______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I: Introduction

1.1 The economic study of the wildlife, livestock and human interaction in Kajiado District of Kenya focused on the case of the Amboseli National Park wildlife dispersal areas encompassing the Kimana Group Ranch and the Mbirikani Group Ranch. The main objective of the study was to examine the economics of livestock keeping within the game reserves wildlife dispersal areas, including a documentation of the following:

II: Study Methodology

2.1 Both primary and secondary data collection methods were employed in this study. The activities involved in the study broadly included the following:

2.2 Apart from informal discussions with relevant government officials and other stakeholders in the Kimana and Mbirikani wildlife dispersal areas of the Amboseli National Park, a sample of 34 members of the Kimana Group Ranch and 27 members of the Mbirikani Group Ranch was randomly selected and interviewed to establish the status of individual livestock ownership within the group ranches and the associated costs and returns from the various economic activities undertaken by these members. The two group ranches are representative of the rest in terms of the mix of human economic activities carried on as well as ecological conditions. However, we chose Kimana Group Ranch, the smallest of the six group ranches, to reflect and represent the growing importance of agro-pastoralism. Kimana Group Ranch has the highest proportion of high potential land and consequently a high proportion of cultivated area. Mbirikani Group Ranch, on the other hand, represents the other extreme ecologically. Although containing some pockets of high potential land along the rivers, Mbirikani Group Ranch basically consists of arid grassland. Both group ranches, we believe, give a sufficient representation of the nature of interaction between wildlife and livestock in the dispersal area of the Amboseli National Park.

3.1 Background

The focus of field work was on the Amboseli National Park wildlife dispersal area. This covers the whole of Loitokitok Division, which is actually a Sub-district, occupied by one Maasai section – the Ikisonko. There are 6 group ranches in the division which could have been sampled. The first four are: Eselnkei, Mbirikani, Kimana and Ololarrashi group ranches, all bordering Amboseli National Park. Two other group ranches, Kuku and Rombo, border Tsavo National Park. All the six group ranches constitute the wildlife dispersal areas of the two national parks and, therefore, contain one of the highest concentrations of wildlife outside parks in East Africa. The dispersal area is likely to have the greatest intensity of interaction between wildlife and pastoral livestock. Table 1 gives the status of the six group ranches in the wildlife dispersal areas for Amboseli National Park.
 

The six group ranches in the Amboseli Wildlife Dispersal Area, on average are the largest in size in the whole district, averaging 84,388 hectares. Their total area of 506,329 hectares is 31.8% of total group ranching area of the district. Average membership size is also high when compared to the whole district, being 3,123. Thus the average establishment in the event of subdivision may not be that different from the rest of the district. Even though the average per capita size entitlement is 27 hectares for all the six group ranches, it is as low as 10.9 hectares in one group ranch.

Of the six group ranches, only one group ranch is currently undergoing subdivision, Ololarrashi/Olgulului Group Ranch, the largest group ranch in the whole district at 147,050 hectares and the one forming a ring enclosing the Amboseli National Park.

3.2 Land Tenure Reform and the Emergence of Wildlife/Livestock Conflict

The land tenure reform programme implemented in Kajiado District from 1966 in which group and commercial ranches were established set the stage for the development of conflict between wildlife and pastoral livestock. Not that there were not any conflicts prior to establishment of ranches; but the intensity of these conflicts was not such as to constrain coexistence. Pastoralists were able to move about to avoid concentration of wildlife in their grazing areas at certain seasons in order to minimize transmission of diseases from the wildlife. But the assignment of property rights to discrete land writs has circumscribed such movement and then reduced the flexibility with which pastoralists could use nomadic movement to minimize wildlife induced losses.
 

3.3 Status of Group Ranches in Kajiado District

Kajiado District was the experimental district for the implementation of the government instigated group ranch programme: 52 group ranches were established in the district, covering 1,526,812 hectares which constitute about 76.4% of the previous trustland. The remaining 23.6% of the trustland involving some 472,000 hectares was adjudicated into 378 commercial ranches. This excludes land owned by the government or land meant for public utilities. The group ranch programme, therefore, covers the largest part of the land area in Kajiado District.

