FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED EMPASH OLOIRIENITO                    CONSERVANCY, KENYA.              LEKISHON KE...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                                          AbstractIndividual and loc...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Table of contentsAbstract..............................................
IntroductionConservationists do agree that in situ conservation is the viable way of conservingbiodiversity, natural habit...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011improving their livelihoods. Guided by this understanding, the Kenya...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011A feasible conservation area should exhibit the following characteri...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Table 1. Criteria used in the assessment tool for scoring both the m...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Prerequisite                       Variables                        ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Prerequisite   Variables                                            ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                              Materials and methods       Study area...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 1: Location of the study site: the proposed Empash Oloirienit...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 2: Aerial view of the proposed Empash Oloirienito Conservancy...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                             Exceptional Resource Values            ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                                Threatened Species                  ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 4: The threatened species at Empash OloirienitoFigure 5: Chan...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                                        12  Fequency of sighting by ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                                    Study MethodsA combination of fi...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                                             Results                ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Majority of the people interviewed were between the ages of 31 to 50...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                  What is the importance of this area?              ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                                                                    ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                Current Land use and cover in the conservancy       ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011                                      Current Land useThe main land ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011eco- tourism such as livestock grazing, water harvesting, charcoal b...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 13 animal distributions in and around Empash Oloirienito cons...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011a mean weighted score of 131.25 being 87.5 % of the maximum possible...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011      Table 5 Summary of the Major categories scores from the assess...
DiscussionIn this study a reference framework upon which efforts toward establishment ofconservancies could be evaluated w...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011The lower scoring categories for Empash Oloirienito included “conser...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011conservancy has met much of the prerequisites for establishing a con...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011ReferencesAKAMA, J. S. (1998). The evolution of wildlife conservatio...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011           AppendicesAppendix 1 Performance of Proposed Empash Oloir...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Appendix 2 Checklist of animals and plants in the conservancy       ...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 201122   Eastern double colored sunbird            Nectarinia mediocris2...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 20112.3 Plants Checklist  1   Abutilon theophrasti****     38   Euclea d...
Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Appendix 3 EOC Conservation Area Development Proposal         CONSER...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe lack of adequate grass and water for our cattle has created economic and social strife within our own...
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy  25112011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy 25112011

924

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
924
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Feasibility assessment for empash oloirienito conservancy 25112011"

  1. 1. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED EMPASH OLOIRIENITO CONSERVANCY, KENYA. LEKISHON KENANA, DANIEL MUTETI STEVEN MWIU October 2011 i
  2. 2. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 AbstractIndividual and local communities’ participation and partnership in management andconservation of natural resources within their lands is a key focal area in modern naturalresource management. Deliberate efforts by both conservation institutions andcommunities towards this goal do abound in a few areas in Kenya. As a result a number ofcommunity groups and individuals are attempting to establish of conservancies within theirareas. However, for a conservancy to be successful and sustainable, a number ofprerequisites have to be met prior to their establishment. We review literature on thesubject and develop a reference framework for assessing feasibility of establishing suchcommunity or individual conservancies. From this framework, a tool is developed that canbe used to quantify progress towards the development of conservation areas. The toolscores the steps that are necessary preconditions for establishing a conservancy and on ascale of 1 – 100%, provides a means to measure progress towards their establishment. Thetool is applicable in two main ways; first with actual scores it quantifies efforts towards theprocess of establishing a conservancy. Secondly, the maximum score (100%) less the actualscore (for example 70 %), implies a 30% effort is required to achieve the goal of developing aconservancy.We use the tool to evaluate the feasibility of starting the proposed EmpashOloirienito conservancy. Data was collected from the field using a combination of directinterview with the owner and field observation and mapping. GIS overlay analyses wereperformed on field data using ESRI’S ArcGis9.3 Desktop applications to obtain variousrequired which was then subjected to the evaluation tool. Results showed that withinEmpash Oloirienito conservancy, dense shrub land vegetation was the largest featurecovering 1,1393 Ha (39.4 % of the conservancy) . This was followed by Open Shrub landvegetation covering 816 Ha (18.5 %); Scrub land at 829 Ha (27.4 %); and finally by woodedshrub land at 447 Ha (14.7%). The main land use activity in the area was pastoralism where avariety of livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys are kept. The evaluationcriterion revealed that Empash Oloirienito conservancy had scored well and is a feasibleidea. The overall weighted Mean score was 80.55% which was variously distributed amongstthe evaluated major pre- requisite categories. Based on this tool, Empash Oloirienitoconservancy has met much of the prerequisites for establishing a conservancy and is fit tobe registered as a conservancy. We recommend enhancement of the entrepreneurialcapacity of the conservancy is the best next step to be taken in order to guarantee successand sustainability. Such entrepreneurial capacity may include ability of the conservancy tobe to identify unique and profitable enterprises to complement the businesses associatedwith eco- tourism. We suggest exploring opportunities on capacity building for proposaldevelopment targeted at adaptation funds, carbon financing and alternative green energiesand technologies. Such initiatives should be done by the conservancy itself throughcreativity, research and inputs from enterprise consultants. In order to complement itsproducts, this study recommends creation of more watering points within the conservancy.This would attract and sustain the water of animals such as Elands, lesser kudu, gerenuks,Leopards, zebras and other ungulate population. The study also highly recommends forconservation and preservation of the African sandal wood (Osyris lanceolata) which was sosignificant and was at verge of complete disappearance if the current threat it’s facingescalates. We would also recommend for construction of access roads, motorable tracksand foot trails which can be used for patrols and monitoring activities. ii
