Biliqo buulesa report

Draft Document Merti Mission FIndings 1
Report of a Fact Finding Mission on the Effects of the Operations of the
Northern Rangelands Trust’s on the Community in Biliqo-Buulessa
Community Conservancy, Isiolo County
(DRAFT 1)
© Waso Boran Professional (WBP) in collaboration with the Borana Council of Elders (BCE)
February 2019

Table of Contents
(DRAFT 1)
Page
1.0 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------3
2.0 Background to the Fact Finding Mission------------------------------------3
3.0 Findings -----------------------------------------------------------------------------5
3.1 NRT’s Violation of the Rights of the Community --------------------5
3.2 NRT Promotes Inter-communal Conflict -------------------------------8
3.3 NRT’s Deception of the Community ------------------------------------10
3.4 The Mineral Connection ----------------------------------------------------12
3.5 Violation of Community’s Land Rights---------------------------------12
4.0 The Effects of Rangeland management
on both the Pastoralists and the Ecosystem --------------------------------14
4.1 A Strange Lack of Wild & Bird Life --------------------------------------14
4.2 The Hot Springs---------------------------------------------------------------16
4.3 Introduction of New Animal Species------------------------------------18
4.4 The Ecological importance of
Bison in mixed-grass prairie ecosystems -------------------------------20
4.5 Nutrient Cycling Benefits Plant Growth
and Species Distribution----------------------------------------------------21
5.0 Lack Of WildLife in Merti------------------------------------------------------22
5.1 Reinterpreting the 1882 Bison Population Collapse------------------22
5.2 Conservation & Human Beings -------------------------------------------22
5.3 Catastrophic Loss of Management ---------------------------------------23
5.4 The Pastoral Land Management System--------------------------------25
5.5 The Borana Predation--------------------------------------------------------27
Appendices------------------------------------------------------------------------------30

1.0 Introduction
ommunity-based conservation has expanded rapidly across Northern Kenya, driven by
significant funding from foreign private and governmental agencies. However, a
number of challenges have arisen, which are attributed partly by the sheer size of the
geographical area under ‘community conservation’ and the application of a single conservation
model across an ethnically, geographically and ecologically varied terrain. The challenges have,
however, been downplayed and the success of the initiatives emphasized. There has been
limited effort to establish the effects of this model on the local people and their pastoral
livelihoods; the amount of land put under conservation; the impact of on-going conservation on
the movement of pastoralists and their livestock, and how conservation activities affect security
as well as local people’s access to pastures, water and other resources.
It is important to understand how communities are involved in the process of setting up and
managing community wildlife conservancies; the benefits and inherent challenges in the
conservancies, and how the grand conservancy initiative has shaped local economy, prevailing
security scenario, land rights, the culture and heritage, the integration of pastoralist
communities as well as the governance structures created to run them. It is also important to
consider that Northern Kenya is a region characterised by proliferation of small arms as
documented by a number of Small arms surveys. The region is also characterised by occasional
inter-community conflicts that are mainly driven by competition for resources and which
worsen whenever there are droughts. This is also an area that has seen unprecedented
expansion of physical infrastructure and an upsurge of conservation and tourism activities. This
has resulted in loss of pasture or wildlife habitats. In Isiolo county, the development of a resort
city and ‘growth area’ has increased land prices and escalated speculation and subdivision as
investors seek to benefit.
2.0 Background to the Fact Finding Mission
ince the early 2000s, there has been a rise in the involvement of communities, and
especially those inhabiting wildlife dispersal areas, in the national conservation program.
This was inspired by the need to preserve ecosystems and wildlife habitats that happen to
be on lands owned and held by local communities. The effort was entrenched in law following
the review and enactment of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act in 2013.
Championing the model have been the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), a group of conservation
NGOs and personalities who say that 70% of Kenya’s wildlife is found outside national parks
and reserves and that the survival of protected areas largely depended on the preservation of
vast habitats that are on lands held by communities and private land owners.
The biggest proponent of this model is the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT), an organisation
that was started in 2004 and is now greatly funded by a number of European countries and the
United States as well as international NGOs such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC), private
trusts and rich people in the West. As a result, the NRT has managed to set up 35 conservancies
C
S

across Northern and Coastal regions that cover a whopping 44,000 square kilometers or over 10
million hectares (i.e. about 8% of total land surface in Kenya). These conservancies are mainly in
remote places where the Kenya government has little or no footprint. The NRT has been trying
to fill the void by altering and adding to its initial conservation mandate a number of activities
including security, prevention of cattle rustling, meeting the needs of the communities and
marketing of livestock. However, there have been a lot of complaints from some of the
communities who say that NRT is involved in the violation of their land and human rights.
They accuse the organization of increasingly imposing restrictions on how communities exploit
natural their resources.
It is out of this hue and cry that the fact-finding mission in Biliqo-Buulessa Community
Conservancy was conducted.
The exercise was carried out by a combined group of members of the Isiolo-based Waso
Professional Forum, Borana Council of Elders, the Sisi kwa Sisi organization formed by Students
from the School of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure at the Kenyatta University, journalists as
well as representatives from the Errant Native Movement. The mission was informed by the
following:
1. Claims that the community in Biliqo-Buulessa Conservancy has lost much of its grazing
areas and land rights following a move by the NRT to set up camp sites in the area. It
was important to establish whether this was the true state of affairs bearing in mind that
livestock production remains the most important livelihood activity for the community
and that any tourism activity or other economic undertaking can only supplement, but
not replace livestock husbandry;
2. That since the establishment of the Conservancy, there has been an increase in human-
wildlife conflict resulting from a large number of wildlife using grazing areas and water
resources in the conservancy as well as introduction of many non-resident lions there;
3. That there has been an escalation in cattle rustling and conflict between the Borana and
the Samburu Community leading to the killing of many people and stealing of large
numbers of livestock. There were claims that this is inspired, instigated and facilitated
by the NRT. There were also claims that the conflicts escalated with the creation of the
Conservancy and that the NRT is biased towards the needs of the Samburu community
over those of the Borana Community;
4. Claims of corruption and especially the view that NRT has compromised elected leaders
as well as the personnel in-charge of security and administration in the Marti Sub-
County and the larger Isiolo County;
5. Claims that most members of the community in Biliqo-Buulessa Conservancy had no
say in the formation of the conservancy and that they now want it disbanded.
6. There were also claims that this has greatly annoyed the NRT which has resulted to
‘punishing’ the community by unleashing the highly-trained NRT rangers as well as
morans from Samburu in order to make the community toe the line;

