TESC NPO Paper 1

Marc Goss
NPO Management
Case Assignment
3rd October 2006


Non-profit organizations have quite the management task in order to be effective in society. There are four key functions of NPOs or arenas that non-profits operate, and they must be aware of the risks in concentrating on any one too much. The damage done by concentration on a single function is politicization, vendorism, particularism and commercialism. Each of these four components is inherently incorporated in any NPO. A one sided approach to emphasize one of these particular functions will lead to an overall lack in effectiveness of any NPO. Each of the mentioned functions should be incorporated when managing a successful NPO.
The four functions are vitally important to identify so one can assess the overall effect of the NPO. Politicization as defined, includes political lobbying for a certain agenda for change. This includes activating groups for a cause. A problem when NPOs concentrate to much on this that they may start to be bias with regard to who they are representing or use federal funds to drive political agendas. This raises questions as to why they should have special tax status. Political work combined with other activities will allow a NPO to have the support they need.
A NPO may also run the risk of acting as another government agency if they concentrate to strongly on providing goods and services to the public. This is known as vendorism and is defined as executing narrowly defined public projects the government could easily do. The NPO runs the risk of failing to differentiate themselves and simply vends services on behave of the public sector. This approach also hampers development of innovative and sustainable approaches to tasks and programs. This can happen when a NPO relies heavily on public funds to run operations.
Particularism arises when it is believed that the function of the NPO follows the beliefs and faith of individuals who are in agreement with an action or set of actions. Criticism arises from this management approach due to the point that the impulse to help has its roots in private convictions, personal values, and religious faith. Leading to the question of, are the views of these individuals representative of the public? It is most important to have visionaries and founders to guide a NPO, but management must not weight to heavily on this alone for the NPO will not be able to provide the social capital potential.
The final function of NPOs is social entrepreneurship and the problem of commercialism. NPOs sometimes make lots of profit, which they in turn use to cross, fund or support other programs on their agenda. This is seen as a way to support the work the NPO does though commercial ventures. The commercialism of NPOs raises questions about the sectors effectiveness and shift of management and operations to for-profit agendas. This leads to a shift in focus from mission to marketing and sales of their own products and services.
NPOs have been subject to many kinds of fraud. This has been mainly due to a lack in stringent management techniques that arise due to the nature of NPOs. Top officials are in the position to appropriate funds as they see fit. The given “case” example “Audit Excoriates United Way Leadership” clearly shows how easily top executives can use NPOs to embezzle funds. The best way to have avoided fraud would be to have a board that checks what the executive director is doing with the organization. Some of the One Minute Manager’s management philosophies on goal setting, clear expectations, leadership styles and task setting example put some checks and balances into management techniques. The executive director should be asked to furnish employees, the board, and the public with transparent financial statements. As seen in the United Way example, the ED had little difficulty with pocketing funds. A NPO is particularly subject to misuse of funds since it is up to their discretion as to how to use the funds appropriately according to their mission. This gives a large amount of leeway to exactly how much, from where, and for how long funds are used for a particular program; giving managers a chance to “play” with the funds. The United Way example shows this clearly with all the salary advances and use of the organization’s funds for personal use. In some cases NPOs hire under qualified individuals who are not devoted to the mission but are more concerned with personal gains from their position. The best way to steer clear of this kind of confusion is to have independent auditing firms audit NPOs more often, and for NPOs to publish their budgets and expenditure. The basis of much of NPO fraud comes form not following the mission of the organization and weighing to heavily on one of the above. For each NPO there is a different set of hurtles that need to be crossed but compassionate steadfast, honest, fair, management, is one of the greatest assets a NPO can ask for.

Report for TESC 2006

Background:

This report investigates prospects for sustainable development though case studies in Kenya.

Sustainable Development defined:

This term is quantitive on both economic and human development indices.

Francis and Youngberg define sustainable agriculture as ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just, and humane. (F & Y p 4)

“The ability of an agricultural system to meet evolving human needs without destroying and, if possible, by improving the natural resource base on which it depends. Agency for International Development paper on sustainable agriculture p 5)

Two particular Sustainable Living books, The Living Land by Jules Pretty and The Environment in Anthropology edited by Nora Haenn and Richard R. Wilk, emphasizes the need for low-energy technology, diversified, production, small-scale operations, subsistence rather than market orientation, settlement stability, and lack of manufactured inputs.

There are 4 main groups of indicators for sustainable agriculture, Physical, Chemical, Biological and Socioeconomic. (Pretty p 12)

Before independence in 1963 from England, the “British East Africa Colony” had started a number of substantial reserves, protecting the “Kings Game”. After independence this land remained state owned, and the Kenya National Parks was formed to protect the national resources of the new country Kenya. Wildlife conservation was allocated 10% total area in 28 different parks and reserves across Kenya. Professional hunting outside these areas continued on license until Kenya placed a ban on the exporting of any listed species in 1978. CITES meeting and the IUCN’s “red list” of endangered species started this policy enforcement during the height of the ivory trade. Somali bandits (there were other ethnic groups involved in the ivory trade such as the Ndurma and Waluangulu social groups, but they poached with poison arrows and spears) armed with AK-47 assault rifles quickly decimated rhino and elephant populations meeting eastern and western demand for ivory. Rhino populations decreased from over 50,000 individuals in the 50’s to less than 500 individuals in the early 90’s. Now, successful populations in parks and private land have been established; hopefully the black rhino will pass through this bottleneck without going extinct.

Ivory was the original foreign interest in East Africa. In 1989 Richard Leakey made an international appeal to stop the ivory trade. He convinced president Arap Moi to publicly burn 3 million USD worth of ivory. Cites then placed the African elephant Loxodonta Africana, on appendix two (threatened) of listed species on the “Red” list. (Haenn and Richard R. p 219) Thus, making the trade in body parts of the species is internationally illegal. South Africa was infuriated arguing that they have appropriate management for big game hunting. One bull elephant can fetch as much 20,000USD. Money that if managed for the greater community, investing in sustainable agriculture, and then hunting is a valuable source of income. In most cases government officials issue more licenses than is ecologically stable, then high-end big game safari outfits make the 20,000 USD.

Kenya Adopted a shoot on site policy, which remains today for dealing with poachers.

A case study in Zimbabwe (1992) argues that money raised from one hunt built two schools for the community living around the wildlife. (Haenn and Richard R. p 220). The local population did not poach and supported wildlife protection. Hunts were conducted but trophies were not taken home.

CITES made an exemption for Zimbabwe due to its success stories until in 1993 the South African Government was involved in a huge ivory smuggling deal.

The argument Richard Leakey has is that as soon as ivory is traded legally again, then poaching will kick off again and there will be no controlling it in the large dispersal areas.

There are over 70 distinct ethnic groups in Kenya, ranging in size from about seven million Kikuyu to about 500 El Molo who live on the shore of Lake Turkana. Kenya's ethnic groups can be divided into three broad linguistic groups Bantu, Nilotic and Cushite. While no ethnic group has a complete majority of Kenya's citizens, the largest ethnic group, the Kikuyu, makes up 20% of the nation's total population. The five largest are the Kikuyu, Luo, Luhya, Kamba and Kalenjin accounting for 70% of total 35 million Kenyans. 97.58% of Kenya's citizens are affiliated with its 32 major indigenous groups. Of these, the Kikuyu, who were most actively involved in the independence and Mau Mau movements, are disproportionately represented in public life, government, business and the professions. The Luo people are mainly traders and artisans. The Kamba are well represented in defense and law enforcement. The Kalenjin are mainly farmers. While a recognized asset, Kenya’s ethnic diversity has also led to disputes. Interethnic rivalries and resentment over Kikuyu dominance in politics and commerce have hindered national integration. (African Studies Center Uni. Penn.)

Corruption has been the foremost barrier in implementing projects to “nation build” in Kenya. The rampant corruption of 30 years during His Excellency Hon. Daniel T. Moi’s regime has become deeply entrenched ignoring many indices for development. Transparency International lists Kenya as not addressing corruption.

Many government officials made it apparent though brief interactions they were interested in what was in it for them. Corruption in Kenya is one of the major barriers to sustainable wildlife conservation. Efforts to redistribute revenue from tourism and conservation are few.

Transparency International reports that Kenya’s attempts to combat corruption are not working. There is a growing pessimism about the government’s fight against corruption. Part of the problem lies in the government’s lack of a coherent anti-corruption strategy and its inability to investigate and prosecute new cases of graft (TI p. 67).

TI lists the police as Kenya’s most corrupt institutions with 36% of Kenyan’s reporting that they or family members bribed police in the last 12 months (TI p. 68).
Kenya’s corruption barometer does not look good. In December 2004 TI reported a grim outlook. The public has little confidence in the government’s ability to combat future corruption. Illegal government land deals have led to unclear land use agreements with devastating effects.

Current Land Tenure Deficiencies:

It is important to understand the current land tenure structures put in place the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (1999). These tenures have been illustrated by the United Nations Agenda 21, and are broken down as follows:

Individual tenure: This title derives from adjudication of claims in former trust land areas or in allocation of public land to an individual after demarcation and from settlement schemes. This category is mainly found in the former whit highlands. The tenurial arrangement gives an individual the right of access to and ownership of land.

Communal tenure: This is the occupation, ownership and use of land by a particular community. It differs from place to place and from one community to another and is found in trust land where land consolidation and adjudication has not taken place. It is also common among pastoral groups, such as the Maasai. This arrangement gives an individual the right of access to and not ownership of land.

Public tenure: This is the direct ownership of land by the state and consists mainly of gazetted forests, national parks, game reserves and other unalienated public lands in both rural and urban areas.

Tenure arrangements applied:

Public land: Kenya Wildlife Service, a state owned enterprise, has long-term tenure of national parks and game reserves. Rangers are armed with modern assault rifles and operate under a military code. Kenya has always recognized the importance of conserving her biological resources. In the recent past, national master plans for forestry, water, wildlife and tourism, have been developed. The problem remains implementation of such proposals and plans. The negative interaction of the poor population and the environment ever increases as settlement expands. This leads to communities engaging in unsustainable farming practices on land already inhabited by a diverse array of wildlife. The wildlife often ruins their crops as well. The people have no title to the land and do not reinvest because the government could evict them at any time.

The KWS’s Community Wildlife Services directly concentrates on communities living outside conservation areas. The CWS is partially funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). CWS policy states, “If people benefit from wildlife and other natural resources, then they will take care of these resources, using them sustainably”. On the other hand there seems to be no projects started by the KWS to actually generate sustainable incomes from protecting wildlife. CWS’s policy goals are: wildlife utilization; human-wildlife conflict management; community development through mobilization and education; compensation from wildlife damage.

The CWS’s main difficulties include, “Convincing community members to participate in fence maintenance –Shimba hills, Amboseli ecosystem and Laikipia.” Electric fences are absolutely necessary where agricultural practices border parks. Elephants or even baboons can ruin a farmer’s livelihood in one night. It seems paradoxical to ask communities to continue investing their time and effort to keep wildlife from ruining their crops when incomes generated from tourism does not trickle down.

The KWS does not have a successful distribution method according to Rosemary Kinyanjui, Rosemary writes, “…areas surrounding wildlife environments (either protected or not) will best benefit from that wildlife by sharing of money earned by the wildlife authority (KWS). 15% of gate earnings are supposed to be distributed to the community. Not as cash but through buildings, water points, etc. as decided by the community. This is not happening to the extent it should for sure”[sic]. Rosemary is an authority in Kenya running the Non Governmental Organization (NGO) Friends of Conservation (FOC).

The Kenya Forest Department is in charge of all gazetted forest reserves. In some areas national park and forest reserve and national park overlap (Aberdares, Shimba Hills). Forest officers are not armed and currently have little capacity to manage the county’s forests. According to Dr. Imre Loefler, Chair of the East African Wildlife Society, the department is in shambles. Loefler writes, “…in the forest sector, chaos reigns. People are not allowed to collect firewood even – and yet no tells them how – to cook. People who had been encouraged to plant trees are not allowed to harvest the trees on their own land, while the illegal charcoal trade is flourishing. Thanks to the presidential ban on tree cutting in force since 1999, the condition of Kenya’s plantation forests is deteriorating through a combination of neglect and irregular harvesting, resulting in losses to the government amounting to hundreds of millions of shillings.” (1 USD =75 Ksh) “The notorious excisions have still not been revoked. The Forest Department is still crippled by the dismissal of most of its senior foresters. The “shamba” system is not being managed, no people are planting or tending to the seedlings.” Loefler points out some key tenure problems. The forests should be utilized and managed according to robust models for development.

Communal tenure: In many scenarios this land agreement structure falls victim to the “Tragedy of the Commons,” as individual user gains out weight collective gains to sustain the land. The Maasai Mara group wildlife area makes more capital then any other park, game reserve, or ranch, yet it remains one of the worst maintained conservation areas in Kenya. 150 Narok County Council members who are voted in run the conservation area. When interviewing a man who was complaining about protecting wildlife, I asked what he thinks of the County Council. He said he would like to be on it. I asked why, and he replied, “So that I can eat as they are eating.” He was not angry that they were lining their pockets with community funds; it seemed to me that that was what he expected them to do in that position. The nomadic groups still living inside the Mara have to sustain life with wildlife and do not have the necessary stakes in conservation to diversify their land usage.

The Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary is a community run wildlife area, which all gate fees go back to the community board. When recently holding meetings with farmers bordering the MES it was apparent that all the board members had moved away and no longer represented the community living outside the sanctuary.

Private tenure: Management purposes and mission greatly differs on different farms and ranches. Mike Prettejohn whose family settled there in 1920 owns Sangare elephant sanctuary, a freehold ranch between the Aberdare national park and Mt. Kenya national park. His property is an essential 5,000-acre elephant corridor between the two parks. Small holders who farm maize, wheat, potatoes and beans to sell in Nyeri town surround Sangare on two sides. Elephants often break out and raid farms. Mike decides how to keep the community happy on the other side of his fences. The ranch earns revenue from tourism. Mike has a good report within his community and is responsible for building two schools and assists farmers with technical faming assistance. Mike dislikes the way KWS in this area. In this recent letter it is apparent that the government institution has little control of its field operatives, “Poaching is really bad everywhere. One poacher shot dead on Solio [neighboring ranch] turned out to be one of Bongo’s [senior warden Mt. Kenya park] KWS rangers on leave!!!! Rhino ele and buff being taken out of salient [Aberdare park] and probably by KWS rhino surv. guys?? Jonny Bax just had everything taken out of his camp in the salient-rangers??? Have bongo team going into the ‘black crags’ area tomorrow to do a follow up with helicopter on Sunday.” [sic] Mike is currently running a bongo antelope census with NGO funding in the Aberdare Park.

Other private land management plans do not incorporate active coercion to harvesting renewable energies and wildlife. Amaka Ranch bordering Taita Ranch only uses the land for herding, ad hoc harvesting of virgin bush land is leading to further desertification.

On the other side of the scale a certain white farm owner has been shooting people dead for poaching impala (small antelope) on their land. This is not an isolated case either.



Renewable Resource Issues

Matthew Gamser’s book Power From the People, presses the need for user-end innovation in communities.

Gamser argues that user participation in technology development enhances the innovative propensity of any given firm or agency (G p3). His research primarily focused on Sudan’s energy aspects. After USAID had invested much money into the Research and Development of renewable resource stoves (1986) the inspector general reported, “ Most of AID’s prior renewable resource projects will not be replicated (G p36).” The projects were fixated on technologies, which users did not adapt to, and which did not operate well in the field. R&D kiln programs were often deserted when the project promoters leave (G p40).

Gamser suggests that forestry departments in developing countries should make two essential institutional innovations: making forestry departments into service- (as opposed to enforcement)- oriented institutions (G p48).

A community starting to plant trees must have a secure stake in that land. Making forestry perfect for assessing the tenure approach available for each community. Only growing quick cash crops erratically is a sign of uncertainty in land tenure agreements.

Dr Dominic Walubengo, a stakeholder in energy development, has expressed clearly his frustrations with the GOK. He believes the Beijer Institute’s 1980 estimates of the wood supply deficit of 32.61 million tons by the year 2000 are correct. Walubengo criticizes the government for not sharing the renewable energy policy with stakeholders, and believes that no policy for renewable energy has been constructed. The present institutional arrangements are not adequate to facilitate sustainable development of biomass energy. This is due to inadequate information for planning and policy formation, and limited financial and human resources and institutional capacity (W p16).

Walubengo emphasizes that current policy pays more attention to petroleum and electricity than any other source of energy as it is seen to lead to industrialization. Unfortunately, all who want electricity and LPG gas in the next 200 years will not have access to it. Annually Kenya burns 2,000,000 tons of charcoal, of which, every ton approximately takes .1 hectares of woodland to make, or 200,000 hectares annually. Walubengo calls for a new energy institution in Kenya. The biomass energy body would have the following duties: “Facilitating the collection of data, issuing of licenses, labeling wood and charcoal, setting standards, monitoring the follow of charcoal and wood from production to consumption centers (W p 34)”.

This body would increase and legitimize employment of potentially of 300,000 jobs in the biomass energy sector. Walubengo believes that the private sector can self regulate the supply of charcoal. And that legalization of its use will be the only way to sustainably harvest for the future. While charcoal burning remains illegal the deficits will be come unrecoverable.

The GOK fears that if charcoal production is legalized there will be no stopping mass deforestation. The current land tenure structures have not been conducive to community investment in forestry practices.

Current communal tenure supports the “get gut and run” philosophy of completely degrading an area and getting out before anyone can complain and it’s to late. This saying was adopted in the west to describe users of the new frontier in the United States with no restrictions or regulatory guidelines. This happens in the parks, forest reserves, private lands and communal lands. All charcoal production and transportation is illegal, yet it is not illegal to sell once in the marketplace.

What is to be done? The shortage of wood fuel products has reduced standards of living and increased human wildlife conflicts. Farmers may learn, through demonstration woodlots started by fellow farmers, how the private sector in renewable energies can emerge to modify government restrictions on use of wood fuels.

The use of sustainable agricultural, agro forestry and permaculture practices will stop, or at least slow, encroachment on biodiversity hotspots. Sudan’s Energy and Research Council has had a positive impact on wood fuel stocks and efficient use. ERC foresters seek a more user-interactive forestry strategy in the formulation of its community forestry projects (G p 115). It is now time for Kenya to adopt some robust forestry practices for a number of land management goals. This paper is focus on projects around wildlife areas.

Renewable Energy Use and Development

Daniel M. Kammen, director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkley, reports the Kenya Ceramic Jiko as designed thought efforts of local and international agencies. A Jiko is a simple metal and ceramic, charcoal efficient, cooking stove (See pic 1). Today, the stove is used in 50% of all urban homes and 16% of rural homes in Kenya. Use of the KCJ has now spread to neighboring African countries, with very similar variations of KJC stoves in Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Malawi, Niger, Senegal and Sudan. This is a good example of user innovations demands, and its successes in entering local markets. Now the problem is finding more trees to fill the demand for wood fuel, charcoal, and other forest products.

Maxwell Kinyanjui, holder of a master’s degree in land planning, has one of the only current Jiko making factories in Kenya. The operation consists of a production line of piece workers pounding out each metal component and hand making each ceramic liner. His program contrasts sharply from other case studies in its reliance on existing formal and informal sector commercial operations for stove production and distribution. This program relies souly on traditional stove making artisans, adapting and improving stove designs to fit their own needs and capabilities (G p 45). Maxwell’s oven Jiko is the next step in energy efficiency for baking and commercial applications (See pic 2). Aimed specifically for schools, bakeries and restaurants. Maxwell has also developed a charcoal kiln with much higher recovery rates compared with traditional charcoal making processes. The problem with building kilns is the legal implications of making charcoal, even though modern kilns greatly reduces the demand on trees per unit for charcoal making. Recovery rates jump for 12% in traditional kilns to 40% when made in a modern kiln.

Implementation of Sustainable Woodlot Cycles

The Sustainable Woodlot Cycle is management plan for implementing, tending and harvesting a planted forest for profit. Each SWC will is adapted for individual user demand; pastoral groups will be more interested in fodder yielding trees. Therefore, before implementing a SWC socio-economic tree species are identified with the targeted community. See figure 1 for SWC illustrated. See attached SWC management plan.



Case Studies:

MES:

The Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary, started by the Eden Wildlife Trust in 1996, is founded on some unique tenurial agreements for use of communal and private land. Over 400 elephant inhabited the area where farers were living and trying to raise crops. Through formation of the MES, the land could be conserved for wildlife to generate incomes for reallocated land shareholders inside the sanctuary’s boundaries. An 8km electric fence was erected to keep the elephants out of bordering farmland. Foreign investors built a tourist lodge and all gate revenues are paid out to shareholders. Minutes from the 2003 Annual General Meeting showed a total loss of Ksh 1,799,406 (20,000 USD) “…but this was after making 2 compensation payments in the year amounting to 4,801,290 (53,000 USD). These payments were made to land owners who gave up their land for elephant conservation. Before payment of compensation there was a surplus of Ksh 3,000,000 (33,500,4 USD) (AGM Min. P 1).”

In the case of the Mwaluganje, it is clear that more than 15% of revenue is returning to the community. Last year a shareholder who owns 10 acres inside the MES received an annual payment of 90,000 Ksh (1,100 USD). The MES is having some difficulties in the recent future.

Unfortunately, the community is still not happy with the Mwaluganje and complaints have been made that the shareholders no longer represent the community and live elsewhere. The elephants continue to break out of the sanctuary to destroy crops.

One alternative option for generating incomes for the bordering community is a buffer woodlot along the outside of the MES fence line on private land. Meetings held with the local chief and village authorities agreed that this would be a worthwhile project.

Currently, there are far to many elephants in the Mwaluganje and they have been extremely destructive to their habitat. This problem has been magnified by the erection of a 12km fence to keep elephant out of settlement areas. Now, this particular coastal forest has been turned into open grassland.

The KWS has successfully translocated 200 elephants from the MES. (See film project) 500 elephant move between Shimba Hills National Park, Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary, Taita Ranch, and dispersing in Tanzania and Tsavo Parks. Paula Kahumbu completed her Ph.D. on the population of resident elephant in the late 90’s. Paula has estimated the carrying capacity of this area to be 1/4 its present population. The board of shareholders mismanages the sanctuary and the current manager has resigned due to political unrest.

Security: Unregulated grazing continues inside the MES and none will take action to address this, due to vested interests between shareholders and grazers. Unregulated felling of hardwoods continues inside MES as well. Suggestion of 6 rangers rotating from Taita Ranch to MES has not been activated to date. It is suggested that action is taken soon as not to loose what is left.

The theory behind have community conservation manage itself is that poaching will not persist as it will be seen by the community as bad for business, so should stop. That has not worked as best it could thus far. The MES is not policed but may need to be if alternative income generators are not sought.

Afforestation of KAYA: The Eden Wildlife Trust has completed fencing the picnic site around a section of the KAYA forest. Now rehabilitation projects can take place inside. Mbambakofi (Afzelia quanzensis) seedlings at Ngonzini Primary School are ready for planting out in this area.

All commercial seedlings planted by the Ngonzini primary school outside the MES have died due to lack of tending and watering. This is an example of a project that is started and not managed. The school will have to start over again and investigate a management plan for rearing the seedlings.


Taita Ranch:

Taita Ranch is a freehold ranch (private long term lease from the GOK) of 96,000 acres. The ranch is 100Km west of Mombassa city near Tsavo national park.

18 rangers are employed to arrest trespassing people. Last year rangers removed 2,000 snares from inside Taita Ranch, and arrested over 15 poachers.

After managing the anti poaching team funded by EWT; it became evident that no matter how many poachers were arrested for charcoal burning, setting snares, wildlife poaching and illegal grazing they kept coming back. The approach was to raise the opportunity cost involved by poaching in the ranch. The social complexities involved with coercing poachers with rangers from the very same community led to a mortifying incident.

On October 18th 2004 two Taita Ranch rangers were murdered when left alone in camp. Their bodies were found mutilated one week later.

It did not take long to realize the community did not have many employment opportunities apart from cattle herding, making charcoal, running dismal shops on the Mombassa highway and two very small plots grew some vegetables.

Most trees surrounding the community have been cut and not replanted. There is an overall loss of biodiversity. None of the community has legal title deeds from the GOK. Why therefore should settlers take the initiatives to develop the land? Land tenure in this area is still not conducive to long-term investments-tree planting and general agriculture land development. For community members to adopt a tree planting initiatives they need a safe environment to invest in. Then funds are needed to purchase some of the low technical capital for starting a SWC.

I became extremely interested in the potential for starting a biomass energy cycle outside Taita Ranch. (See attached breakdown.)

This SWC has so far cost less than expected since Mkala and myself are not paying labour to tend the farm. His sister and extended family tend to the crops and water the trees daily. They use or sell any cash crops grown. Some trees have tomato vines growing up them and others have kale or beans growing around their bases.

The above SWC is a demonstration plot for the next step of this program. The key element for this project to be a success is for community members to be adopting the process of implementing a SWC. Then farmers will need finance to invest in their land. All farmers I interviewed wanted to start a SWC on their land. Rangers who interact daily in the community, through personal practice, will be the best advocates of the program.

Taita Rangers can spread awareness though educational workshops on starting a SWC and its greater land management components. Rangers who have started an SWC themselves can estimate the cost of implementing further woodlots.

This project is aimed at farmers who are willing to match funds and time to start a SWC. Farmers will be supported on the piece-based loaning process to maintain the SWC (see attached guidelines). A ratio of replanting when harvesting is on of the SWC’s main components, allowing for legal trade in sustainable wood products.

If SWCs are started outside Taita Ranch the community will be a step closer to securing settlers stake hold on the land.

If farmers irregularly harvest their plantations Taita will no longer deal with that party again, for management and sale of legal wood products. It is very important for the SWCs to follow appropriate harvesting regimes to maximize profit and continue to have sustainable outputs.

Soysambu ranch:

The headline of the 11th of May 2006 edition of Nation Newspaper illustrates these stakes. The Friday Nation Newspaper’s front page story explicitly reported this horrid story, “A son of Lord Delamere, who shot dead a man on his sprawling estate in April last year, was last night under arrest after another fatal shooting on his father's farm.” After shooting dead a KWS ranger less than a year ago Tom Cholmondeley was acquitted of charges resulting a an uproar from the public and Law Society of Kenya.

The latest victim was a 37-year-old stonemason, who was found walking on the family's vast Soysambu ranch in Gilgil, with four other men.

The four poachers were carrying a dead impala, according to a report in the Occurrence Book at Gilgil police station. Mr. Cholmondeley, son of the 5th Baron Delamere - one of Kenya's most notorious colonial settlers - is said to have told police he believed the men had entered the estate intending to poach wild animals.

Coercion in Kenya is not working and will drive the population to hate the thought of wildlife protection. Some model of permaculture use of wildlife must be devised. Wildlife is a national resource in Kenya that is favoring a small group of landholders and county councils. The latest incident of taking a human life for that of a gazelle on private property seems absurd, disgusting and extremely disturbing. I believe that some major land reforms for protected and non-protected areas will perhaps address some of these lop sided issues. I ask again, how can animal welfare be promoted above human life? If Cholmondeley is acquitted a second time some would argue that neo-colonialism supported by the Government of Kenya exists today. Finally, these brutal actions taken by some white farm owners will have a negative effect on others trying to have a positive input in the country that is their home.

The Delamere owns this ranch family, part of an area that was once known as the Happy Valley. Residents, including Cholmondeley’s grandfather – the third Lord Delamere – were notorious for wild adulterous exploits and hedonistic escapades.

The antics of Happy Valley are retold in James Fox’s book White Mischief. The area has so far been home to three famous killings: that of Josslyn Hay, the 22nd Earl of Errol in 1941, and the two recent ones by Cholmondeley. None of the Happy Valley murders have been resolved.

Kenya is probably the only place in the world where royal blood provides one with a license to kill. Even in Great Britain – where titles such as Lord mean something – no person, prince or peasant, can break the law with impunity. (Nation Newspaper 15th of May 2006)

On the 22nd of May 2006 Saitabao Ole Kanchory of Nation Newpaper, “Legal Week” writes, “It is bad enough that Cholmondeley is a beneficiary of colonial misrule, theft and plunder of Kenya. He should not make sport of human life by hunting down anyone who steps on his ill-gotten ranch.”

Such interactions to preserve biodiversity must stop. Land reform benefiting communities will best utilize wildlife?

Conclusion:

For the moment, on the whole, wildlife is not benefiting the people to its possible potential. Current land tenure structures have not provided an atmosphere conducive to wildlife conservation and development in Kenya. NGO efforts may act as a “stopgap” before a government implements some sustainable plans for wildlife. The areas outside protected areas and key habitats need to be utilized to their potential though settlement and redistribution. Then group ranches can decide to what use is the land best for our community. Older generation, white, Kenyans do not believe this is a good idea, at all! Though the utilization of unprotected areas the remaining 10% protected area can be justified to preserve. Richard Leakey has accepted that, “the days of roaming wildlife is over. (Int. 96) He also believes that the 10% protected areas are enough to preserve biodiversity. In a lecture at the Cape Town University, Leakey addressed some of the struggles, “If there is political surge to redistribute land, it is critical that you don’t target land that is critical to preserve.” Kenya’s economy is in no way ready to forsake development options for conservation. Whenever conservation hinders a Kenyan’s opportunity, for success in the modern world, conservation will loose.