The group ranch programme had the objective of increasing the offtake of pastoral livestock for commercial sale and thereby meeting the objective of satisfying the beef demand of urban markets and also commercializing livestock production for the benefit of the pastoralists. But probably more important is the objective of making the group ranch a vehicle for bringing development assistance to pastoralists in terms of communal facilities, such as boreholes, dams, and dips, which when shared by many pastoralists in a group ranch reduces unit cost to the individual due to economies of scale. Group ranches, in addition, allowed for communal grazing, just like traditional pastoralism, for the purposes of enabling pastoralists to make a smooth transition to commercial private ranching and to maintain mutually viable ranches (GOK, 1966 & 1969; IBRD, 1968].

However, the group ranch programme has not fared well. Hardly any of the objectives for which it was established has been attained (Munei, 1990 & 1991; IBRD, 1985; Meadows & White, 1981). This is because the group ranches do not operate as economic organizations, but merely as commercial land units with a shared title deed by many individuals who carry on their livestock production activities individually. The essence of the group ranch is the joint acquisition of ranch capital inputs like dips and boreholes. This would bring the pastoralists together in contributing to the establishment of these capital goods as well as in contributing to maintenance costs. But this aspect of group ranching is dormant. Most group ranches never managed to acquire these inputs and in those group ranches where they have acquired the inputs, many are rusting away from non-use. The individuals prefer to use hand pumps rather than communal dips, or to dig wells rather than jointly maintain and use a borehole.

Without the sharing of acquired inputs, the group ranch remains merely a joint ownership. The focus of individuals in group ranching then becomes land ownership. Conflicts have arisen and proliferated over membership of a group ranch and, therefore, over entitlement to a share of the group ranch, as well as over the actual use of group ranch resources, such as grazing and water. The group ranches that have not been subdivided are mainly those that have pending court cases on dispute over land ownership. There are also a few group ranches that have not been subdivided, either because they are too dry (group ranches in Magadi division) or there are some wildlife tourism benefits anticipated. Otherwise, the unmistakable trend for group ranches in the district is a movement towards privatization through subdivision. Table 2 gives the status of the subdivision of group ranches by September, 1999.
 

Table 2 shows that 29 group ranches have been completely subdivided such that the owners have obtained individual title deeds. In total, these group ranches account for 50.9% of all group ranches, covering 552,734 hectares, which constitute 34.7% of group ranches area. However, when these are added to 11 other group ranches in the process of subdivision, the magnitude to group ranch privatization becomes quite significant. This makes the total of subdivided group ranches to be 40, constituting some 70% of all group ranches and 58.9% of group ranches moving into private ownership and control. Therefore, the only group ranches remaining intact are 17 in number, constituting 29.8% of all group ranches and covering 653,409 hectares, which is 41.2% of group ranching area.

4. Sample Group Ranches
1. Kimana Group Ranch

A total of 269.6 hectares at Kimana are under irrigation by some 1,036 farmers in the private farms in addition to another 331.6 hectares at Namelok irrigation scheme on the part that is included in Kimana Group Ranch. Therefore, a substantial part of Kimana Group Ranch’s high potential land is devoted to cultivation. This is possible because Kimana is endowed with as many as 8 springs, thus ensuring a permanent supply of water for irrigation, livestock and domestic use. But also because KWS has provided an electric fence worth Kshs. 43 million that encloses the farms at Namelok irrigation scheme and Kimana’s holdings. The crops grown in the irrigation scheme are mainly horticultural crops, such as onions and tomatoes, and subsistence crops like maize and beans. These will be analysed in detail in a separate section. However, the means of livelihood for majority of group ranch members if livestock keeping. There are some 22,734 head of cattle in Kimana, including 200 dairy cattle, 1,634 crosses of Sahiwal and Boran and the rest are traditional Zebu cattle. Sheep number some 7,206 and goats number 12,533.