7. That NRT is involved in systematic destruction of the livelihoods of local families and
the violation of human rights and land rights of the community through facilitating
cattle raids by the Samburu morans, and denying members of the community the right of
assembly and expression as enshrined in the Constitution as well as a number of other
pieces of legislation; and,
8. That the NRT has reneged on the promises it made before the establishment of the
conservancy and that the community has consequently realized minimal benefits over
the thirteen years since the conservancy was started in the area.
3.0 Findings
3.1 NRT’s Violation of the Rights of the Community
he joint team experienced first how NRT had been violating the rights of the community.
The team visited the Biliqo-Conservancy from January 26-29, 2019. Prior to the tour, the
team was informed that NRT had, on ten different occasions, used its influence within
the security and administration establishments in Isiolo County and especially in the Marti Sub-
county to frustrate the desire by the community to hold any meeting to deliberate on whether to
continue with the conservancy or not. Indeed, when the team visited, it was evident that even
conducting the fact-finding mission was risky.
Community members claimed that the NRT had
earlier sent its officials who would travel in the
organisation’s vehicles inciting and buying off
some members of the area in order to unleash
chaos during the planned community meeting. To
avoid what would have turned out to be an ugly
encounter, the team decided to hold long
discussions with members of the community on
the evening of January 26th at Biliqo Market
during which they narrated how the conservancy
was started and their harrowing experiences at
the hand of NRT rangers and the Samburu
raiders. There were also claims that the NRT has
introduced lions into the conservancy which have
been killing livestock and attacking the residents.
Indeed, on February 2, 2019, the lion (that are said
to be whitish in colour) attacked and injured two
people in the Conservancy (see pic below)
T

Community meeting before it was
disrupted by youths ferried to the
venue in a vehicle belonging to the
NRT Conservancy

Abdullahi Khoote, one of the victims
injured by the lions introduced by the
NRT in Biliqo-Bulesa Conservancy
The following morning, the team
visited and interviewed a sample of
family members of the victims killed
during the Samburu raids and
counter-raids by the Borana. Many
of the interviews were held in their
homes at the Buulessa Market. As
this was going on, the team saw
rowdy young people being ferried to
the venue of the meeting by a land
cruiser belonging to the Biliqo-
Buulessa Conservancy who shouted
threats to members of the team
saying they would kick them out of
the area. Later, the rowdy youth
succeeded in disrupting the meeting.
They were led by Guraaca Guyyo
Karayyu (a.k.a Mapengo), the Head
teacher of Diima Ado Primary School of Komu division and Jaarso D’iba Taari, Deputy Head
Teacher of Diima Ado Primary School. At some point, Guraaca heckled and insulted the
meeting conveners. Being a school day, the two were supposed to be in school but had instead
chosen to lead the chaotic group.
At some point, the
NRT Rangers were
given additional
training by the
police
On their part, the
police from the
Marti Police
station were
ferried to the
venue ostensibly
to keep peace.
However, the
police seemed
more interested

in finding out whether the convenors of the meeting had a permit. The police demonstrated
unwillingness to stop the rowdy youth from disrupting the meeting even after finding out that
the conveners had indeed taken necessary steps as is required by the law. Eventually, the police
stopped the meeting and ordered everyone to disperse which greatly pleased the rowdy youth.
The Acting Deputy County Commissioner (DCC), James Miring’u, and the Assistant County
Commissioner (ACC), Njeru Ngochi, were of no much help either. The DCC and the ACC were
evidently not in control. They also claimed that they were both new to the area and were not
aware that the Samburu have invaded the lands belonging to the Borana from where they
conduct frequent raids. They also expressed ignorance of the connection between insecurity and
NRT operations in the Conservancy. The Fact-Finding Team found it unconvincing that the two
are not aware that tens of people have been killed during the raids and that the Samburu people
have invaded a big chunk of the Borana people’s land. The team was inclined to conclude that
the two were either
not in control of the
security situation in
the area or are
compromised by the
NRT.
3.2 NRT Promotes
Inter-communal
Conflict
Inter-community
conflicts in the
North have a long
history and are
largely as a result of
cattle raids as well
as competition over
water and pasture
resources.
The conflicts have
worsened with the
proliferation of
small arms in the
region. However,
local communities
have in the past
established effective
traditional
mechanisms to
either avoid the
Testimony of Asha Happi whose husband Ali Noor Ali was Killed
by Samburu Raiders
Asha Happi is a 45 year-old widow whose husband, Ali Noor Ali, was
killed in 2014 at Lososia area in Isiolo North. Together with 21 other
herders, Ali had taken his livestock and was staying at a manyatta
owned by Chief Abdi Yattani. During a raid, heavily armed Samburu
attackers were allegedly assisted by highly trained rangers from NRT.
The raid in the early morning hours killed 6 people including Ali. The
Samburu also stole over 4,800 heads of cattle and camels. After her
husband was killed, Happi has not received any help from the elected
leaders, the government nor has any government official visited her to
inquire what happened. Today, the widow finds it extremely difficult
to take care of the couple’s 7 children. Some of the children were
unable to proceed with school because she does not have any means of
earning an income. Today, she relies on members of her clan, relatives
and friends who gave her a few heads of cattle, sheep and goats to
keep her going. She is hopeful that with time the livestock will increase
in number and that she will sell some to pay school fees for her two
children who are still in school.
Ile ndovu
tuliyoambiwa
tutakua tukiikamua
sasa imekua ya
kutumaliza (we
were told that we
will be benefiting
from wildlife
conservation,
instead we have
been losing our
lives)

conflicts or to resolve them whenever they occurred. According to Dr. Abdullahi A. Shongolo,
a Consultant with the Germany-based Max Planck Institute of Social Anthropology, the Borana,
Samburu, Somali, Rendille and other communities in the North avoided conflicts by sending
their elders to seek and negotiate for the permission to graze in each other’s lands especially
during droughts. Usually, the elders from the affected community would visit their
counterparts in communities that were not as affected by the droughts with message of
goodwill to seek grazing permission on behalf of their community members. In most cases, such
a request was granted once the elders in the relevant community assessed the available pastures
and deliberated on where to allow the affected people to graze their animals. But according to
Dr. Shongolo, this system was done away with following the appointment of chiefs and the
elected leaders who can now make unilateral decisions on this matter without consulting the
community especially after money has changed hands.
The issue is complicated further by the entry of NRT which has altered the power and
traditional governance structures of the communities in the North after it appointed
conservancy managers, security scouts and members of the conservancy boards who have
effectively taken over the traditional decision-making roles of the community elders. The latter
now wield largely unchecked and ultimate power in the conservancies. NRT has also imposed
its influence on the management of resources by reducing the grazing area of the Borana
Community in the Biliqo-Conservancy and is accused of favouritism towards the Samburu and
promoting insecurity and inter-community conflicts there such that some villages were forced
to move from their former settlement to a more urban centres.
Even before the team toured Biliqo-Buulessa Conservancy, there were reports that the
conservancy security apparatus set up by the NRT responded to incidents of livestock rustling
only in cases where the victims were from the Samburu community. Members of the Borana
community say that the NRT has gone out of its way to impoverish them by totally destroying
their livelihoods. They say that the aim is to make them amenable to manipulation by the
organisation and tourism investors. According to a local elder, Mzee Mohamed Adan, the
organisation influenced the withdrawal of guns held by the Borana homeguards who earlier
defended the community. He added that since the Conservancy was formed, the community
has experienced nine raids conducted by Samburu morans, during which some sixty three
people were killed and thousands of livestock stolen. From numerous interviews with past
officials of the conservancy board and other community members, it emerged that fifty nine of
the people were killed by the Samburu after the latter were assisted by the specially-trained
NRT rangers who travelled there in NRT-branded vehicles. Four of the victims died after the
young men from the Borana community engaged in counter attacks.
Further, the team found out that well-armed Samburu herders have invaded the land belonging
to the Borana community and have been grazing their animals in an area spanning 70
kilometres from the boundary separating the two communities, thus denying the community
access to water resources and pastures there.

