationships of African rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28: 1979-2003.

CEPF. 2003. Eastern Arc Mountains & Costal Forests of Tanzania & Kenya Biodiversity Hotspot: Ecosystem Profile. Conservation International & International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology.

Chambers, R. 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigms. World Development 22(10): 1437-54.

Channing, Alan & Howell, Kim M. 2006 Amphibians of East Africa. Cornell University Press, New York. Child, B. 1996. The practice and principles of community-based wildlife management in Zimbabwe: the CAMPFIRE

program. Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 369-398. Colfer, C.J. & Capistrano, D. 2005. The politics of decentralization: Forest power and people. CIFOR. DANIDA. 2000. Towards ‘Best’ Practice in Biodiversity Conservation in Southern Africa. Royal Danish Ministry of

Foreign Affairs Copenhagen, Denmark. Danielsen, F. Balete, D.S. Poulsen, M.K. Enghoff, M. Nozawa, C.M. & Jensen, A.E. 2000. A simple system for

monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1671-1705. Danielsen, F., Mendoza, M.M., Alviola, P. Balete, D.S. Enghoff, M., Poulsen, M.K. & Jensen. A. E. 2003. Biodiversity

monitoring in developing countries: What are we trying to achieve? Oryx 37(4): 1-3. Davies, G. Heydon, M. Leader-Williams. N. MacKinnon, J. & Newing, H. 2001. The effect of logging on tropical forest

ungulates. Chapter 5. pp 93-124. In: The Cutting Edge: conserving wildlife in logged tropical forest. Editors: Fimbel, R. A. Grajal, A. & Robinson, J. G. Columbia University Press, USA.

DFID. 2005. From the mountain to the tap: how land use and water management can work for the rural poor. DFID forestry research program ZFO0173. London. Department for international development.

EMPFORM. 2006. Guidelines for establishment of good governance of community based organizations. Prepared by EMPAFORM’s regional program management unit.

FAO, 1996. FAO model code of forest harvesting practice. Rome. FAO, 2004. Reduced impact logging in tropical forest. Forest, harvesting and engineering working paper. No 1. Rome. FAO, 2007. State of the Worlds Forests.

70

http://www.iucnredlist.org/


Ferraro, J.P. 2001. Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation biology 15: 990-1000.

Finnie, D. 2004. Cephalophus adersi. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 24 August 2007.

FitzGibbon, C. & Rathbun, G. 2006. Rhynchocyon chrysopygus. In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 24 August 2007.

Fry, C.H., Keith, S. & Urban, E.K. 1988. The Birds of Africa. Vol. 3. Parrots to Woodpeckers. Academic Press. Gibson, C.C., Marks, S.A., 1995. Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: An Assessment of Community-

based Wildlife Management Programs in Africa. World Development 23, 941–957. Gibson, C., McKean, M. & Oestrom, E. 2000. Explaining deforestation: The role of local institutions In Gibson, C.,

McKean, M. & Oestrom, E. (eds) People and forests: Communities, institutions and governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Hackel, J. D. 1999. Community Conservation and the Future of Africa’s Wildlife. Conservation Biology 13, 726-734. Hansen, L.A., Fjeldså, J., Burgess, N. & Rahbek, C. 2007. The Copenhagen Databases of African Vertebrates. Birds:

http://www.zmuc.dk/CommonWeb/research/biodata.htm. Hoyo, J.D., Elliot, A. & Christie, D. 1994. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 2. New World Vultures to

Guineafowl. Lynx Edicions. Hoyo, J.D., Elliot, A. & Christie, D. 2001. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 6. Mousebirds to Hornbils. Lynx

Edicions. Hoyo, J.D., Elliot, A. & Christie, D. 2004. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 9. Cotingas to Pitpits and

Wagtails. Lynx Edicions. Kanga, E.M. 1999. Survey of Aders' Duiker Cephalophus adersi in Jozani Forest Reserve, and in Ukongoroni,

Charawe, Jambiani, Mtende, Kiwengwa and Michamvi Community forests, Zanzibar. A Report for JCBCP and CNR Zanzibar.

Keith, S., Urban, E.K. & Fry, C.H. 1992. The Birds of Africa. Vol. 4. Broadbills to Chats. Academic Press. Kingdon, J. 1997. The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Academic Press. San Diego, California. Koch, E. 1997. Ecotourism and rural reconstruction in South Africa. Reality or Rhetoric. In K.B. Ghimire and M.P.

Pimbert (eds.), Social change and Conservation. London: Earthscan, pp. 213-238. Kremen, C. Merenlender, A. M. & Murphy, D. D. 1994. Ecological monitoring: A vital need for integrated

conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8(2): 388-397. Kremen, C.; Niles, J.O.; Dalton, M.G.; Daily, G.C.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Fay, J.P.; Grewal, D. &d Guillery, R. P. 2000.

Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales. Science 288, 1828-1832. Larson, A.M. 2005. Democratic decentralization in the forestry sector: Leassons learned from Africa, Asia and Latin

America. Pp. 33-62. In: Colfer, C.J. & Capistrano, D. (eds). The politics of decentralization: Forest power and people. CIFOR.

Lund, J.F & Nielsen, Ø.J. 2006. The promises of participatory forest management in forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the case of Tanzania. Pp. 201-241. In: Charton, H. and Médard. C. (eds). L’Afrique Orientale. Annuaire 2005. L’Harmattan. Paris. France. 353 pp.

Ludeki, J.V., Wamukya, G.M. & Walubengo, D. 2006. Environmental Management in Kenya: A framework for sustainable Forest Management in Kenya - Understanding the new forest policy and forest act 2005.

Ludwig, D.; Hilborn, R. & Whalters, C. 1993. Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History. Science 260, 17-36.

McSweeney, K. 2005. Natural insurance, forest access and compounded misfortune: forest resources in smallholder coping strategies before and after Hurricane Mitch, Northeastern Honduras. World Development 33: 115-1128.

Mittermeier, R.A., Gil, P.R., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J., & daFonseca, G.A.B. 2004. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions, 241–273.

Muoria, P.K. Karere, G. M. Moinde, N. N. & Suleman, M. A. 2003. Primate census and habitat evaluation in the Tana delta region, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 41: 157-163.

Murphree, M. W. 2001. Community based conservation: old ways, new myths and enduring challenges. Pp. 5-16. In: Experiences with community based wildlife conservation in Tanzania. Editors: Baldus, R. D. & Siege, L. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper no. 29.

Narain, U., Gupta, S. & Vant Veld, K. 2005. Poverty and environment: Exploring the relationship between household incomes, private assets and natural assets. Discussion paper 05-18. Washington D.C. Resources for the future.

Nielsen, M.R. 2006. Importance, cause and effect of bushmeat hunting in the Udzungwa Mountains: Implications for Community based wildlife management. Biological conservation 128: 509-516.

71



http://www.zmuc.dk/CommonWeb/research/biodata.htm


Norton-Griffiths, M. 1995. Economic incentives to develop the rangelands of the Serengeti: implications for wildlife conservation. In: Sinclair, A.R.E. and Arcese, P. (eds.), Serengeti II: Dynamics, management and conservation of an ecosystem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 588-604.

Northon-Griffiths, M. 1998. The economics of wildlife conservation policy in Kenya. In E.J. Milner-Gulland and R. Mace (eds.), Conservation of Biological resources. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, pp. 279-293.

Northon-Griffith, M. & Southey, C. 1995. The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Ecological Economics 12, 125-139.

Noss, A. J. 1997. Challenges to Nature Conservation with Community Development in Central African Forests. Oryx 31, 180-187.

Nummelin, M. 1990. Relative habitat use of duikers, bush pigs, and elephants in virgin and selectively logged areas of the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Tropical Zoology 3: 111-120.

Oates, J. F. 1999. Myth and Reality in the Rainforest: How Conservation Strategies are Failing in West Africa. Berkley. California UP.

Pattanayak, S.K. & Sills, E.O. 2001. Do tropical forest provide natural insurance? The microeconomics of non-timber forest product collection in the Brazillian Amazon. Land Economics 77: 595-612.

People and Planet, 2006. http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2637Rathbun, G.B. 1979. Rhynchocyon chrysopygus. Mammalian Species 117: 1–4. Robinson, J.G., 1993. The Limits to Caring: Sustainable Living and the Loss of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7,

20–28. Schiøtz, A. 1999. Treefrogs of Africa. Chimaira Buchhandelsgesellshaft, Frankfurt am Main. Shyamsundar, P. 1996. Constraints on socio-buffering around the Mantadi National Park in Madagascar. Environmental

Conservation 23(1), 67-73. Siege, L. 2001. Hunting and community based conservation in Tanzania. Editors: Baldus, R. D. & Siege, L.

Experiences with community based wildlife conservation in Tanzania. Tanzania Wildlife Discussion Paper No. 29. Pp. 38-43.

Songorwa, A.N. 1999. Community-based Wildlife Management (CWM) in Tanzania: Are the Communities Interested. World Development 27, 2061–2079.

Stevenson, T. & Fanshawe, J. 2002. Birds of East Africa. Helm Field guides, T & A D Poyser Ltd, London, Spawls, S. Howell, K. & Drewes, R. 2006. Pocket guide to the reptiles and amphibians of East Africa. A&C Black

Publishers Ltd., London. Spawls, S. Howell, K. Drewes, R. & Ashe, J. 2002. A Field Guide to the Reptiles of East Africa. Academic Press,

London. Struhsaker, T. T. 1996. A biologists perspective on the role of sustainable harvest in conservation. African Primates

2(2), 72-75. Struhsaker, T.T. 1998. Ecology of an African Rainforest: Logging in Kibale and the Conflict between Conservation and

Exploitation. University Press of Florida, USA. Topp-Jørgensen, E., Poulsen, M.K., Lund, J.F. & Massao, J.F. 2005. Community-based monitoring of natural resource

use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands in Iringa district, Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2653-2677.

Topp-Jørgensen, J.E., Pedersen, U.B., unpublished. Mammalian abundance in response to different hunting pressures in montane forests in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. A M.Sc. dissertation 2003, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

UNEP, 2001. An assessment of the world’s remaining closed canopy forest. Nairobi Wacher, T. & Andanje, S. 2004. Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy: Feasibility Study – the potential role of

Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy in the conservation and development of wildlife and natural resources; Lamu, Ijare and Tana districts, Kenya. Embassy of Finland, Nairobi, Kipini Wildlife and Botanical Conservancy Trust.

Wass, P. 1995. Kenya’s Indigenous Forests, Status, Management and Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union (IUCN).

White, F. 1983. The vegetation of Africa. A descriptive memoir to accompany the UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO Vegetation Map of Africa. Paris, UNESCO

Whitesides, G. H., Oates, J. F., Green, S. M. & Kluberdanz, R. P. 1988. Estimating primate densities from transects in a West African rain forest: a comparison of techniques. Journal of Animal Ecology 57: 345-367.

Williams, A.J., Mwinyi, A.A. and Ali, S.J. 1996. A population survey of three mini-antelope – Aders' Duiker (Cephalophus adersi), Zanzibar Blue Duiker (Cephalophus moniticola sundervalli), Suni (Neotragus moschatus moschatus) of Unguja Zanzibar. Forestry Technical Paper No. 27. Commission For Natural Resources, Zanzibar.

Wilkie, D. S. & Finn, J. T. 1990. Slash-Burn Cultivation and Mammal Abundance in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. Biotopica 22(1): 90-99.

72

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2637


WRI. 2007. Nature’s Benefits in Keya: An Atlas of Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. World Resource Institutes. Zimmerman, D.A., Turner, D.A. & Pearson, D.J. 1996. Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania. Princeton University

Press.

73


9. Appendix 1

Table 19. Number of observations of spoors per km transect in Witu forest.

Observation

Tra

nsec

t 1

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 2

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 3

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 2b

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 3b

(Obs

./km

)

Elephant shrew trail 2,67 8,67 Porcupine hole 0,67 2 Giant pouched rat hole 0,67 0,67 4 Mongoose footprint 0,67 Civet or genet hole 2 Aardvark hole 1,33 2 Aardvark dung 0,67 Elephant footprint 2 Elephant trail 2 Elephant dung 1 0,67 2,67 2 6 Elephant skeleton Bushpig footprint 0,67 2,67 Bushpig trail 1 2,67 2 1.8 Bushpig digging 0,67 Bushpig dung 0,67 Bushpig skeleton 1 Buffalo footprint 4 5,33 3,33 2 6 Buffalo trail 3 2,67 2,67 18 Buffalo sleeping site 2 Buffalo dung 1 7,33 4 18 Bushbuck footprint 8 4 4,67 10 8 Bushbuck skeleton 2 Harvey’s duiker footprint 7 5,33 4,67 18 Suni footprints 9 8 6,67 10 Suni direct observation 1 0,67 2 Duiker trail sp. 24 42 14 16 28 Duiker sleeping site sp. 0,67

Table 20. Number of observations of signs of human disturbance per km transect in Witu forest (GPS points presented as UTM coordinates in zone 37M).

Observation

Tra

nsec

t 1

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 2

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 3

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 2b

(Obs

./km

)

Tra

nsec

t 3b

(Obs

./km

)

Human trail 2,67 0,67 Individual cut trees 6,67 10 Logging sites 0,67 1,33 Other 2.67

74


Table 21. Information on position and period of camera trap documentation of species in Witu forest and the extension of the forest on the Nairobi ranch – the Mungajini forest (GPS points presented as UTM coordinates in zone 37M).

Location GPS - position

Set (date & time)

Recovered (date & time)

Total time

(hours)Species documented

Mungajini forest (random)

0669066 - 9731824 09.02.07 - 12:00 12.02.07 - 13:30 73.5


0669027 - 9732010 09.02.07 - 13:00 12.02.07 - 14:00 73


0668998 - 9732118 09.02.07 - 14:00 10.02.07 - 13:00 23


0668937 - 9732050 09.02.07 - 15:00 12.02.07 - 15:00 72


0669086 - 9732372 10.02.07 - 14:00 12.02.07 - 15:30 49.5

Witu forest (transect 1)

0664800 - 9737596 16.02.07 - 16:40 18.02.07 - 12:00 43.3


0664786 - 9737342 17.02.07 - 11:30 22.02.07 - 9:20 93.8


0666046 - 9737620 18.02.07 - 15:00 20.02.07 - 15:00 48


0664836 - 9737270 18.02.07 - 11:00 20.02.07 - 12:15 49.3 Gambian Giant Pouched Rat


0664802 - 9737618 18.02.07 - 11:30 22.02.07 - 9:05 93.6 Red-bellied Coast Squirrel


0664802 - 9737236 20.02.07 - 13:10 22.02.07 - 9:10 44


0666078 - 9737236 20.02.07 - 15:50 22.02.07 - 11:15 53.4 African Civet


0666095 - 9736898 22.02.07 - 11:45 28.02.07 - 11:00 143.3 Gambian Giant Pouched Rat


0666100 - 9736858 22.02.07 - 11:45 27.02.07 - 10:00 118.3*


0666150 - 9736652 22.02.07 - 12:00 27.02.07 - 11:00 119


0666165 - 9736686 22.02.07 - 12:00 02.03.07 - 11:00 191


0666155 - 9736634 22.02.07 - 12:20 27.02.07 - 11:30 119.2

Four-toed Elephant Shrew, Gambian Giant Pouched Rat & Red-bellied Coast Squirrel


0666151 - 9736692 22.02.07 - 12:45 28.02.07 - 12:00 143.3* Gambian Giant Pouched Rat


0666083 - 9736924 22.02.07 - 13:00 02.03.07 - 12:00 191 Unidentified mongoose,

possibly Dwarf Mongoose Witu forest (transect 2)

0666077 - 9736984 22.02.07 - 13:10 28.02.07 - 12:30 143.3


0666982 - 9737540 27.02.07 - 16:00 04.03.07 - 10:30 114.5


0666944 - 9737530 28.02.07 - 11:00 06.03.07 - 8:30 141.5


0666974 - 9737284 28.02.07 - 15:00 04.03.07 - 11:00 92


0666993 - 9737036 28.02.07 - 15:30 06.03.07 - 9:00 137.5*

75



0666973 - 9736936 28.02.07 - 15:45 06.03.07 - 9:30 137.8 Small-eared Galago & Yellow

Baboon Witu forest (transect 2)

0666330 - 9737210 02.03.07 - 13:30 06.03.07 - 9:00 91.5


0666082 - 9736978 02.03.07 - 16:00 06.03.07 - 9:30 89.5 Dwarf Mongoose & African

Civet Witu forest (transect 3)

0666999 - 9737174 04.03.07 - 11:10 06.03.07 - 10:00 46.8 Aardvark


0666080 - 9737502 04.03.07 - 14:00 06.03.07 - 10:00 44

* Potentially malfunctioning camera traps. Table 22. Information on position and period of bucket pitfall trapping clusters (five buckets) and documentation of caught species in Witu forest (GPS points presented as UTM coordinates in zone 37M).

Location GPS - position

Set (date & time)

Recovered (date & time)

Total time

(hours)Species documented

Mungajini Forest

0668993 - 9732474 09.02.07 – 12:00 15.02.07 – 12:00 144*

56 dung beetles spp., 30 shovel snout frogs spp., 2 leaf frogs spp. and 4 scorpions spp.

Mungajini Forest

0668937 - 9732050 09.02.07 – 15:00 15.02.07 - 15:00 144* 11 dung beetles spp. 5 leaf frogs

spp. and 8 shovel snout frogs.


0664769 - 9737236 16.02.07 - 12:00 22.02.07 - 9:15 141.3

57 dung beetles spp., 14 leaf frogs spp. and 1 unidentified frog.


0664774 - 9736932 17.02.07 - 11:00 22.02.07 - 9:40 118.7

47 dung beetles spp., 5 leaf frogs spp., 1 unidentified frog; & scorpion spp.


0666981 - 9737780 27.02.07 - 14:00 03.03.07 - 10:10 92.2 74 dung beetles spp.


0666974 - 9737284 28.02.07 - 15:00 03.03.07 - 10.50 67.8 31 dung beetles spp.

Witu forest (transect 2, at lake)

0666330 - 9737210 03.03.07 - 13:50 04.03.07 - 14:30 24.7 20 shovel snout frogs spp.

* clusters of four buckets. Table 23. Contact information for relevant stakeholders.

Group/institution Contact information Lamu Distric Forest Office. District forest officer Mwailka

P.O. Box 7. Mokowe, Lamu district. Phone: 042632455.

Witu Conservation Self Help Group Swaleh Adinan and Chande P.O.box 25 Witu, Lamu.

Sam Sam Buffer Zone Community Group Mr. Mashine Abdalla Buya Soroko Primary School P.O. Box 35. Witu, Lamu district.

Witu Forest Farmers Association Manager: Dreason Mwanamawe Amos P.O Box 46 Witu, Lamu district. [email protected]

76

mailto:[email protected]


Phone: 0734 – 461883

Kipini Wildelife and Botanical Conservancy Chairman Farouk Sherman P.O. Box 76030 Nairobi 00508 [email protected]: +254 722 643658

77

mailto:[email protected]

10. Appendix 2

78


Funded by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund,WWF Verdensnaturfonden / Aase og Ejnar Danielsens FondThe Danish Zoological Society

9 788770 560276

conservation and use of witu forest, kenya

Documents

use of witu forest

disturbance survey

kenya biodiversity

forest use impact assessments

nielsen claudia sickfunded

terms of biodiversity

biodiversity hotspot

claudia sickphotos