  3. 3. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Table of contentsAbstract.................................................................................................................................... iiIntroduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Criteria for assessment: The evaluation tool .................................................................. 2Materials and methods .......................................................................................................... 7 Study area: the proposed Empash Oloirienito Conservancy ...................................... 7 Exceptional Resource Values...................................................................................... 10 Attractive sceneries ..................................................................................................... 10 Threatened Species ..................................................................................................... 11 Sandal Wood ........................................................................................................... 11 Chanler’s mountain reedbuck ..................................................................................... 11 Wild dogs ................................................................................................................ 11 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................... 11 Study Methods ................................................................................................................. 14 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 14Results .................................................................................................................................... 15 General socio- economic and questionnaire data ........................................................ 15 Current Land use and cover in the conservancy ....................................................... 19 Land cover..................................................................................................................... 19 Current Land use ......................................................................................................... 20 Proposed Land use in the conservancy ........................................................................ 20 Plant and animal checklist .............................................................................................. 21 Performance on the feasibility evaluation tool ............................................................ 22Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 25Conclusion and recommendations .................................................................................... 26References.............................................................................................................................. 28Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 29 Appendix 1 Performance of Proposed Empash Oloirienito conservancy on the assessment tool. ................................................................................................................ 29 Appendix 2 Checklist of animals and plants in the conservancy ............................. 30 2.1 Mammals ................................................................................................................. 30 2.2Birds .......................................................................................................................... 30 2.3 Plants Checklist ...................................................................................................... 32 Appendix 3 EOC Conservation Area Development Proposal .............................. 33 Appendix 4 Existing management plan initiative................................................... 58 iii
  4. 4. IntroductionConservationists do agree that in situ conservation is the viable way of conservingbiodiversity, natural habitats and ecosystems (Adams, 2004; IUCN, 2003). As such,establishment of Protected Areas (PAs) became the dominant idea of the 20thcentury. Drawing from the Yellowstone model of 1872 (Were, 2005), Kenya, just likemost other African countries embarked on creating Protected Areas in late 1940swith Nairobi National Park coming into existence in 1946.The ideology of the Yellowstone model sought to promote tourism; however it wasneither consultative nor scientifically driven. Local communities were thus notinvolved or consulted largely because indigenous resource use methods wereperceived to be incompatible with modern conservation principles based on westernphilosophy on wildlife conservation (Akama, 1998). Boundaries delineating the PAstoo were arbitrary and not ecosystem determined thus the PAs could hardly sustainwildlife without the surrounding dispersal areas. Consequently, and as conservationscientist have always argued, over 70% of wildlife still remains outside ProtectedAreas at least at certain times of the year as influenced by seasonal weather changes.There is an increasing realization that the management of wildlife resource needs tobe inclusive and involve the local communities. Conservation authorities areincreasingly becoming aware of the need to involve local communities in managingnatural resources to safeguard and secure wildlife resources. Similarly, the localcommunities are now seeking ways of getting benefits from the wildlife resourceson their lands with the hope that wildlife-based ecotourism ventures have thepotential to earn them direct revenue.In recent years, there have been conservation initiatives targeted at empoweringlocal communities to focus on conservation of natural resources. These initiativesinclude the creation of community wildlife sanctuaries and conservancies. TheMaasai community in Amboseli area of Kajiado county for example, have started toappreciate the value of wildlife as they begin to gain direct benefits from eco-lodges(such as Kampi Ya Kanzi in the Chyulu); community wildlife sanctuaries (such asKimana Community Wildlife Sanctuary) and concession areas such as Kitirua andEselengei Concession Areas (Okello 2005). These community ecotourism-basedwildlife conservation areas are not only expanding wildlife ranges outsideneighboring protected areas, but also act as dispersal areas while also contributingpositively to the livelihoods of these communities. This has the benefit of reducinginsularization of protected areas and keeping critical wildlife corridors andmigration routes open (Soule et al. 1979; Western & Ssemakula 1981).It is now common knowledge that for local communities to protect their naturalresources, they must obtain some benefits from these resources as a means of 1