Kimana Group Ranch has organized itself to establish some wildlife tourism enterprises. It receives income from several tented camps and a lodge within its premises. But probably more significant is that Kimana Group Ranch runs a wildlife sanctuary within the group ranch from which it receives income directly from tourists. The group ranch committee of Kimana is fairly active. It meets regularly and it documents income and expenditure from its wildlife tourism enterprises. This attempted transparency in the distribution of wildlife derived income has minimized conflict over leadership at Kimana Group Ranch.

3.4.2 Mbirikani Group Ranch

Another sample of 27 pastoralists, some of whom also cultivate, was interviewed at Mbirikani Group Ranch. This group ranch is the second largest in the district after Ololarrashi/Olgurin Group Ranch, at 125,000 hectares. The group ranch is very arid and consequently the basic means of livelihood for most of its members is pastoralism. However, localized agriculture is carried out by a few individuals in river beds at Isinet and Namelok, as well as along the Noolturesh pipeline.

The situation of wildlife and livestock interaction in the group ranch is strained. Pastoralists have been suffering heavy losses of livestock from wildlife. Some data collected between 1996 and 1998 show considerable damage imposed by wildlife on pastoral livestock (see Figures I, II, and III). In one year alone, over 100 head of cattle, and 300 sheep and goats were killed or maimed by wildlife. Unlike for Kimana Group Ranch, wildlife tourism benefits do not appear to sufficiently counterbalance these costs. Mbirikani Group Ranch also has a lodged paying rental fees and remitting conservation fees per tourist, as well as bird shooting fees to the group ranch. The distribution of this revenue between group ranch members appear not to be transparent and this has been a cause of considerable conflict in the group ranch. Currently, the group ranch is involved in a court case over leadership of the group ranch.

3.4.3 The Mbirikani Group Ranch is characterized by the following significant information:

The Kimana Group Ranch (often referred to as Kimana Tikondo) is characterized by the following significant information:

3.5.1 A typical household in Mbirikani Group Ranch was found to have:

3.5.2 A typical household in the Kimana Group Ranch has:

• In order to be able to understand the food consumption patterns for the agro-pastoralists and pastoralists in Mbirikani and Kimana group ranches, the sample households were asked to state the types of food usually consumed by their households, amounts consumed per day, the amount of food actually acquired through own (home) production, and the amounts obtained through purchases from the market place.

• This study found that the commonly consumed food items were maize meal (flour for "ugali"), maize (grain for food preparation when mixed and boiled with beans, etc.), milk, meat, sugar, tea (processed tea leaves), cooking fat, rice, and vegetables (cabbages, kale ("sukuma"). Tables 3 and 4 give a summary of the food items and the amounts consumed by the sample household who were able to provide such information. The amounts consumed are analysed on a daily basis, but food procurement from "own – production" and "purchases from the market place" is given respectively on weekly and monthly basis.

• The reported data on food consumption confirms the importance of grains and cereals in the diets of pastoral communities who are conventionally viewed as livestock meat, blood and milk consumers. Infact their levels of milk and meat consumption are relatively low. These facts are illustrated in Tables F.3 and F.4 hereafter.

3.6 Herd Composition

The average cattle herd composition per household at Mbirikani Group Ranch was as follows:

3.6.4 When asked to state the objectives for keeping, selling or buying livestock, the pastoralists at Mbirikani Group Ranch gave the following answers:

The results of the survey indicate that the average livestock ownership in the case of large stock (cattle) is more or less the same in Kimana and Mbirikani Group Ranches, but the ownership of small stock (sheep and goats) is different in both ranches. On average, the pastoralists in Mbirikani Group Ranch own more small stock (about 38 sheep and 32 goats per household) than their counterparts in the Kimana Group Ranch (who own about 11 sheep and 25 goats per household). Tables 7 and 8 indicate the livestock ownership situation for the 34 and the 27 group ranch members interviewed in Kimana and Mbirikani group ranches respectively.
 

