RUNNING OUT OF WILD
Mitigating the effects of Transport Systems on Wildlife Movement and Ecosystem Connectivity A study of Nairobi National Park and the Standard Gauge Railway Bitran, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS I) INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY Methodology Location II) BACKGROUND CONTEXT National Park Functions Standard Gauge Railway Law & Policy Statements
III) ISSUES & QUERIES Pre-existing Problems Steinitz Framework S.W.O.T IV) STRATEGY: BIO CULTURAL DIVERSITY APPROACH Objectives Management Activities Education, Film & Corridor Surveillance Sanctuary Expansion and Tree Planting V) CONCLUSIONS & SUPPLEMENTARY RECOMMENDATIONS Potential Impacts Funding and Stakeholders Implementation Timescale REFERENCES
VISION A healthy bio culturally diverse park in which people can feel satisfied with its status and that of the wildlife. &
MISSION Enhance Nairobi Natural Park’s wildlife corridors and promote its engagement and value to all people, helping them connect with the wildlife in the park.
I) INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY DETERMINATION OF KEY REGULATORY AND MAINTENANCE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
SERVICE INDICATORS
Predation
Movement Patterns
Predator count Prey Count
MAPPING OF SGR CONTACTED NATURAL CAPITAL NOTE AVAILABLE NATURAL CAPITAL DELEVERING SERVICES
SUPPLEMENTARY CONSIDERATIONS Public Engagement Activity Habitat Control
Cultural Identity Predator Control
INTEGRATION Corridor Zoning and Surveillance
Sanctuary Expansion
Sanctuary Expansion
Subsidiary Strategy Proposals
Map Suggestions CORE HABITATS KEY SPECIES/ FUNCTIONAL GROUP
Open Grassland Savannah
Large
Endangered
Riverine Forest
Mammals
Highland Dry Foresrt
CONECTIVITY ANALYSIS
MAPPING OF SGR CONTACTED WILDLIFE CORRIDORS
DETERMINATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY CONSIDERATIONS
South of Park Athi Basin Dam and Mbagathi River
Provisional Shelters
Central Grassland
Application of general methodology in Nairobi National Park case study, adopted from (Liquete et al., 2015)
RANKING Core Strategy Proposals
Corridor Surveillance
Animal Orphanage for Wildlife Rehabilitation
Elephant & Rhino Sanctuary Sheldrick Wildlife Trust
Historical Site Ivory Burning Site
NAIROBI NATIONAL PARK
Predominantly urban
The only protected National Park located in a City “Bora ya Mavuno” “The Cream of the Crop”
LOCATION
II)METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Nairobi National Park Functions
© Berg, 2018
© Jeffrey Wu Photography
ENVIRONMENTAL ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪
Vital carbon sink for the city Wildlife conservatory Water Source; Rivers and Dams Indigenous Species Habitat Migration Route and Grazing Land
De Souza, 2016
ECONOMIC • • • •
Revenue towards the tourism industry Employment in the tourism sector Research, education and film Special events venue: weddings, camping
SOCIO-CULTURAL • • • •
Nature-based tourism Historical Monument Ivory burning site Unique Urban National Park Big 5 Game Site
wildlifedirect.org Marchant, 2019
THE STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAY A controversial design that brings many hidden questions “Ndovu Chumbani” “The Elephant in the Room” Out of the seven proposed routes, Option 4 was the successful pick. It is made up of a series of Viaducts that allow passage and view between the east and west side of the park without hampering aircraft movements. The SGR has been acknowledged with thus having the capability of changing the movement and general behaviour of wildlife in the park. Kenya Railway Corporations, 2016 ,p.244
Policy Protection ▪ Park listed as a Critical Endangered Ecosystem ▪ Lion Conservation Unit: National endangered specie ▪ Black Rhino Sanctuary: National critically endangered specie
Wildlife Act, 2013, sc6, p.64-65 Wildlife Act, 2013, sc11, p.78
Law/ Policy
Statement
(1) Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act. 2013 revised 2018 P39. Establishment of a Sanctuary
As the park is government property, permission is required to establish a wildlife Sanctuary. Such was the case with the Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, which can use The application of this strategy in addition to this term enriches the definition by stating: Wildlife corridors are defined by the effective coherence and connection of their features of conservation value to the wider landscape. Species movement and behaviour across the landscape are not severely constrained by linear or areal features such as the SGR. Adopted from (Benson & Roe, 2007) Following the SGR development it is recommended & is suitable for: -Frequent monitoring of the SGR activity to be undertaken -Identification and management of habitats & species. -The provision of zones & management objectives for each zone
(2) Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act. 2013 revised 2018 “corridor” means an area used by wild animals when migrating from one part of the ecosystem to another periodically. (3) Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act. 2013 revised 2018 Fifth Schedule PART II (2) In the case of development and proposed activities
(4) Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act. 2013 revised 2018 PART V – ESTABLISHMENT OF WILDLIFE ENDOWMENT FUND Section 23 (4)
(5) Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act. 2013 revised 2018 PART XI – OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
Applicable financial criteria from Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund : - protect endangered species, habitats & ecosystems. - develop wildlife conservation initiatives. -manage & restore protected areas & conservancies. -support wildlife security operations. -facilitate community-based wildlife initiatives. Liable mitigation and rectification responsibility from SGR development in case of: -pollution of wildlife habitat and ecosystem. -Discharge hazardous substances or waste or oil.