Some members of the
community waving placards
to show displeasure with
NRT
Seemingly, members of the
Borana community have
resigned to its fate as they
have not been able to kick
out the invaders. The
police and the sub-county
administration have not
been of much help in this
regard as the Acting
Deputy County
Commissioner and the
Assistant County
Commissioner expressed
ignorance of the invasion claiming that both of them are new to the area and are yet to get a
grasp on the raging threats to security.
The Team concluded that the greatest challenge to the security in Biliqo-Buulessa conservancies,
as well as in other conservancies in the North, is that the Kenya government has largely ceded
its responsibility of providing security to the residents. There is evidently a thin line between
the roles of conservancy security vis-à-vis State security personnel because the former are well
trained and equipped with sophisticated weapons by NRT to be handling roles that are legally
the preserve of the police, the KWS and the administration. In most other countries, no NGO,
such as the NRT, is allowed to conduct operations that lead to violence and are coercive in
nature. In this regard, the government has failed the community of Biliqo-Buulessa and needs to
take its responsibilities seriously.
3.3 NRT’s Deception of the Community
uring the discussions, former conservancy committee members, the elders, women and
the youth claimed that they were not fully aware of the implications of setting up the
conservancy.
From the interviews, it was very clear that most did not have adequate understanding of the
nature of NRT’s operations before agreeing to start the Conservancy. They claimed that before it
was started, they had sought advice from local politicians. According to Ibrahim Ali Kunno, a
former Member of the Conservancy Board, local elders had visited current Isiolo Governor,
Mohamed Kuti, to seek his advised. Kuti, who was then the local MP, advised the community
to shelve the idea of the conservancy saying that they stood to be exploited by white people.
However, the board decided to go on with the ideas after Ian Craig, the Founder of the NRT,
handpicked a few of the elders, among them Golica Jaarso Gaade, a former Councilor now an
D

employee of NRT, who he hosted at Lewa Conservancy in Laikipia. He then asked the elders to
identify other elders who later joined them in coaxing the rest of community members to accept
the idea. This led to the signing of an agreement between NRT and the community. But all the
people interviewed were categorical that they have neither seen the agreement nor are they
aware of its provisions.
Many members of the community admitted having participated in seminars to form the
conservancy during which the NRT made a raft of promises, most of which it has not met to
date since the Conservancy was formed in 2005. The promises made included the following:
1. That there will be peace between the Borana and Samburu communities and that
incidents of insecurity and cattle rustling would be a thing of the past;
2. The construction of a school for young people from Samburu, Borana and Rendille
communities in order to create understanding and lasting peace between the
communities;
3. That NRT would employ the youth as rangers
who would not only protect the wildlife but also
local pupulation;
4. NRT promised to invest Ksh50 million in the
conservancy and asked members of the first
Conservancy Board to identify projects of their
choice; and,
5. That each tourist visiting the conservancy would
be paying as much as Ksh1 million;
However, the community reported that apart from
giving the conservancy a vehicle, constructing two sub-
standard classrooms and a mud-walled nursery school,
teacher’s houses, the NRT has reneged on most other promises. In any case, NRT went out of its
way to worsen the plight of the community and has assumed the decision-making powers. For
instance, the organisation refused to appoint a local person as the Conservation Manager and
decided to give the position to a member of the Samburu community who was rejected by the
community. It also engineered the sacking and replacement of members of the first board after
they demanded to know what came of the promises made to the community. Those interviewed
added that finances meant for the Conservancy were banked in an NRT account and that the
Conservancy has only held two annual general meetings since it was formed. Further, they said
that past and current conservancy board members have no powers and do not even know what
income was earned by the conservancy.

Community members protest
against NRT’s Operations in
Biliqo-Buulessa Conservancy

3.4 The Mineral Connection
ost of the community members expressed suspicions that NRT has other intentions
besides its stated mission of involving the community in wildlife conservation. They
said that the NRT is more interested in securing minerals-rich sites within the
Conservancy. Matters have not being helped by the fact that the NRT has cleared, marked or
planted beacons on the sites it has identified for the construction of camp sites and/or lodges. In
addition, the community reported that NRT’s founder, Ian Craig, has been seeking information
on the sites that were allegedly identified and marked during the colonial period including
some euphorbia and Tamarindus indica (or roqqa in Oromo language) trees he says were planted
by his father in Baballa area. The sites identified by Craig and the NRT happen to be the same
ones where tourist facilities are set to be put up. But the community has opposed moves to put
up the tourist facilities there saying that the NRT made the decision without involving them.
There are also claims that the British colonial administration had done exploratory studies in
the entire area and had identified and marked over sixty sites there which are said to have
massive mineral wealth. Further, members of the community told the team that NRT has gone
out of its way to secure these areas pending exploitation by foreign companies. This seems to be
confirmed by documents that site Isiolo as one of the counties hosting immense mineral wealth
in Kenya.
3.5 Violation of Community’s Land Rights

A community member displays a placard with accusations against the NRT

n Kenya, communities are defined as consciously distinct and organized groups of land
users who are citizens of Kenya and share common ancestry, similar culture, language
and/or unique mode of livelihood. The administration and management of community
lands is provided for by the Community Land Act. The Act gives pastoral communities a legal
M
I