  5. 5. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011improving their livelihoods. Guided by this understanding, the Kenya WildlifeService (KWS) has in recent years been keen to involve the local communities in themanagement of the wildlife resources in their areas. In this regard, it has establisheda fully fledged department to deal with community enterprises. Key responsibilityfor this department is to facilitate and encourage local communities, especially thosethat continue to coexist with wildlife to establish community wildlife conservanciesthereby enabling the members to reap tangible benefits from wildlife resources intheir land.For the Community Enterprise unit to make informed decision on the viability of anarea to be a wildlife conservancy there is need to carry out a feasibility study for anyproposed conservancy. The Biodiversity Research and Monitoring team of SouthernConservation Area undertook to carry out a feasibility study for the proposedEmpash-Oloirienito conservancy located in the larger Kajiado County. Anevaluation criterion developed and used in the southern conservation area wasemployed in this feasibility study. This evaluation criterion examines not only thepotential of the proposed land as a wildlife refuge, but also its ability to attracttourist and investors. As such, the ability of the proposed conservancy to self-sustainis gauged in order to inform management decisions. This report therefore details thefindings of the feasibility study exercise that took place between March 28th 2011 andApril 22nd 2011 at the proposed Empash Oloirienito conservacy.Criteria for assessment: The evaluation toolStudies and literature on the subject of local community‟s involvement indevelopment and management of conservation areas have brought to lightnecessary steps or prerequisite for conservation areas venture to succeed. There aretools or guidelines that have been established that outline steps that need to be takenwhen establishing conservation areas (du Toit 2002; Okello et al. 2003). With respectto tourism-based venture, it is acknowledged that tourist attractions (especially largemammals), community willingness and support, tourist and tourism investoropinions, support of conservation stakeholders, and economic viability are amongthe key prerequisites (Okello 2005).In the context where a conservation venture is to be established within individuallyowned community lands, the first and foremost prerequisite should be theidentification of objectives. Land subdivision is a big impediment to wildlifeconservation and complicates the establishment of community based wildlifeenterprise by not only fragmenting the land, but also requiring greater coordinationand agreements among the land owners. The need for clear agreements on land sub-division can thus, not be over-emphasized as the parcels will often transverse morethan one owner necessitating the need for a thorough understanding of theconservation objectives, operations and the whole conservation model. 2
  6. 6. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011A feasible conservation area should exhibit the following characteristics. First andforemost such a community enterprise guided by its aims and target market, i.e.whether consumptive utilization is the goal (Du Toit 2002) or ecotourism. Okello2003 has highlighted a number of desirable characteristics of a conservation areabased on ecotourism. First before establishing a community wildlife sanctuary, theconsent of the people has to be sought. The area should be endowed with touristattractions which include biological, physical and cultural endowments (Wishitemi& Okello, 2003). Tourism options, economic viability arising from significant touristinterest and partnership with tour investors (Emerton, 2000; Sibana & Omwega,1996) should be assed. It should establish the potential market, gauge interest inproducts being sold and make forecasts for sustainability.The conservation area should be multiple use areas for ecotourism, resourcereservoirs such as water, pasture, etc. and should be accessible to all communitymembers. Emphasis should be on „conservation areas‟ for multiple uses rather thanjust „community wildlife sanctuaries‟. Should benefit the conservation of resources(especially wildlife), be economically beneficial to local communities, so that theyconserve and protect their natural resources. The support of local communities andtheir leaders (Beresford & Phillips, 2000; Drake, 1996; Newmark & Hough, 2000),and Support and collaboration from other stakeholders in wildlife conservation,tourism industry and related organizations need to be created. Further, sanctuarydesign issues should also be considered (Burkey, 1994; Western & Ssemakula, 1981).These requirements are summarized in Table 1 below: 3
  7. 7. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Table 1. Criteria used in the assessment tool for scoring both the major and subcategories of prerequisites for formation of Empash Oloirienitoconservancy.Prerequisite Variables Scoring scale Max Weightcategory score (percentage contribution to overall score) Spatial definition of Conservancy (boundaries and Present = 1; absent= 0 1 35 size) Objectives of Conservancy No objective=1; 2Definition of conservation area and identification of Desired to form conservancy=2; Specific objectives of conservancy=3; Clearly documented objectives of conservancy=4 Registration of Conservancy Registered as conservancy=1; not registered=0 0 Understanding of conservation area Proportion of sampled interviewees 1 understanding conservation area Management structure/organization structure Present = 1; absent= 0 0 Documented business plan/operation frame work Present = 1; absent= 0 1 Documentation of conservation area planning Present = 1; absent= 0 1 Sketch/ map Present = 1; absent= 0 0 Potential and desire for multiple use One point for each of the following 4 Objectives of the conservation area should allow multiple uses; Availability of Pasture ; Availability of water;conservancy Availability of attractions (biological, Physical and cultural features). Land use activities Proportion of conservancy compatible land uses 1 proposed in questionnaires Identified wildlife related venture Present = 1; absent= 0 1 25 Product definition (selection & specifications) Selected & specified= 1; otherwise= 0 0Products & Market Identified sites for potential tourism development Present = 1; absent= 0 1identification Identified target market population Present = 1; absent= 0 1 Unity/agreement of purpose for the area Proportion of sample population agree with 1 establishing of conservancies Agreement of expectations with conservancy Proportion of sampled population agreeing with 1 4
  8. 8. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Prerequisite Variables Scoring scale Max Weightcategory score (percentage contribution to overall score) objectives conservancy objectives Animal population density in comparison with other Statistically similar one sample T-test of mean N/A 10 tourist sites in circuit densities for large mammals with other areas within the circuit =1 otherwise= 0 .(Population density for other areas obtained from Okello 2003) Species composition in comparison with other sites Chi- square test for observed versus expected, is N/A in circuits similar= 1 otherwise= 0 Physical features A score for each of the following named feature 2 Rivers; Falls; Geysers & hot springs; Lakes; Hills and cliffs and mountains Cultural features Existing, developed and elaborated for visitor= N/A 3; Existing but not elaborated for visitor= 2; Tourist No longer existing but with incentive has attractions potential= 1 Availability of water Permanent streams & wetlands= 3 3 5 Natural or artificial permanent pans=2 Seasonal pans and streams= 1 One score for each habitat type 4Conservation value Open grasslands; Scrubbed grasslands; Wooded grasslands Riverine vegetation; Habitats diversity Forests size Proportion of area to average size of similar N/A conservancies in the area – GIS generated Local support for conservation Proportion of sample population supporting 1 5Support conservancies Leader support Proportion of sample population supporting 1 conservancies 5