Tables 7 and 8 show that the average herd ownership at Mbirikani Group Ranch is higher than that at Kimana Group Ranch. This is partly because Kimana is closer to the district headquarters and major urban areas (Kimana and Oloitokitok) and partly because of the availability of more irrigable land for crop production.
 

3.8 Costs of Livestock Production

3.8.1 The main sources of cost in livestock production in the Kimana and Mbirikani group ranches include:

Assuming a useful life of 10 years for a spray pump, which implies a straight line depreciation rate of 10% per year, reasonable user cost of spray pump would be:

3.8.4 Watering Facility User Charges:

• Kimana livestock keepers get water from rivers and streams free of charge;
• Mbirikani livestock keepers pay for water, the average charge per animal ranging from Kshs. 0.31 to Kshs. 30.47 per month. The overall mean is Kshs. 5.49 per animal per month. See Table 10 for details.

3.8.5 The cost of acaricide usage Tables 11 and 12 give a summary of the average monthly expenditures on acaricides per head of cattle per survey area.

3.8.6. Veterinary Care Costs: Costs of Drugs and Mineral Supplements

There is widespread use of veterinary drugs and mineral supplements in both Kimana and Mbirikani group ranches in livestock production. Tables 13 and 14 give a summary of monthly expenses on veterinary drugs and mineral supplements by the samples of livestock keepers in both ranches.

The survey results for the Mbirikani Group Ranch indicate a wide variation in the monthly costs of drugs and minerals per unit of the livestock kept. The range of monthly costs of drugs was from Kshs. 0.64 per animal to Kshs. 145.45 per animal, while the range of the monthly costs of minerals was from Kshs. 0 to Kshs. 55.56 per animal. The overall mean averages expenses were Kshs. 13.72 per animal per month on drugs and Kshs. 2.93 per animal per month on mineral supplements.

The survey results for Kimana Group Ranch, as in the case of the Mbirikani Group Ranch, exhibit a wide variation in the use of veterinary drugs and mineral supplements for animal health care from household to household within the group ranch. The average monthly expenses by households in Kimana Group Ranch on drugs and mineral supplements were as follows:

3.8.7 Expenses on Herding Labour

Children provided labour for livestock herding in both Kimana and Mbirikani group ranches. These could be "own children", or "hired children", and some cases of "borrowed children" were also reported. The range of wages/salaries paid for hired herding labour averaged from Kshs. 500 to Kshs. 1025 per labourer per month. Tables 15 and 16 illustrate the types of labourers used in livestock herding in Kimana and Mbirikani group ranches and the monthly wages/salaries paid by the sample households.

For evaluation purposes, the use of own labour in livestock herding (i.e "self" and "own" or "borrowed" children) is costed at the prevailing rates for hired labour. An evaluation of Tables 13 and 14 data suggests that livestock herding, on average, costs about:

As identified and documented in the proceeding paragraphs (see especially Tables 10 – 16), the major sources of costs in livestock production (mainly for meat) are:

The above unit monthly livestock production cost structure is based on the head of a "general livestock", and adjustments can be made when calculating the actual yearly cost of producing a specific type of livestock. For example, the average total unit cost of producing a unit of general livestock per month (i.e. Kshs. 83.40 and Kshs. 84.43 for Mbirikani and Kimana respectively) as calculated and presented in Table 17 could be inflated by up to 50% in the case of large stock (especially for cattle) production. For small stock (especially goats production), the general unit cost figure could be deflated by between 20 and 40 per cent. However, the average figures as presented in Table 17 appear to yield reasonable estimates of livestock production costs, and, from these data, we could conjecture the following:

3.9 Wildlife/Ecotourism

3.9.1 Individual members of the group ranches in the wildlife dispersal areas of the gazetted game reserves and national parks benefit in two major ways:

3.9.2 This survey indicated the following to be possible indicators of the wildlife/ecotourist benefits to Kimana and Mbirikani Group Ranches in the recent past: