Grassroots Grassroots - Vol 20 No 1 | Page 15

NEWS
Figure 2: The study examined migra-
tions in 5 different ecosystems. 1 =
Serengeti Ecosystem, 2 = Maasai Mara
Ecosystem, 3 = Narok County, 4 =
Athi-Kaputiei Ecosystem, 5 = Machakos
County, 6 = Greater Amboseli Ecosys-
tem, 7 = West Kajiado and 8 = Taran-
gire – Manyara Ecosystem © F. Msoffe
et al
beest have moved, rather than
died in such enormous numbers.
•
•
Amboseli Basin – includes Amboseli
National Park and surrounding pas-
toral lands in Kajiado County. The
population of the Amboseli eco-
system declined 84.5% from 16,290
in 1977-78 to 2,375 by 2014.
Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem –
incorporates both national parks
and private conservancies in Tanza-
nia. The population declined from
48,783 in 1990 to 13,603 in 2016 and
shows no signs of recovery.
As can be seen from the above, four out
of the five studied migrations are at the
point of disappearing completely, par-
ticularly the Athi-Kaputiei population.
As wildebeest numbers have dropped,
the human populations have soared: a
673% increase in Narok County (includ-
ing Loita Plains), 905% in Kajiado County
(Incorporating the Amboseli Basin), and
a 247% increase in Machakos Country –
all from 1962 to 2009. Increased human
numbers means increased agriculture,
increased sedentarisation and settle-
ment of formerly semi-nomadic popula-
tions, and more fences and roads that
occlude grazing resources and routes.
In Kenya, the increase of private land
ownership has changed the game, and
in Tanzania the Game Controlled Areas
have been cultivated.
The study expressed frustration at what
the researchers describe as “incoher-
Grassroots
Vol 20
No 1
Figure 3: Population trends of migratory wildebeest populations: a) Serengeti-
Mara ecosystem, b) Maasai Mara ecosystem, c) Narok County, d) Athi-Kaputiei
ecosystem, e) Machakos County, f) Greater Amboseli ecosystem, g) West Kajiado
and h) Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem © F. Msoffe et al
ent government development policies
that promote incompatible land uses,
such as promoting cultivation pastoral
rangelands occupied by wildlife to com-
bat food insecurity while also promot-
ing wildlife-based tourism in the same
areas”.
In Kenya, landowners do not have ac-
cess or user rights over the wild animals
on their land and are often offered no
compensation for the cost of support-
ing wildlife. While there are several
changes in policy and legal framework,
none of these has been adequately im-
plemented.
Hope going forward
The study acknowledges the existing
governmental and conservation ef-
forts in both Kenya and Tanzania that
have gone some way towards mitigat-
ing the effects of expansive population
growth, particularly in the development
of policies on corridors, dispersal areas
and buffer zones to create habitat con-
March 2020
nectivity. The researchers highlight the
system of conservancies within Kenya –
private landowners (either individually
or as an amalgamation) rent out large
sections of land to tourism operators
for game viewing. In Kenya, around 65%
of wildlife occurs outside of protected
areas, so the rapid growth in popularity
of conservancies is a positive develop-
ment.
They do, however, require a sustainable
tourism potential. In Tanzania, the crea-
tion of the Tanzania Wildlife Author-
ity as well as the reorganisation of the
entire wildlife sector into paramilitary-
style organisations to intensify the fight
against run-away poaching, have both
been positive steps. However, these ef-
forts need to be enhanced by economic
incentives to communities.
“The Kenyan and Tanzanian govern-
ments need to strongly promote and
lead the conservation of the remain-
ing key wildebeest habitats, migration
corridors and populations and more
14