  9. 9. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Prerequisite Variables Scoring scale Max Weightcategory score (percentage contribution to overall score) Partner tour investors Not identified=1; 2 Potential investors identified and initial discussion done=2; Agreed and documented working collaboration=3; Existing working collaboration with 1 or more collaborators=4 Partner conservation organizations Not identified=1; 2 Potential investors identified and initial discussion done =2; Agreed and documented working collaboration=3; Existing working collaboration with 1 or more collaborators=4 Lead government support Present = 1; absent= 0 1Tourist Tourist interest Determined = 1; not determined = 0 1 10potential interest in product being sold Determined = 1; not determined = 0 1Potential Forecast on sustainability Determined = 1; not determined =0 1 10economic Projected income to people Determined = 1; not determined = 0 1benefit tolocal people 6
  10. 10. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Materials and methods Study area: the proposed Empash Oloirienito ConservancyThe proposed Empaash Olorienito conservancy is an area of approximately 30 Km2(7,413 acres) located between latitudes 01o 26‟ 57” S and 01o 31‟ 17” S and longitudes36o 30‟ 40” E and 36o 33‟ 17” E. Administratively, the conservancy is in the SouthWest of greater Ngong division of Kajiado County. The county borders Nairobi,Kiambu and Nakuru Counties to the North, Narok County to the West andMachakos County to the East (Figure 1 & 2).The conservancy is a community based initiative that was formed in 2008 by aninitial group of 15 families who decided to amalgamate their individual lands toform a conservation unit. It currently has a membership of 19 families, a board oftrustees, and a manager. The trustee board is made up of 19 members who overseethe general activities of the Empaash Oloirienito conservancy. The trust is beingcoordinated by Mr. Paul Kilelu who helped form the trust as its founding manager.The conservancy is currently administered from Kiserian town.The vision of the conservancy trust is to expand to an area of about 100 squarekilometers by spreading the message of conservation and community-based eco-tourism to the adjacent neighborhoods. The goal is to help the community addressits top priority socio-economic needs. This will be achieved through conservation ofthe environment and establishment alternative sources of livelihoods. This isimportant in the area as the quality of pastoralism is fast diminishing and there isincreased pressure from other human activities that aggressively compete forgrazing lands.The current priority needs of the Trust include: 1) initiation of the process ofregistration of Empash Oloirienito conservancy as a conservation area with theministry of Lands, Kenya Wildlife Service and other relevant Government agencies.2) Capacity building and institutional strengthening 3) development andimplementation of effective and sustainable conservation programs such ascommunity mobilization and partnerships, identification and recruitment ofcommunity rangers and village scouts and mapping and surveying of theconservancy. 7
  11. 11. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 1: Location of the study site: the proposed Empash Oloirienito Conservancy 8
  12. 12. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 2: Aerial view of the proposed Empash Oloirienito Conservancy 9
  13. 13. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Exceptional Resource Values Attractive sceneriesEmpash-Oloirenito consists of a large hill with a series of beautiful peaks and rockyoutcrops that offers spectacular view of the earth‟s exquisite geomorphology. At the topof the hill it there is a magnificent panoramic view of the adjacent Magadi lowlands upto the Orgesaile Hills. Within the mountain top is a crater-like depression of deepvalleys and gullies that join up at the base of the hill to form seasonal streams. It isbelieved that there are sites in these deep valleys that no human being has ever reached.This site offers great potential for hiking and extreme adventurous sporting events(Figure 3).Deep gullies and valleys Series of hills that make up EmpashPanoramic view of Magadi lowlands Some of the Rocky outcropsFigure 3: Some scenic views at Empash Oloirienito 10
  14. 14. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Threatened Species Sandal WoodEmpash Oloireinito has a number of sandal wood stands on the slopes of the hill.Sandal wood, Osyris lanceolata is an endangered plant that is under heavycommercial exploitation pressure. It is normally used in the production perfume andfor its medicinal values. Our observations however revealed that the sandal woodwere under heavy pressure of exploitation. Most of the sandal woods seen wereuprooted or young showing recovery after exploitation (Figure 4). There is potentialfor the sandal wood to thrive is protection of this hill is enhanced. Chanler’s mountain reedbuckThe Chanlers Mountain Reedbuck (Redunca fulvorufula ssp. chanleri) is an antelopethat is found atop the Empash oloirienito hills and on the internal slopes and valleys(Figure 4 & 5). This subspecies of the mountain reedbuck is classified by IUCN asvulnerable (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2008). The global population is ona downward trend and the classification may require revision. It is a rarely sightedantelope in Kenya and can be viewed only in a few places. Wild dogsA number of wild dog sightings have been recorded in the conservancy and theadjacent areas (Figure 6). Residents reported that they frequently observe a pack ofabout 8 wild dogs. Wild dogs were also reported to be one of the significantpredators of livestock particularly sheep and goat. WildlifeThere are a number of wild mammalian, avian and reptilian species found in theconservancy and adjacent areas (Figure 6 & 7). The proposed Empash-Oloirienitoconservancy is an important grazing area for wild animals during the dry season.Animals normally feed on the abundant grass on the hill and go down the hill todrink water. Although some of the wild animals seen were not on the conservancy,the conservancy does provide dispersal area for these animals. 11
  15. 15. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 4: The threatened species at Empash OloirienitoFigure 5: Chanlers mountain reedbuck on Empash oloirienito hills 12
  16. 16. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 12 Fequency of sighting by interviewee 10 8 6 4 2 0 wilddogs baboon leopards Impala Kongoni Hare zebra Hyena gazelle warthog wildbeeste eland Giraffes cheetah snakes greater kudu Rock hylax Diki dik lion buffalo Bush buck lesser kudu Animall speciesFigure 4 The frequency of wild animals reported by residents of Empash OloirienitoAssemblage of ungulates Leopard tortoises in the conservancyMaasai giraffes Grant’s GazellesFigure 7 Some animal species in and around Empash Oloirienito conservancy 13
  17. 17. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Study MethodsA combination of field observations, GIS mapping, analysis of remotely sensed dataand interviews were used to obtain information in this study. Semi structuredquestionnaires were administered to the eleven out of 19 land owners in the Empashto obtain socio- economic information concerning the conservancy. Mapping of theconservancy was done using a combination of GPS tracking and satellite imageryanalysis.Various study parameters were observed and noted. Vegetation was broadlyclassified visually into four major categories (dense shrub land, open Shrub land,scrub land and wooded shrub land ) and each of these were studied and mapped.Existing land uses and cover such as crop farms and buildings, scenic points andpotential tour circuits were noted and mapped. Sample and direct counts of animalswas also done to ascertain the number of species and their population. Data AnalysisBased on prerequisites for establishing conservancies collated from literature on thesubject (Table 1), a scoring system was designed and used to evaluate the proposedconservancy. The proposed area was scored for all the major and subcategories inthe scoring system based on observations in the field. GIS overlay analyses wereperformed on field data using ESRI‟S ArcGis9.3 Desktop applications to obtainvarious required information in the evaluation criterion.The analysis of the data collected was then subjected to a scoring system where thevalues were scored depending on the scoring scale. Four scorers including the landowner independently scored the various parameters as per the evaluation tool and amean of the scores was obtained for each parameter. 14
  18. 18. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Results General socio- economic and questionnaire data A total of 11 people were interviewed representing approximately 61% of thepeople comprising Empash Oloireinito conservancy with land owners constituting100% of the respondents (Table 2). Of these respondents, 27% were females and 73%were males. 73% of respondents belonged land owners association with 27% beingformally employed, 64% self employed and 9% unemployed.Table 2: summary information about the respondents interviewed. The socio economic parameters arepresented as percentages of the sampled populationInformation sought Response from interviewees Percentage in Empash (n=11)Does the interviewee own Yes 100.00land No 0.00Gender of interviewee Male 72.73 Female 27.27Age Class of interviewee Below 20 years 9.09 21- 30 years 9.09 31- 40 years 36.36 41- 50 years 27.27 51- 60 years 9.09 Above 60 years 9.09Interviewee level of education None 72.72 Primary 9.09 Tertiary 18.18Membership to land owners Member 72.73association Non member 25.00 Unknown 02.27Interviewees employment Employed 27.27status Self employed 63.64 Unemployed 09.09Knowledge of a conservation Yes 63.64area No 36.36Support for conservation Yes 100.00 No 0.00Would interviewee set aside Yes 100.00land for conservation No 0.00 15
  19. 19. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Majority of the people interviewed were between the ages of 31 to 50 yearscomprising 64% of the interviewed population. Most of these people (63%) wereaware of the proposed Empash Oloireinito conservancy all were willing to set asidepart of their land to form the conservancy Table 2. A bigger proportion of theinterviewed people said they understood the concept of conservation areas (75.00%)and were willing to support it (79.17%) (Table 2). The main reason for this supportwas however pegged on benefits (100%). The other reasons cited for supportingconservation included proper consultations and consent (6.52% ) and availability ofunderutilized land (6.52% )Responded ranked grazing followed by settlement, firewood source, farming and nouse as the main importance of the land in the conservancy (Figure 8A). A biggerportion of the interviewed residents reported that they have noticed habitatdeterioration in the land due to anthropogenic pressures including charcoal burning,predation of livestock by wildlife, human wildlife conflicts and overutilization of theland (Figure 8 B &C). The main resource use conflict reported by the respondentwere predation by wildlife, farming, conflicts of over water and grazing (Figure 8D)The residents provided a number of solutions to address the problem of habitatdeterioration and these included control of charcoal burning, eradication ofdegradation, increased education and awareness about wildlife, wise use of plantresources, proper planning and land use and establishment of a conservancy (Figure8 E). On establishing of a conservancy, the residents revealed that the main reasonfor doing this would be to get revenue from conservation. A number of residentsalso felt that the land is currently not well utilized and a conservancy would be agood land use option. Other reasons for establishing the conservancy were, to stopland subdivision and charcoal burning, enhance wildlife conservation and create asource of employment for the community (Figure 8F).Expectations that the respondents had from the conservancy included among others:Income from the ecotourism and associated ventures, creation of businessopportunities for the members, employment for the community, conflict reductionsand enhanced wildlife conservation (Figure 9). The respondents further suggested anumber of activities that can be initiated in the conservancy including: curio shops,camp sites, cultural bomas and eco-lodges (Figure 9B). Creation of a conservancy,provision of water and non interference with the land were sighted by therespondents as the ways in which conservation could be enhanced in the area(Figure 9) 16
  20. 20. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 What is the importance of this area? 6 Have there been habitat 10 change? Frequency 8 5 6 4 Frequency 4 3 2 2 0 1 0 Yes NoA B 5 7 What are the resource use conflicts in the 4 Pressure on Natural Resources 6 area?Frequency 5 Frequency 3 4 2 3 1 2 0 1 0C D 7 Proposed solutions to habitat change 6 8 Reason for a conservancy Frequency 5 7 4 6 Frequency 3 5 2 4 1 3 0 2 1 0E EFigure 8: some of the responses received from interviewees in Empash Oloirienito conservancy 17
  21. 21. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 What income activities What are your expectations from 6 should be initiated? conservancy? 5 14 12 Frequency 4 Frequency 10 8 3 6 4 2 2 0 1 0 Ranching dams Lodges conservation campsites bore hole Cultural bomas curio shops charcoal burning cattle keeping Expectation Income activities to be initiatedA B What would be done to enhance conservation? 8 7 6 5 Frequency 4 3 2 1 0 Create Water provision No interferance Education and Ploughing conservancy wareness ResponseFigure 9: Some interviewee responses in Empash Oloirienito conservancy 18
  22. 22. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Current Land use and cover in the conservancy Land coverIn terms of Land cover within Empash Oloirienito conservancy, dense shrub landvegetation was the largest feature covering 1,1393 Ha (39.4 % of the conservancy)(Table 3; Figure 10 ). This was followed by Open Shrub land vegetation covering 816Ha (18.5 %); Scrub land at 829 Ha (27.4 %); and finally by wooded shrub land at 447Ha (14.7%) Table 3Table 3: Land cover features and sizes in Empash Oloirienito conservancy Percentage Area Area of Land use/Land cover feature (KM 2) (Hectares) conservancy Dense Shrub land 11.93 1,193 39.4 Open Shrub land 8.61 861 18.5 Scrub land 8.29 829 27.4 Wooded Shrub land 4.47 447 14.7 Total 33.3 3,330 100Figure 10 The land cover at Empash Oloirienito conservancy 19
  23. 23. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Current Land useThe main land use activity in the area was pastoralism where a variety of livestocksuch as cattle, sheep, goats and donkeys are kept (Figure 11). There were a few smallscale crop farm but in the adjoining lands but not in the conservancy. A number ofillegal and environmental harmful activities were also recorded such as charcoalburning, tree logging and sandal wood harvesting.Figure 11: Existing land uses within the conservancyProposed Land use in the conservancyThe main land use proposed in the conservancy will be wildlife conservation andassociated ecotourism activities. The conservancy management has a vision to haveone eco-lodge, one resource centre and two shops run by the local women group inthe conservation area (See attached proposal on Appendix 3). Members interviewedidentified other desirable land uses apart from wildlife conservation and associated 20
  24. 24. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011eco- tourism such as livestock grazing, water harvesting, charcoal burning andlivestock ranching (Figure 12). Frequency of proposed Land uses in Empash 10 Conservancy 9 8 7 Frequency 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Accomodation Conservation Cultural bomas Ranching - Water Harvestin - curio shops charcoal burning Livestock Grazing Livestock Facilities… Wildlife Dams and… Proposed Land use ActivitiesFigure 12: Proposed Land use in the conservancyPlant and animal checklistIn five day survey of the area, 14 mammalian species were directly sighted andcounted and presence of 3 more species was inferred using indirect sightingmethods (Table 4; Appendix 2). Most large mammals were in the neighboring areasnext to the conservancy. 90 species of plants were identified and recorded within thefour vegetation classes in the conservancy (Figure 13; Table 4; Appendix 2). Tworeptilian species and 65 avian species were also recorded in the area.Table 4 Plant and animal species in different taxonomic groups recorded in the study. Method Mammals Aves Reptiles Plants Direct sighting 14 65 2 90 Borrows 1 Scats 1 Spoors 1 Total 17 65 2 90 21
  25. 25. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Figure 13 animal distributions in and around Empash Oloirienito conservancy Performance on the feasibility evaluation toolWe present here the results of the mean scores as scored by four evaluatorsincluding one the conservancy managers. Although there was slight inter scorervariation in the scores, the scores were nonetheless close and provided datanecessary for the estimation of subinterval values in the discrete and noncontinuous interval scoring scale. The evaluation criterion revealed that EmpashOloirienito conservancy had scored well and is a feasible idea. The overall weightedmean score was 80.55% which was variously distributed amongst the evaluatedmajor pre- requisite categories. The pre-requisite category with the highest score was “Tourist potential” (C6) witha mean weighted score of 20 achieving 100% of the ideal scenario (Table 5; Figure14).This category was closely followed by “Products & Market identification” (C2) with 22
  26. 26. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011a mean weighted score of 131.25 being 87.5 % of the maximum possible scores (Table5; Figure14). “Definition of conservation area and identification of conservancy”(C1) category also scored highly getting a mean weighted score of 543.84representing 86.32% of ideal conditions. Next to this was category “support” (C5)which had a mean weighted score of 30 achieving 60% of ideal scores (Table 5;Figure14). Two categories , “Tourist attractions” (C3) and “conservation value”(C4), were very close to each other scoring a mean weighted score of 57.5and 25representing 57.5% and 55.56% of the ideal situation respectively. “Potentialeconomic benefit to the local people” (C7) which had a mean weighted score of 10representing 50% of maximum possible scores was the lowest category evaluated. 700 Mean weighted scores for categories in the Percentage weighted score for categories in evaluation tool 120 the evaluation tool 600 100 Percentage weighted score 500Weighted scores 80 400 Maximum 60 300 Mean 200 40 100 20 0 0 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 A B Pre-requisite categories Pre - requisite categoriesFigure 14: Mean weighted (A) and percentage (B) scores for categories in the evaluation tool. C1 =Definition of conservation area and identification of conservancy, C2= Products & Marketidentification, C3= Tourist attractions, C4= conservation value C5= support, C6= Tourist potentialand C7= potential economic benefit to the local people 23
  27. 27. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 Table 5 Summary of the Major categories scores from the assessment tool. Note see appendix 1 for actual parameters for scoring Raw scores Weighted ScoresPre- requisite Category Percentage Ndambuki Ndambuki Weight Kenana Kenana Kilelu Kilelu Muteti Muteti Ideal Ideal Mean Mean ScorerDefinition of conservation area and 35 18 15.79 15.79 15.79 14.79 15.54 630 552.59 552.59 552.59 517.59 543.84 86.32identification of conservancyProducts & Market identification 25 6 5 5 6 5 5.25 150 125 125 150 125 131.25 87.5Tourist attractions 10 10 7 6 5 5 5.75 100 70 60 50 50 57.5 57.5Conservation value 5 9 4.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5 45 21.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 25 55.56Support 5 10 5 6 8 5 6 50 25 30 40 25 30 60Tourist potential 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 20 20 20 20 20 100Potential economic benefit to local people 20 2 1 1 0 2 1 20 10 10 0 20 10 50Total 57.00 40.04 41.04 42.04 39.04 40.54 1015 823.84 823.84 838.84 783.84 817.59 80.55Percentage 100.00 70.24 72 73.75 68.49 71.12 100.00 81.17 81.17 82.64 77.23 80.55 24
  28. 28. DiscussionIn this study a reference framework upon which efforts toward establishment ofconservancies could be evaluated was used. Based on this framework a tool wasdeveloped and used to quantify progress towards the development of EmpashOloirienito conservancy. The tool scores the steps that are necessarypreconditions for establishing a conservancy and on a scale of 1 – 100%,provides a means to measure progress towards their establishment. The tool isapplicable in two main ways; first with actual scores it quantifies efforts towardsthe process of establishing a conservancy. Secondly, the maximum score (100%)less the actual score (for example 70 %), implies a 30% effort is required toachieve the goal of developing a conservancy. In so doing we acknowledgehowever inherent difficulties in assigning meaning to scores form the tool.Nonetheless we are convinced that by and large the tool is able to quantifyprogress and highlight areas for further attention.When all prerequisites categories are considered, results show that the proposedEmpash Oloirienito conservancy does meet most of the processes required inestablishing a feasible conservation area. Having presented the above results,the natural question that follows this is how much is so much, what is thethreshold or what is the pass mark for an area to be considered feasible? Theanswer to this question is not simple and at best is only subjective. We howeverstrongly believe that the success of any initiative will be directly proportionaland equivalent to its percentage rating.Results show that there has been a lot of ground work done or high expectationin terms of tourism and tourist potential. High scores on this category wouldindicate that the potential and interest of tourist to visit the site has beendetermined. In the case of Empash Oloirienito conservancy this seems to be thecase as deduced from information given by the manager. A closely relatedcategory is product identification and this would similarly indicate thatconservancy owners are clear and know what they want to go for in terms ofeco -tourism.Contrastingly however is the observation that tourist attractions category scoredrelatively low. This can be attributed to the seasonally low density of wildlifespecies in the conservancy which is the main attractant to conventional tourists.For tourism therefore to yield good returns in the conservancy, there is need tohave precise strategies aimed at a targeted clientele. Such strategies might bethe apparent reason for the high precision in product and market identificationand tourist potential scores. 25
  29. 29. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011The lower scoring categories for Empash Oloirienito included “conservation”value and “projected income to the local people|. The reasons for these areclear. As for the conservation value, the major limitation for the conservancy issource of water. Due to scarcity of water the residence time of wildlife in theconservancy is reduced and it would appear like the conservancy has few to noanimals especially in the wet season. The geomorphology of the area howeverpresents great opportunity to harvest surface water runoff and enhance wildlifeuse of the area. The terrain within the conservancy presents a natural advantagefor creating surface dams - an opportunity worth exploiting. If this is done thenwildlife would stay more in the conservancy as food is plenty. The otheropportunity to pursue to enhance this score is to expand the conservancy sincefor conservation, the large the area the better.Concerning the category “projected income to the local people”, the low scoresis a function of the capacity of the conservancy to identify and estimate incomefrom economic enterprise projects to be created in the conservancy. To improveon these scores, the entrepreneurial capacity of the conservancy such as abilityto develop a proper business plan needs to be enhanced. When looked fromthis perspective the conservancy is therefore strategically placed to enhanceconservation since if it succeeds, it would have greatly demonstrated means bywhich conservation is resourceful to a populace who would otherwise imaginethey have little to offer to conservation of wildlife.We would like to make a note on the wildlife checklists presented in this reportand caution the readers on its interpretation. These checklists are not exhaustiveand it is highly likely that there are more animals and plant species present inthe conservancy than those listed in this study. Developing a morecomprehensive list would require detailed inventorying especially of the loweranimal taxa which was not in the scope of this study. We recommend that ourchecklists be interpreted in the context of a five day index of the ease of findingplant and animals given a non trapping searching effort. This checklist can beused as a rapid way of assessing and comparing species richness betweendifferent conservancies. The reasoning behind is that the more richer a place isin terms of wildlife, the more species would be seen given a casual visit in thearea. Conclusion and recommendationsIn this study a tool that is useful in quantifying progress towards establishmentof conservancies is developed. Based on this tool, Empash Oloirienito 26
  30. 30. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011conservancy has met much of the prerequisites for establishing a conservancyand is fit to be registered as a conservancy.We conclude that enhancement of the entrepreneurial capacity of theconservancy is the best next step to be taken in order for the conservancy tosucceed and be sustainable. Such entrepreneurial capacity would include:capacity of the conservancy to be able to identify unique and profitableenterprises. This may be achieved by creativity, research and engagement of theservices of a business/ enterprise consultant. Possible enterprises in addition tothe traditional eco-tourism activities include but not limited to: 1) Capacity building the conservancy for proposal developments 2) Proposals targeted at Global adaptation funding 3) Exploration of carbon Financing 4) Exploration of alternative green energy and technologiesIn order to complement its products, this study recommends creation of morewatering points within the conservancy. This would attract and sustain thewater of animals such as Elands, lesser kudu, gerenuks, Leopards, zebras andother ungulate population.The study also highly recommends for conservation and preservation of theAfrican sandal wood (Osyris lanceolata) which was so significant and was atverge of complete disappearance if the current threat it‟s facing escalates.We would also recommend for construction of access roads, motorable tracksand foot trails which can be used for patrols and monitoring activities. 27
  31. 31. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011ReferencesAKAMA, J. S. (1998). The evolution of wildlife conservation policies in Kenya. Journal ofThird world Studies, Vol XV(2): 103 – 117.BURKEY, T. (1994) Faunal collapse in East African game reserves revisited Biol. Cons. 7(1):107–110.DU TOIT, J.T. ( 2002) Wildlife harvesting guidelines for community-based wildlifemanagement: a southern African perspective. Biodivers. Conserv. 11: 1403– 1416EMERTON, L. (2000). Economic incentives for biodiversity: how eastern African countriesare making biodiversity attractive. Innovation: Biodiversity forSecure Livelihoods in Africa 7(1): 17–20.IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group 2008. Redunca fulvorufula ssp. chanleri. In: IUCN2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>.OKELLO, M. M. (2005) Land Use Changes and Human - Wildlife Conflicts in the AmboseliArea, Kenya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10(1): 19 – 28OKELLO, M.M., SENO, S.K., & WISHITEMI, B. L. (2003) Maasai community wildlifesanctuaries in Tsavo – Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya: management partnerships and theirconditions for success. Parks 13(1): 7 - 15. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.SOULE, M.E., WILCOX, B.A. & HOLTBY, C. (1979) Benign neglect: a model of faunalcollapse in game reserves of East Africa. Biol. Cons. 15: 259–272.WERE, E. M. (2005). The domain of authority and sphere of influence of wildlifeconservation and management policy in Kenya. Journal of Third World Studies, Vol.XXII(2): 227 – 248.WESTERN, D. & SSEMAKULA, J. (1981) The future of savannah ecosystems: ecologicalislands or faunal enclaves? Afr. J. Ecol. 19: 7–19.WISHITEMI, B.E & OKELLO, M.. (2003) Application of the Protected Landscape Model inSouthern Kenya. Parks. 13 (2): 12-21. 28
  32. 32. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011 AppendicesAppendix 1 Performance of Proposed Empash Oloirienito conservancy on the assessment tool.Measurable variables score values Definition of conservation area and identification of conservancySpatial definition of Conservancy (boundaries and size) 1 Present (Conservancy Boundary well defined) Defined objectives of Conservancy 4 Five clearly documented objective(see appendix 3 the attached proposal)Entity registration 3 Registered as a trustUnderstanding of conservation area 0.8 ProportionManagement structure/organization structure 1 presentDocumented business plan/operation frame work 1 presentDocumentation of conservation are planning 1 presentSketch/ map 1 presentPotential and desire for multiple use 2 1. Pasture; 2. EcotourismProportion of conservancy compatible activities 0.97 proportion Product identification and definitionIdentified wildlife related venture 1 conservancyProduct definition and specification 0 Not selected and specifiedIdentified sites for potential tourism development 1 PresentIdentified target market population 1 presentUnity/agreement of purpose for area 1 Proportion Tourist attractionsAnimal population density 0 Statistically similarSpecies composition 0 Statistically similarPhysical features 2 1. River; 2. Rock out cropsCultural features 2 Existing but not elaborated Conservation valueAvailability of water 1 Seasonal streamsHabitats diversity 4 1. Dense Shrub land; 2. Open Shrub land; 3. Scrub land 4. Wooded Shrub landSize 0.25 Proportion SupportLocal support conservation 1 proportionLeader support 1 proportionPartner tour investors 1 NonePartner conservation organizations 2 Potential investors identified and initial discussions donelead government support 1 Kws; Office of prime minister Touristic potentialTourist interest 1 determinedInterest in product being sold 1 determined Potential economic benefit to local peopleforecast on sustainability 1 determinedprojected income to people 0 Not determined 29