framework to govern their land with full recognition of their ancestral heritage and unique
governance and livelihoods systems. It recognizes, protects and provides for the following:
• Registration of community land rights;
• Administration and management of such lands;
• Titling and conversion of community land;
• Management of environment and natural resources on community land. It states that
that natural resources found in community land shall be managed “sustainably and
productively for the benefit of the whole community including future generations; with
transparency and accountability; and on the basis of equitable sharing of accruing
benefits”;
• Resolution of disputes over community land rights; and,
• It accommodates the customs and practices of pastoral communities relating to land by
providing for their registration as long as they are consistent with the Act and other
applicable law. In particular, it says that community land in a pastoral area shall be
available for use by members of the community for grazing of their livestock.
Although this piece of legislation came into effect in 2016 and was meant to give effect to the
provisions of the Constitution on community land, the process of developing Regulations for its
implementation have taken a long time. At the same time, members of the pastoral communities
are not aware neither are they informed on the provisions of the Act. Further, the National
Land Commission and the Isiolo County Government are yet to initiate a process that would
lead to registration of community land and implementation of this law. This has given
organisations such as the NRT room to manipulate communities for their own ends.
From the interviews, it became clear that NRT has capitalised on the lack of awareness of the
land rights of the inhabitants of the Conservancy to violate their land rights. However, the
community protested after the NRT identified and embarked on constructing five tourist camps
in resource-rich areas of the Charri Rangeland. This included the following:
1. Baballa Camp that is set to be put up along an animal movement route close to the
Ewaso Nyiro River;
2. Maddo Gurba Huqqa which is close to a community shallow well;
3. Sabarwawa, an area where the water table is quite shallow;
4. Nyaacisa which was used by the community for traditional naming ceremonies; and,
5. Kuro-Bisaan Owwo which is close to a hot spring, beneficial to livestock health.
What angered the community is that all of the camps are either set up in (or are intended to be
set up) on sites that are key for the survival of the community and their livestock-based
economy. Indeed, these are areas that have water resources that the community relies on for
domestic water needs and for watering thousands of livestock. The community’s protest was
sparked off following a meeting during which Craig asked the Conservancy Board to fence off
Kuro Springs which would have denied livestock from accessing it. Although Craig had
advised the board to pipe the water to a place where livestock would access it, this led to fears

that the community would not only lose part of its land but also access to the water body as
well as other culturally and environmentally-important sites. The Kuro springs is a site where
livestock apart from drinking water, could lick salt from the soil, a component of healthy
substance to livestock. To counter the community’s opposition, NRT has deployed well-trained
rangers from the Samburu community to be patrolling the Charri Rangeland, which is seen as a
threat to the herders.

Magaado crater in Kulamawe Location.

4.0 The effects of rangeland management on both the pastoralists and the
ecosystem in Buliqo Bulessa Conservancy
4.1. A STRANGE LACK OF WILD ANIMALS AND BIRD LIFE
As we drove deeper into Isiolo County we did not see a single wild animal. This was unsettling
for 30 years ago the land teemed with wild life – the hirola, the grevy zebra, wild “painted”
dogs, lions, gazelles, oryx, reticulated giraffe, the rare-black reticulated giraffe, the buffalo,
wildebeest and elephant, the leopard and lion, warthogs, porcupines, anteaters, pangolins, tree
hyrax, baboons, mongoose, squirrels, monkeys and giant monitor lizards, to name but a few.

The bird life in Isiolo or Eastern Province as it was known when African Tours & Hotels had
lodges scattered in the North, was just as extraordinary – from both the red billed and yellow
billed oxpickers that sit on the back of buffalo’s and giraffes and elephants in a symbiotic
relationship, to the colourful chiraku, hawks, vultures, the ostrich, greater kestrel, yellow billed
hornbill and of course, the grouse.
Questioned as to why there were no grouse or flocks of birds the comment given was that Ian
Craig of Northern Rangelands Trust (hereafter NRT) and British Army Training In Kenya UK
(BATUK) vehicles regularly visit the area which the locals say, is known to belong to “The
Royal Family”. Tourists land via chartered flights specifically for Bird shooting. NRT’s Ian Craig
had built several airstrips in the area.
As for the wild-life we were informed that
“….. there’s a fencing in the conservations next to
us, and what the mzungu together with NineOne
and NineTwo Units (NRT Game Rangers) is that
they fly overhead with their aeroplanes very, very
low, scare the animals and drive the animals in
openings they have made in the fences – when the
animals are inside, then they close and rewire the
fence again…” Is it an electric fence, “ we asked.
The answer was a unanimous yes.
“As a group, the Biliqo Bulesa Merti community
have written letters, and spoken to their MP’s,
MCA’s, to CSO’s, to the Administration Police and
reported to the Police Station in Merti, they have
complained to KWS, but there has been no
response in 13 years. In fact, the current county
Governor Kuti, when he was an MP had suggested to us clearly to not form any agreements
with NRT”
We crossed a river bed with beautiful soft white sand, the bed dry and with deep elephant
footprints. The guide said informed us that “…this is the elephant route that they use to go to
the hot springs – they go there to drink every evening – see the dung – they’ve just passed here.
A story - we Borana take our cattle to drink during the day but not in the evening after 4 pm.
You see, we have a tradition which is very old – we water our animals in the morning by
putting water for them in the troughs, and because our animals are many, and the wells are
deep, we work until late mid morning. By that time, the animals have all drank the water and
are full, stomachs bulging. It is time to leave, but before we leave we must fill the troughs to the
maximum for the wild animals to drink. This is a custom, and if a young man does not do this
he is whipped or disciplined by the elders, for we must give water to the animals, and it is our

responsibility given to us by god.” This is the culture that is practised by all the Pastoral tribes,
including the Somali, Pokot, Rendille, the Maasai, and Samburu.
4.2 THE HOT SPRINGS
The oasis water is a natural spring, some of it is hot and some is cool, and the community use
the water at the hot springs to do their laundry – laughing out loud and exclaiming – “.. when
you wash your clothes there – even the dirtiest ones in the hot springs, they come out very very
clean!” The community also use the springs to treat their hurting bodies by bathing with the
water which they believe they were given by Allah (God) for their medicinal properties.
The area can be seen from
afar as there are Hyphaene
thebaica – the common name
Doum palm - marking the
oasis where the elephants go
to drink bathe and soak in
the cool waters and eat fruit.
Although these springs are
one of the only sources of
permanent water in the area,
Ian Craig has insisted that he
wants to fence the entire area
and keep the locals out. Not
only is it is an elephant
watering hole, but he also wants to build a Tourist Camp at the springs. Note: There is no other
water source for miles.
“We’re almost in the Merti plateau now..” the driver said, excited as the car virtually flew over
some rocks and landed down on the other side of the steep hill. Out came camera’s and video
paraphernalia, for before us was the most beautiful site – miles and miles and miles of open
grassland and scrubby acacia trees surrounded in the distant horizon by a circle of natural hills
and closer to us, pyramids built by men. Why are we not taught in “Kenya” that we have
pyramids in Isiolo County? What is in or could be under them?

The guide informed us that Ian Craig often flies in and lands with the visitors at the Pyramid
sites – while keeping the community at a distance with his NRT Armed-to-the teeth Rangers.
Close to the pyramids are old stone beacons and bunkers that elders state been placed there by
the Europeans between the 1940’s to the early 1960’s, but Ian Craig himself has warned that
none of them should be touched by the locals, and touching them will result in death. Craig has
also informed the locals that there are trees his father planted that are of “great importance”
which must not be touched nor uprooted by the locals. The guide mentioned that as children
they would graze their livestock and play in those areas. However the warnings have been
taken as abusive and insulting by the locals for the land belongs to them and not to Craig. They
also say that – the pyramids are hollow, as when one steps upon them, it is as if walking with
an echo. Secondly, they think that these may be ‘secret army bases’ for lights have been seen at
night, as well as the sound of warbled voices which could be rising up from air shafts.
If this is true, then there are questions which must be put to the Security of this county – why
are there foreign armies within Kenya?

4.3 INTRODUCTION OF NEW
ANIMAL SPECIES
While wild animals such as the
Hirola have disappeared through
kidnapping or herding into
bordering conservancies, we
were informed that Ian Craig
had introduced some “White”
Canned Lion from South Africa.
The White Lions are peculiar to
East Africa, having been bred in
captivity solely for trophy
hunting in South Africa. White
lions cannot camouflage or hide
in the long savannah grass due
to their white colouring – which
is why it is easy to shoot them
dead in South Africa.
The darker Tan coloured African Lion does not kill humans, but hunts wild animals. The
pastoralist is the predator to Lion, but the Lion does not hunt humans. Among the cultures of
the Northern Kenyans, from the Turkana, Pokot, Maasai, Rendille, Borana, Samburu, and
Somali, it is unnatural for any wild animal to attack and eat a human, even the very old ones -
and it is only when a wild animal attacks and eats a human, is it put to death, for it has
developed a taste for human flesh. During the fact finding mission to Merti we heard stories of
un-natural white lions that attack, not the wild animals, not the goats or camels, not the sheep,
but humans. If these are canned lions, there is no way these white lions could have “walked”
undetected from South Africa to Kenya .
About wild animals and the ecosystem in Northern Kenya
Each animal has a use that our grandparents and elders and ancestors understood and
respected. An example is the elephant – which senses the movement of water underground.
With their long tusks, they would dig the ground in double ridges until water rose to the
surface. Elephants are also called the ‘makers of forests’, for they eat fruit trees, and in churning
the ground while the dump, they pass whole seeds like mangoes, and smash them into the
ground. Rhino’s, the giraffe – all animals play a part in the ecosystem of the earth. The main
reason the Acacia trees are so tiny and sickly looking today is that the giraffes do not eat the
tiny shoots at the top of the tree, so that others can grow – nor are there any giraffes to dump or
urinate on the ground. Note that the healthy chemical composition of the earth is dependant

and based on the urination, scat of all wild animals, and the saliva of herbivores
The ecology is not just what we ‘see’ with our eyes – but according to the our cultures, it is also
what we do not see – that plays a bigger part in land ecology. From ants, to bees, dung beetles
and other innumerably insects. It is tiny plants, nitrogen fixers, and healthy savannah grass. It is
the tortoise and the wild hare. It is carnivores eating antelopes and zebras, it is vultures and
eagles, hawks and storks, both alive, and dead for nature is a cycle of death and life.
One of the greatest harms that we noticed is the harm that is caused when carcasses of wild
animals are removed in their entirely – as NRT has done. When an animal died of natural
causes and the carcass was left where it died, again the composition of the soil would benefit –
as well as birds of prey that would feed off it like vultures and hawks, hyenas and other
scavengers like the wild dog, smaller creatures yet like worms and lizards and more would
depend on the cycle of life of the rotting carcases. Herbivores like Rhino’s would eat particular
grasses and again, alter the chemical composition of the soil with their saliva as they ate, and as
they urinated, which is how new healthy grasses would grow. The migratory path of the
wildebeest spanned as far North from Tanzania to current Isiolo. Every single animal had it’s
place in the East African ecosystem from Ethiopia to Zimbabwe, until the imperialist landed
and brutally imposed a false culture. The multinationals and NGO’s interest is not the
development of the human being.
The word Conservation has been cleverly constructed to imply and infer a tenderness for
foreign places, the peoples and wild life therein, but in reality, their bottom line is capitalism
aka profit. The Kenyan owner of the land hence becomes the enemy, for if they were real
conservationists, they would not move any animals, they would not put up dangerous razor
wire fences and they would conserve the cultures and traditions of the locals who have existed
on this land for millennia. What many people forget is that the Berlin Conference was in 1884,
and the British have only been here for 134 years.
During 2003/2004, against the backdrop of the turmoil and scandal within the Kenyan Wildlife
Services (KWS), secret and private conversations were being held on how to manipulate this
turmoil to take control of Kenya's natural resources, both the wildlife and minerals for economic
gain. The major protagonists at some of these shadowy and clandestine meetings were Ian
Craig of Kenya's Lewa Conservancy and David Walker who as stated above is the owner and
director of the world's most notorious mercenary organisation Saladin Security. At the
periphery of these meetings were the British High Commissioner and members of Britain's
Lords of Parliament. They agreed to form the Northern Rangelands Trust aka NRT. The overall
objective would be to take control of Kenya's natural resources wildlife and minerals for their
personal economic gain.
If the conservationists left Kenya and the animals were freed from their fenced ‘LEWA’ and
other conservations and allowed to re-roam freely across Kenya, if the pastoralists were allowed
to followed their cultures regarding land use, this land would regenerate in less than 7 years.
Ecology and Conservation of our habitats is not an abstract science, and neither is it a game to

be played by financiers and those who do not understand the devastating effects of Rangeland
Management.
Picture: Batian Craig, son of Ian Craig and Security Chief of the Ol Pajeta Ranch kidnaps a
Hirola, ostensibly to ‘treat it’ . However, once captured by NRT, elders have complained for
over 10 years that the animals are never returned - neither to the Borana peoples nor back into
the wild. This is not
unusual for the Craig
family – it is an ongoing
behavioural pattern.
“… we had a pack of wild
dogs that lived up on the
hill, over there, in the caves,
and they gave birth, and
they became about 14 of
them. Then one day Ian
Craig landed on that hill
with his helicopter, and he
took the wild dogs – all of
them!...” moaned an Elder.
But more alarming is the
recent study about antelope
behavioural patterns - in the savannahs and scrub woodlands of our East Africa lives a shy,
miniature dwarf antelope known as Kirk’s dik-dik. Standing only 16 inches tall, they are
actually the largest of the four dik-dik species. They are truly monogamous animals meaning
they will mate for life. Although unsupported by scientific evidence, and perhaps with its
origins in fables and folklore, a commonly told story across East Africa describes how Kirk’s
dik-dik will commit suicide following the death of their partner, apparently sacrificing
themselves to one of the savannahs many predators. Could a small, shy and largely unheard-of
antelope species really possess the intellect and emotion to take its own life? What do we really
know about African Range Management? (https://animalogic.ca/wild/bereaved-behaviour-
animals-that-mourn-their-loved-ones) How many ‘separated’ families has the savannah lost,
due to the bungling actions of the Craig Family?
4.4 The ecological importance of bison in mixed-grass prairie ecosystems
by Dr. Sylvia Fallon, Staff Scientist Natural Resources Defense Council
Bison play a keystone role in grassland ecosystem health
The northern Great Plains ecosystem of North America was once inhabited by free ranging
herds of bison ranging in the millions. In the 1800s, human settlement in the area led to large
scale slaughter of bison and conversion of much of the grass prairie to agriculture. Only
relatively recently have restoration and conservation efforts led to protected tracts of mixed-

grass prairie and bison herds. Since re-establishing this relationship, scientists have
documented the many beneficial roles that bison play as a keystone species in their ecosystems.
Through their unique grazing behavior, bison contribute to changes in plant and animal species
composition, alterations of the physical and chemical environment, increased spatial and
temporal heterogeneity in vegetation structure, soil resource availability and a variety of
ecosystem processes (Knapp et al. 1999).
Grazing by bison increases native plant and wildlife diversity
One of bison’s greatest impacts on mixed-grass prairie ecosystems is grazing. Bison tend to
graze in patches, revisiting areas throughout the season and therefore leaving a mosaic of
grazed and ungrazed areas. Because bison selectively graze on dominant grasses while
avoiding most forbs and woody species, the
resulting patchy distribution of vegetation
favors increased plant species diversity by
allowing forbs to flourish (Collins et al.
1998). The dynamic spatial and temporal
nature of bison grazing allows the
productivity of grasses to recover while the
presence of diverse forbs enhances gas
exchange, aboveground biomass, density
and plant cover (Fahnestock and Knapp 1993,
Hartnett et al. 1996, Damhoureyeh and Hartnett
1997). Photosynthesis rates are also increased by bison grazing patterns due to increased light
availability and reduced water stress (Wallace 1990, Fahnestock and Knapp 1993)
Finally, bison grazing increases animal diversity on the landscape. Bison grazed areas increase
the foraging efficiency of prairie dogs which in turn are the main food source of ferrets (Krueger
1986). Prairie dogs also provide food for foxes, hawks and eagles and their colonies are home to
other small mammals and reptiles.
4.5 Nutrient Cycling Benefits Plant Growth and Species Distribution
Bison also affect the nutrient cycling in prairie ecosystems. Nitrogen is an essential element for
plant productivity that is found in both plant material and soils. By consuming plant biomass,
bison then return labile nitrogen to the soils in the form of urine which is more effective than
the slower mineralization of nitrogen from plant litter breakdown (Ruess and McNaughton 1988).
At the same time, grazing increases the amount and quality of plant litter that is returned to the
soil as well as the plant uptake of nutrients (Ruess 1984).

5.0 LACK OF WILDLIFE IN MERTI
While driving through and looking at the thousands of square kilometeres in Isiolo that had
absolutely no wild life, it is important to note and understand the impact of the vile
carelessness, or the unwillingness to learn - of both our national government, and the greed of
the Northern Rangelands Trust in disregarding the cultures of the indigenous people, their
sciences and the impact and value of the original human/animal/bird ecology.
5.1 In Reinterpreting the 1882 Bison Population Collapse there are pointers that perhaps
the Kenyan Wildlife Society, Kenyan Ecologists, Scientists, Errant Natives, Conservationists,
Communities, , Politicians and Kenyans as a whole must analyse deeply if they truly want to
help “conserve” not only Northern Kenya, but all Savannah land in Kenya.
One pointer is that the indigenous Pastoralists hold the keys to conservation, and not the other
way around. Serious conservation needs to listen to and adapt the conservation methods used
over thousands of years by those who have lived on these plains.
But the main pointer is to understand that the NRT’s model has demolished the ecosystem by
moving wild life and cattle forcefully from one area to another, from stealing cattle from the
locals, by separating wild life from their guides – the local communities, and by blocking
migratory routes.
5.2 Conservation and Human Beings
Comparing Allan Savory's observations in Africa, Lewis & Clark's observations in eastern
Montana, and Blackfoot history, indications are the bison disappearance was perhaps triggered
by the loss of intelligent human management. Sometimes, in resource management, we need to
take three steps back from the data and take a hard, new look at the Cultures, the instincts,
emotions, biases, intuitions, myths, folklore, and common sense that play such a critical role in
how resource management is practiced and perceived.
Range management suffers a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde dichotomy. On one hand, society is deeply
invested in the idea that range management is positive. How many government agencies have
how many people spending how much money year after year instituting and disseminating
range management practices? How many universities have how many instructors with how
many research projects and how many tax shillings teaching range management to class after
class and developing newer and better ways to manage range? Everything from soil erosion to
noxious weeds to sage-grouse welfare is believed to hinge on range management.
And at the same time, society is just as strongly invested in the opposite viewpoint, that the
finest management is that of Mother Nature, unsullied by quote “human involvement”
unquote. From this perspective, every single one of those hours and dollars and educations and
careers is a waste of time and resources and directly harmful to the environment. This
perspective is represented by the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, which changed

from rotated to continuous grazing because water developments and fences are unnatural.
It is represented by the American Prairie Reserve, which is petitioning the Bureau of Land
Management to let it remove interior fences and abandon its grazing plan. It is represented by
Yellowstone National Park, whose bison herd ballooned to over an order of magnitude above
official carrying capacity when “natural herd management” was instituted.
In “Gardeners of Eden, Rediscovering Our Importance to Nature”, Dan Dagget labeled this
perspective the “Leave-It-Alone” assumption. He characterized it by a comment he heard an
Earth First!er made to a rancher - “There’s only one thing you can do to make this place better.
You can LEAVE. Because if you stay, no matter what you do to the land, no matter how good
you make it look, it will be unnatural and therefore bad. And if you leave, whatever happens to
this place, even if it becomes as bare as a parking lot, it will be natural and therefore good”
(p.18).
Later, Dagget states, “The Great Plains of North America with their huge herds of bison are
offered as proof of the effectiveness of the Leave-It-Alone approach. As the story goes, the wild
and free bison were hunted by Indians who were too few to keep the Great Plains from
becoming one of the most biologically productive habitats the earth has ever produced and one
of the greatest successes of the Leave-It-Alone approach” (p. 22).
Dagget’s thesis that Leave-It-Alone’s opinion of Original Americans is, “when it comes to how
they managed the environment, the thing most of us value about those indigenous peoples is
the perception that there were so few of them they couldn’t really mess things up. In other
words, we value them for being a failure, because that’s what most of us ASSUMED they were”
(p. 135) It may seem unnecessarily harsh. However, in his encyclopedic, 602-page indictment of
management, Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching, Lynn Jacobs (p. 9) states, “Although
the indigenous Native Americans exerted many influences on their environment, as a whole
they had an incomparably less destructive impact than those who would follow. Perhaps this
was largely because they had lesser means to exploit and destroy.”
5.3 Catastrophic Loss of Management by Sierra DawnStoneberg Holt
The Pikuni of the Nitsitapii or Blackfoot Confederation had ranged the part of the Great Plains
since at least the 14th century. Nomadic bands had inhabited the Plains and hunted bison since
the terminal Pleistocene (14,000 years ago), using the impoundment method for at least 2,000
years. In Allan Savory’s Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making, there
was a documented experiment. When Robert Paine removed the main predator, a certain
species of starfish, from a population of fifteen observable species, things quickly changed.
Within a year, the area was occupied by only eight (8)of the original fifteen species (15).
Numbers within the prey species boomed and species that could move left the area; those that
could not move, simply died out. Paine speculated that in time even more species would be lost.