Mismanagement of group and private conservation ranches has led to overall unease in communities who have no stake in wildlife conservation efforts. I soon hope that policy will be such that; a community around any conservation area makes direct incomes form conserving the land, government or private. Sustainable income generators will include eco-tourism inside the conservation area, and/or profit generating projects outside. Then one day sustainable utilization of wildlife, with built in ecological safeguards.

The new land reforms can be structured in an orderly manner, or can take the form of a Mugabe style reallocation. Kenya has a chance to be a model for multiparty sustainable land use in Africa.

The Taita program is a small step toward higher stakeholder responsibility in settled land, leading to models of integrating communities and wildlife management plans toward sustainable development.

Reserve land, around parks, acts as a buffer zone to settlement, and eases human wildlife conflict where there are no fences. This land is also recognized as important migration and wildlife dispersal areas. The land is public but not protected. The GOK recognizes that subdivision of dispersal areas in reserves has mainly resulted in unproductive individual parcels. Either the KWS should be responsible for implementing a collective use of such areas, or the areas be privatized so community users can diversify and seek Non-Profit Organization investors who promote Sustainable Development projects.

Edward O. Wilson, our contemporary Thoreau, and Emeritus professor of entomology at Harvard University, expresses the criteria for wildlife and biodiversity conservation in his book The Future of Life. E.O Wilson writes, “Make the local people partners; give them incentive to be stewards of and guards of the reserve. Train them to be guides and resident wildlife experts. Persuade their governments to see the reserve as a national treasure and source of income.” (p 168) The GOK and ranch holders do recognize conservation areas, as treasures and sources of income the problem is redistribution.

Wangari Maathai 2004 Nobel Peace laureate for sustainable development, democracy and peace, struggled hard for forests in Kenya. Maathai started the Green Belt movement in 1977 through grass roots movements and women’s groups to stop deforestation and desertification. The GOK General Service Unit severely beat Maathai for rallying protestors in 1999. Maathai is now active in Kenya and overseas for advocating investment in sustainable agriculture.

Innovations possible in a developing atmosphere allows for elements to catalyze practices that took thousands of years in the west to develop. New energy policies can be scrutinized and methodologies cultural and scientific be utilized for sustainable development.

Now is the time to activate the people on the ground who have a chance to control the energy they produce. If trees can secure tenure, then it should be advertised as such. If not, law needs to recognize practices that develop the land sustainably.

I propose, as well as, integrating a forestry department to secure tenures; Taita Ranch starts family planning workshops along with education of siviculturally appropriate management devised and agreed upon by the community.

I will teach though self-practice the steps stakeholders can take to develop their land sustainably. I hope, as few trees will be cut before seed oil pressing technologies become viable in rural areas. I have started to grow indigenous forests on my three small properties bordering conservation areas (see movie project).












Reference:

1. Beentje, Henk. Kenya Trees Shrubs and Lianas. National Museums of Kenya, 1994
2. Haenn, and Wilk. The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture, and Sustainable Living. New York University 2006.
3. Galana Cattle Company P.O. Box 72 Voi Kenya: Access to ranger report logs and financial documents
4. Gamser, Matthew. Power From the People: Innovation, User Participation, and Forest Energy Programmes. Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing 1988.
5. Government of Kenya, Rural Development Fund Handbook. Ministry of Planning and National Development. (no printed date on publication)
6. Kenya Forest Department. Interviews with District Forest Officer Nyeri, 4th August 2005. Interview with DFO Voi 23rd June 2005.
7. Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary: Access to AGM minutes and financial documentation. Interviews with fence technicians.
8. Nation Newspaper. 15th May 2006, 22nd May 2006.
9. Pretty, Jules. The Living Land. Earthscan Publications 1998.
10. Private consultation on project objectives and feasibility with Richard Leakey.
11. Private consultation with MGP on ranch management and implementation of projects.
12. Tree Biotechnology Project, Karura forest Headquarters. P.O. Box No. 64159-0062 Nairobi.
13. Interviews and discussions with farmers in Miasenyni, Kwale, Kinango, and Lungalunga.