  33. 33. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Appendix 2 Checklist of animals and plants in the conservancy 2.1 Mammals No Common name Scientific name 1 Mountain reedbuck Redunca fulvorufula spp chanleri 2 Cape eland Taurotragus oryx 3 Common zebra Equus burchelli 4 Grants gazelle Nanger granti 5 Impala Aepyceros melampus 6 Gerenuk Litocranius walleri 7 Aardvark Orycteropus afer 8 Spotted hyena Crocuta crocuta 9 Bushpig Potamochoerus larvatus 10 Olive baboon Papio anubis 11 Genet Genetta genetta 12 Unstriped ground squirrel Xerus rutilus 13 African hare Lepus capensis 14 Kirks dikdik Madoqua kirkii 15 Bush duiker Sylvicapra grimmia 16 Rock hyrax Procavia capensis 17 Hedgehog Atelerix albiventris 2.2Birds S/no. Common name Scientific name 1 Crowned lapwing Vanellus coronatus 2 Grey headed sparrow Passer griseus 3 Superb starling Lamprotornis superbus 4 Hildebrandt starling Lamprotornis hildebrandti 5 Grey flycatcher Bradornis microrhynchus 6 Barn swallow Hirundo rustica 7 Black sawing Psalidoprocne pristoptera 8 Fawn colored lark Mirafra africanoides 9 Spectacled weaver Ploceus ocularis 10 Common fiscal Lanius collaris humeralis 11 Rattling cisticola Cisticola chiniana 12 Tawny-flanked prinia Prinia subflava melanorhyncha 13 Red-billed firefinch Lagonosticta senegala 14 Drongo Dicrurus a. adsimilis 15 Slate colored boubou Laniarius funebris 16 Ring-necked dove Streptopelia capicola 17 African hoopoe Upupa epops 18 Abyssinian scimitarbill Rhinopomastus minor cabanisi 19 Red and yellow barbet Trachyphonus erythrocephalus 20 Black bellied bustard Lissotis melanogaster 21 Grey wren warbler Calamonastes simplex 30
  34. 34. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 201122 Eastern double colored sunbird Nectarinia mediocris23 Chin-spot batis Batis molitor24 Blue napped moosebird Urocolius macrourus25 D‟Arnands barbet Trachyphonus darnaudii26 White-browed scrub robin Cercotrichas leucophrys27 Emerald-spotted wood dove Turtur chalcospilos28 Black-crowned tchagra Tchagra s. senegala29 Grey capped social weaver Pseudonigrita arnaudi30 White-bellied go-away bird Corythaixoides leucogaster31 Abyssinian roller Coracias abyssinicus32 Lilac-breasted roller Coracias caudatus33 Red-fronted barbet Tricholaema diademata34 Crested francolin Francolinus sephaena35 African yellow white eye Zosterops senegalensis36 Nubian woodpecker Campethera nubica37 Rufous-napped lark Mirafra africana38 Lemon dove Columba larvata39 Common bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus40 Black cuckoo shrike Campephage flava41 Helmeted guinea fowl Numida meleagris42 Von der dickens hornbill Tockus deckeni43 Common waxbill Estrilda astrild44 Lizard buzzard Kaupifalcon monogrammicus45 Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis46 Black-headed heron Ardea melanocephala47 Black faced sand grouse Pterocles decoratus48 White-browed sparrow weaver Plocepasser mahali49 Speckled pigeon Columba guinea50 Namaqua dove Oena capensis51 White-headed buffalo weaver Dinemellia dinemelli52 Grey-crowned crane Balearica regulorum53 Grasshopper buzzard Butastur rufipennis54 Cinnamon-chested bee eater Merops oreobates55 Marabou stork Leptoptilos crumeniferus56 Common eagle owl Bubo bubo57 Hadada ibis Bostrychia hagedash58 Kori bustard Ardeotis kori59 Common Stonechat Saxicola torquata axillaris60 Hamerkop Scopus umbretta61 Amethyst sunbird Nectarinia amethystina62 Beautiful sunbird Nectarinia pulchella63 White napped raven Corvus albicollis64 Spotted morning thrush Cichladusa g. guttata65 Pied crow Corvus albus 31
  35. 35. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 20112.3 Plants Checklist 1 Abutilon theophrasti**** 38 Euclea divinorum 79 Rhus natalensis $ vulgaris 2 Acacia brevispica 39 Euphobia cuneata 80 Salvadora persica 3 Acacia drepanolobium 40 Euphobia spp 81 Sericocomophsis parida 4 Acacia kirkii 41 Ficus thoningii 82 Sida ovata 5 Acacia mellifera 42 Flagia spp 83 Solanum incanum 6 Acacia nilotica 43 Grewia bicolor 84 Sterculia stanocapa 7 Acacia nubica 45 Grewia similis 85 Tarconanthus Spp 8 Acacia senegal 46 Grewia tembensis 86 Terminalia brownii 9 Acacia seyal 47 Grewia tenax 87 Vangueria infausla 10 Acacia tortilis 48 Grewia vilosa 88 Withania somnifera 11 Acacia xanthophloea 49 Heliotrophium spp 89 Zanthoxylum chalybeum 12 Albizia spp 50 Hibiscus fruticosum 90 Ziziphus mucronata 13 Asparagus africana 51 Hibiscus micrantha 14 Asparagus resmosa 52 Hypoestis deflexa 15 Azima tetracantha 53 Indigofera erector 16 Barlerria eranthomoides 54 Indigofera schimperi 17 Bidens pilosa 55 Ipomoea donaldosonni 18 Boscia angustifolia 56 Ipomoea wightii 19 Boscia coreacea 57 Justicia flava 20 Cadaba farinosa 58 Lannea alata 21 Caparis tomentosa 59 Lannea cuneata 22 Combretum aculeatum 60 Lannea tryphyilla 23 Combretum collinum 61 lantana trifolia 24 Combretum herorense 62 Lippia javanica 25 Combretum molle 63 Maerua kirkii 26 Commiphora africana 64 Maerua spp 27 Commiphora baluensis 65 Maytenus spp 28 Commiphora edulis 66 Mba -(kamba) 29 Commiphora rostrata 67 Melia vonkensii 30 Cordia monoica 68 Ochina inamis 31 Cordia ovalis 69 Ocimum gratissimum 32 Cordia somalense 70 Ocimum kilimandscharicum 33 Crotolaria spp 71 Osmum basilicum 34 Croton dichogamous 72 Osmum suave 35 Croton megalocapus 73 Osyris lanceolata (Afri. Sandal wood) 36 Dichryostachus spp 74 Pavonia arabica 37 Erythrina burtii 75 Premna origotricha 32
  36. 36. Empash Oloirienito conservancy feasibility report 2011Appendix 3 EOC Conservation Area Development Proposal CONSERVANCY AREA DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Empaash Oloorienito Conservancy Trust (EOCT). Paul S. Kilelu, Manager 6/15/2010 P. O. Box 285 Kiserian 00206 Email: eoc-conservancy@gmail.com Cell: 254-722668800 Kenya 33
  37. 37. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe lack of adequate grass and water for our cattle has created economic and social strife within our owncommunity. To address this situation; we proposed to consolidate our individual parcels of land as acommunity to make a conservation area which will create jobs for the local youth and at the same timeprotect biodiversity at this buffer zone of Nairobi National Park. We will consult with our communityleadership on who will be employed in the conservation area and solicit assistance from Kenya WildlifeService (KWS) to provide expertise and equipment in Wildlife protection in conservation area.We envision having one ecolodge, one resource centre and two shops run by the local women group in theconservation area. The successful completion of this project would create an increase in economic stabilityfor the community landowners, increased family stability, decreased dependency on food aid programs,and increased Maasai men and women members self esteem through a greater ability of self sufficiency .It will also create room habitable to wild life (endangered species). This vision is expected to beaccomplished through; Establishing strong community partnership and goodwill for project success and sustainability through strategic meetings, mobilization, and involvement of community and relevant government ministries and departments and other resource partners. Increasing institutional and personnel capacity of the EOCT, including 9 trustees and 13staff on; conservancy development and management, strategic planning and resource mobilization and CBETE development and management through training and exchange learning trips to at least three established conservancies in Kenya/ Tanzania. Developing and providing alternative livelihood support system that fosters bio-diversity conservation to the pastoralist EOC community through creation of a conservation area and establishment of two pilot community-based eco-tourism enterprises (CBETEs). Providing increased access to quality and adequate levels of education to deserving bright children from poor families in the EOC community through setting up an education fund Providing adequate human and administrative resources to ensure success and sustainability of the integrated 3 year conservation, CBETE, and education development project through identification, placement, development, maintenance and support of 5 managerial/ technical and 8 support staff.In order to realise the results in this proposal, EOC needs Kshs 75, 792, 180 (USD 1,052,669) the nextthree years– see the summary tables below. We are therefore appealing your esteemed organization toconsider supporting the EOC community financially by adopting at least one objective/project componentas proposed under this proposal. SUMMARY BUDGET Year KSHS USD Budget Year One 22,036,893 306,068 Budget Year Two 40,479,727 562,218 Budget Year Three 13,275,560 184,383 USD 75,792,180 1,052,669 See attached MS Excel file for more details of the project’s budget. 34

×