His control area, which still contained the predatory starfish, over the same time remained a
complex community where all species thrived.
Holt witnessed a similar disruption in two much larger communities in Africa for a period in
the 1950s while working as a game department biologist in the Luangwa Valley in Zambia and
the lower Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe. Both areas contained large wildlife populations—
elephant, buffalo, zebra more than a dozen antelope species, hippo, crocodiles and numerous
other predators. Yet despite these numbers, the river banks were stable and well vegetated.
Humans had lived in these areas since time immemorial, but the new European governments of
both countries wanted to make these areas “national parks”. It would not do to have all this
hunting going on, and all the drum beating, singing, and general disturbance - so the
government removed the communities.
Like Paine, Holt says, “.. we, in effect, removed the starfish. But in our case we put a different
type of starfish back in. We replaced drum beating, gun firing, spear-throwing, gardening and
farming people with foreign ecologists, foreign naturalists, and foreign tourists under strict
control to ensure they did not disturb the animals or vegetation.” Just as in Paine’s study, the
results were quick and dramatic. Within a few decades - miles of riverbank in both valleys
were devoid of reeds, fig thickets, and most other vegetation. With nothing but the change in
behavior of one species – the human communities - these areas became terribly impoverished
and are still deteriorating seriously. (p. 20–21)
Photo 1 is of a well-vegetated Zambezi River
in the 1950s and Photo 2, is of a deteriorated
Zambezi River in the 1980s. Because of
contemporary culture’s innate bias against the
value of active human management, many
had never realized that they applied to
anything beyond Elephants.
Photo 2, was described by Captain
Merriweather Lewis, written Saturday 11 May
1805,
“The banks are falling in very fast; I
sometimes wonder that some of our canoes or
perogues are not swallowed up by means of
these immense masses of earth which are
eternally precipitating themselves into the
river; we have had many hair breadth escapes
from them..” (p. 139–140)
Photo 1 are Savory’s pictures which were
taken just 25 years before Captain Lewis

wrote that entry. In Allan Savory's observations in Africa and Lewis & Clark's observations in
America, indications were that the bison disappearance was perhaps triggered by the loss of
intelligent human management. 30 years before the disappearance of the Bison, a smallpox
epidemic had devastated the Pikuni. So what if the Pikuni were range managers? What if they
had not just spent 14,000 years being irrelevant, according to the Leave-It-Alone assumption,
but, like Savory’s drum-beating Afrikans, had been learning, since “time immemorial,” to be a
critical component of a complex ecosystem? Nitsitapii bands had approximately five buffalo
hunts a year and at each would impound, kill, and process 24 to 200 animals, drying surplus
meat, all without the aid of horses.
Fur trader Charles Larpenteur witnessed such hunts and reported up to 300 bison could be
harvested. Imagine 80 to 160 people, about half of them vigorous adults, harvesting and
processing up to 300 buffalo at a time, 1,000 or more a year. That’s a lot of meat, but “from
Hopewell times (beginning of the first millennium AD), surpluses (probably pemmican) were
produced and traded downriver into the Midwest region, and overland to the Southwest” (p.
37), since “meat represents plant carbohydrates processed into a highly cost-efficient form in
terms of transportation costs” (pp. 96-98). This means that upto 1000 bison would be harvested
annually, for the entire country.
Were the Nitsitapii managers? There seems to be no question in the mind of anthropologist
Alice Kehoe. She referred to life on the Great Plains as a “human’s planned economy” and
called it, “a livestock production strategy minimizing labor input - great skill in managing herds
was developed” (p. 88).
Let us step back from the trees and take a wider look at the history of the plains Maasai, the
Somali, the Borana and all the Pastoralists in Kenya, of their ways of life, their management
system of the wildlife, of their herds and the Pastoralist Nomadic culture.
5.4 The Pastoral Land Management System
A management system is a set of policies, processes and procedures used by a group of people
to ensure that the group can fulfill the responsibilities required to achieve its goals, objectives or
purposes. These goals are what cover many aspects of a cultures processes and actions. Why is
it so difficult to believe that for over 20,000 years Pastoralists in the arid and semi-arid lands
had developed the ultimate production system, and that the interference of the fumbling
colonialization, the arrogant movement of peoples and their borders, and the disregarding of
the local community and authorities is what has caused the collapse of the African Savannah
and Rangelands eco-system?
Among the latter ‘food plagues’ recorded and given significance in the management of the
Kenyan rangelands is a remarkably little-known viral disease of cattle and other ungulates that
‘has been blamed for speeding the subjugating East Africa to colonization (Rinderpest, scourge of

cattle, is vanquished New York Times, 27 Jun 2011). The Rinderpest virus exploded so fast that it
doomed East Africa’s nomadic pastoralists who, subsisted on milk, and milk mixed with cow
blood, on beef, and on the hunter-gathering cultural lifestyle. Historians believe that over a
million or more humans starved to death. Killing cattle and herds within days of infection, the
Rinderpest epidemic emptied East Africa of most of it’s large grazing animal populations,
wiping out 80–90 per cent of the region’s cattle, which, it is argued, left the remaining
population too weak from hunger to oppose the harsh European colonialism. Rinderpest struck
East Africa in 1890, and in two years 95 percent of the Cattle, Buffalo and Wildebeest there had
died. So began a series of events of such profound ecological importance that the repercussions
are still being felt today (A R E Sinclair and M Norton-Griffiths, editors, Serengeti: Dynamics of an
Ecosystem, 1979.)
There was a loss of management in both Africa, and in the America’s where the bison went
nearly extinct. We can all agree upon that. They seem to have been nearly wiped out by
overgrazing and by diseases at least some of which were native to the continent. And this was
after roughly 14,000 years sharing North America with people and not going extinct. Something
important apparently changed. The near-extinction seems to have occurred following the
arrival of Europeans in both cases, so it is easy to suspect they were somehow involved. That is
why the simple explanation, “Europeans just shot them all,” has always been so popular. If the
diseases had been European diseases, that would also have been a simple obvious narrative.
European arrival did have tremendous impact on human and animal movements, so it is
possible to attribute the epidemics to that—changes in movement made disease transmission
possible in ways it never had been before.
That is one explanation, but not the most plausible one. Looking at Savory’s description, with
photographs, of the damage to the Zambezi River and its elephant population caused by
removing humans, and seeing that Lewis & Clark described similar riverbank effects following
the same length of time after smallpox had removed Pikuni from the Upper Missouri suggests
the idea that the European diseases that were the most deadly (ultimately) to the bison were
those that killed the humans. Humans had been providing a “something” that the bison were
unable to survive without. What was it?
In the starfish example, the missing “something” was predation. The starfish were not
managers. And the idea that removing a key predator can destabilize and damage an ecosystem
is fairly universally accepted. But in the elephant example, the most important thing the
humans were supplying was not predation. They kept the river and elephants healthy by
impacting the behaviour of the elephants. Indeed, once the elephant behaviour had changed
and the ecosystem had begun to deteriorate, Savory notes that the “new managers” tried to
replace the old management they had removed with predation, to no avail! No matter how
many elephants were killed, the ecosystem remained degraded.

In addition, the Europeans definitely supplied the bison with predation. There are two possible
interpretations for this. One is that the critical “something” supplied by Original American
Natives was predation. The supply failed when they were decimated by first by disease, and
subsequent European predation came too late to save the bison as the herds were already in a
death spiral. This answer, like the epidemic-caused-by-movement-changes answer, is plausible
and explains the loss of wildlife in East Africa.
Yet still more plausible is the answer that the lost “something” was more than just predation. It
was management. Whether or not we consider Original Americans or Africans capable of
management depends in part on the European definition of management.
If Europeans define it as using modern technology and “Western scientific method”, it is clearly
a recent innovation. However, environmental management requires intelligent intent,
observation, foresight, goals, the ability to remember and learn from the past, the ability to
predict the future, and the ability to communicate with others. That is something the original
Africans and American peoples did. As with the elephants in Africa, it seems that replacing
centuries-old management with mere predation was doomed to failure.
According to Gary Nabhan the sequence that Holt proposed for the Pikuni (intensive
management, abandonment of managed lands following severe epidemic, “discovery” of those
lands as “virgin wilderness” by subsequent Europeans) happened all across North America and
in Africa.
In Cultural Parallax in Viewing North American Habitats, he refers to habitats of pre-
Columbian North America as both “intensively managed” (p. 92) and “actively managed” (p.
93). Holt became certain that her interpretation was influenced by her experiences on a family
ranch in the Great Plains. Her great-grandparents were supplying their cattle herd with
predation 100 years ago, but the current management methods have grown and adapted over
time, thanks to the management criteria listed previously. Watching how sensitive and
responsive the landscape was to the management methods and imagining what would happen
if they were replaced with mere predation, convinced Holt that the skills and understandings
her family has developed over 100 years were most certainly possessed by people that had
10,000 years to study this ecosystem.
And there is nothing more devastating to a management system with no written records, where
a system was based solely on trained individuals and oral transmission and memory, than a
major outbreak of fatal disease, the methodical killing of a race, or the movement of indigenous
peoples by force.
5.5 The Borana Predation
What if the Pikuni and their management were the starfish, whose loss triggered the collapse?
Would “numbers within the prey species boom” followed by extinctions as reported by Paine?
Savory predicted the following clues to recognize a “lost-starfish” collapse: collapsing river

banks, “the change in human behaviour changed the behaviour of the animals that had
naturally feared them, which in turn led to the damage to soils and vegetation” (p. 21), “our
droughts were becoming more frequent because the land was deteriorating” (p. 43), and
“droughts occur more frequently and are much more severe” (p. 111). Savory, describes large,
herding animals in the presence of their predators as “concentrated and moving” (p. 40).
A month of journal entries by Lewis & Clark over 31 days, found 28 mentions of unhealthy
vegetation (compared with today), 14 mentions of extremely large herds of game animals, 13
mentions of unseasonably dry stream beds (compared with today), 5 mentions of collapsing
river banks, 4 mentions of high levels of water erosion, 4 mentions of extreme wind erosion
(compared with today), and 2 mentions of oddly gentle buffalo (p. 117–259; see Appendix 1).
And this is the concern with the
range management system in
Kenya, particularly the NRT
Management system. As seen in
this picture, there is no
predation, and the animals are
oddly gentle, tamed, and kept
within fences.
The ‘no hunting’ colonial rules
both impoverish and diminish
the original Pastoralist system
that functioned well. To repeat:
“NRT in effect, removed the
starfish. But in this case they put
a different type of starfish back in. They replaced drum beating, dancing, gun-firing, spear-
throwing, gardening & farming, hunter-gathers and nomadic pastoralists with foreign
ecologists, foreign naturalists, and foreign tourists under strict control to ensure they did not
disturb the animals or vegetation.”
Aside from the extrajudicial killings that have been reported - crimes committed by NRT
rangers and thus breaking all the policies regarding human rights – NRT also positions
electrified and barbed wires fences across migratory routes and proclaims ‘no go zones’ not
only on Borana owned land, but on land across the Northern Counties.
It would be foolish as Kenyans to continue accepting any foreign methodology which so
carelessly breaks down our cultures and languages into extinction for their profit, or a
rubbishing of the memories and oral story-telling about our lives, in our own languages. The
pastoralists cannot live without their wild life, nor cattle, and the wild-life cannot co exist
without their natural predation, and none of the above can live within a fenced-in-open air Zoo
system.

In conclusion, “If you really mess up and don’t understand anything, step away, and all-
knowing Nature can heal it.” Surely it is this same voice that encourages some managers and
environmentalists to abandon conservation management without research. After all, how much
knowledge does it take to not interact with something? Zero. But if “one of the greatest
successes of the Leave-It-Alone approach” is actually it’s opposite, - to give it back to the
original managers – in this case the Kenyan Pastoralists, if it actually demonstrates the tragedies
that a lack of management can cause, then there is no “get out of jail free card”.
If we fail to understand, to study, to interact with and to learn from those who managed this
land before us, then we can bring our own world crashing down.

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: List of People killed by Samburu morans following alleged instigation of the
NRT.
Source: Community display on a placard at Biliqo meeting. 28.01.2019

Appendix 2: List of People who lost livestock to the Samburu morans following alleged
instigation of the NRT.

Community elders in a meeting at Biliqo Market
Uwaso Nyiro River is drying up near Gootu Bridge.

What NRT Says about Biliqo-Buulessa Conservancy
Location: Biliqo and Buulessa, Marti Division, Isiolo District
Postal address: c/o Northern Rangelands Trust, Private Bag, Isiolo
Manager: D’okata Golompo
Contact: Biliqo-bulesa@nrt-kenya.org
Ethnicity: Borana
Population: 10,000
Land Ownership: Community Land
Core Conservation Area: 364,000 hectares
Main Livelihood: Pastoralism
Key Wildlife Species: Giraffe, leopard, waterbuck, lesser kudu, greater kudu, hippo, ostrich,
buffalo and lion
Year of Registration: 2007
Staff Employed from the Community: 24
Annual Operating Budget: US$ 89,000
Source: NRT Website

Biliqo buulesa report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Biliqo buulesa report

Similar to Biliqo buulesa report (20)

More from oskare10

More from oskare10 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Biliqo buulesa report