METHODOLOGY III) ISSUES AND QUERIES
Pre-existing problems ▪ Poaching and illegal hunting
▪ Urbanisation: Infrastructure & Development ▪ Human-wildlife conflict ▪ Urban Waste and pollution ▪ Wildebeest migration collapse and further migration blockage ▪ Climate Change: Increased Droughts ▪ Habitat Destruction: Illegal logging ▪ Wildlife decline National Environmental Policy, 2013,p.20 Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 2017, p122-123 Global Challenges Facing Wildlife | Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, 2020
Gredler, 2017
ISSUES: STEINITZ FRAMWORK QUESTIONS ARISING: Representation
How should the national park be described? What land-use exists? What is the value of the national park, the SGR, and wildlife?
Process
What SGR processes and wildlife processes need to be described and quantified? Is there enough data and understanding to model processes? What ecosystem services are provided by wildlife and/or by the SGR?
Evaluation
How do we know that the natural park is healthy? What indicators should be used? How should monitoring programmes be designed? How are the associated wildlife assets (land and water) affected by management and land use of the national park and SGR?
Change
What could be changed? What are the drivers of change?
Impact
What benefits or impacts would the changes cause?
Decision
What should be changed?
SGR IMPACT ON WILDLIFE STRENGTHS •
•
Increased tourist flow, external financial sources to park from KWS Reduced highway/road kills due to decreased travelling on roads
WEAKNESSES •
• •
Immediate vegetation loss due to construction Dispossession/ Loss of landscape and sense of place Visual and noise pollution/ Loss of landscape- aesthetic degradation
OPPORTUNITIES • • •
THREATS
Quell public cultural concerns Monitoring SGR changes to wildlife that have been caused by the introduction of underpasses Creation of a regenerative area for declining species
• • • • • •
Local species extinction Big 5 significance cultural loss Large scale rail accident Urban waste and SGR emissions into park environment Risk of introducing invasive species Expected likelihood of oil spillage
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 2017, p122-123, 139
Flickr, 2016
KEY ISSUES EXISTING ISSUES
POTENTIAL ISSUES
▪ Aesthetic Degradation – Noise, vibration and visual impact to park.
▪ Large scale accidents by infrastructure
▪ Dispossession – Loss of sense of place, local landscape identity. ▪ Biodiversity Loss - Immediately caused encroachment into the park by clearance for construction of the SGR. Vegetation lost, sacrificed.
▪ Change of animal movement and behaviourcaused by noise, vibrations night-time linear light, and viaducts placement. ▪ Involuntary community resettlement, displacement due to animal movements
▪ Increased human-animal conflict ▪ Increased urban waste into national park. Oil, passenger waste, emissions.
Kenya Railway Corporations, 2016
METHODOLOGY IV) STRATEGY
OBJECTIVES 1. Provide a new narrative of Nairobi National Park: Redefine the identity and its purpose 2. To provide enhancement of the wildlife corridors within Nairobi Natural Park SUBSIDIARY STRATEGY
CORE STRATEGY
Phase 1
Phase 2
Corridor Surveillance and Zoning
Sanctuary Expansion
PHASE 1: CORRIDOR SURVEILLANCE AND ZONING The unusual pairing of development in a Natural Protected Site “Samaki nje ya maji” “A fish out of water” ▪
▪
Step 1: Monitor wildlife activity along the SGR, by creating surveillance hotspots Step 2: Research and Education Filming as an activity to engage communities: Case Study Safari Live
Adapted from Mutu, 2019
PROPOSED SURVEILLANCE
CORRIDORS High Lands Riverside Systems
Main Gate
Open Grass & Woodland
Surveillance Cameras along SGR SGR Safari Surveillance Key Points Existing Entrance Gates Physical Monitoring
Proposed Core Corridors
Adopted from Google Maps 2020
PROPOSED SAFARI ROUTES FILM
CORRIDORS High Lands Riverside Systems
Main Gate
Open Grass & Woodland
Terrain too steep for a path
Proposed Tracks For Filming and Camera Checks Existing Main Roads Surveillance Cameras along SGR SGR Safari Surveillance Key Points/High Frequency Existing Entrance Gates Physical Monitoring Proposed Core Corridors
Adopted from Google Maps 2020
PHASE 2: SANCTUARY EXPANSION AND TREE PLANTING Success depends on the alertness and awareness to this new circumstance “Ndege wa mapema hushika minyoo” “The early bird catches the worm” ▪ ▪ ▪
Step 1: Expansion of sanctuary to allow for wildlife tree nurseries Step 2: Visitor experience enhancement: volunteering opportunities for tree planting Step 3: To plant trees along SGR areas to blend with the environment and minimise visual impact
Adapted from Mutu, 2019
TREE PLANTING
CORRIDORS High Lands Riverside Systems Tree Nursery Nairobi Animal Orphanage Proposed Dedicated Vegetation Plantation
Tree Nursery Giraffe Centre
Open Grass & Woodland A B Opportunity Area for Tree Planting
Tree Nursery Sheldrick Wildlife Trust
Entrance Gates, transplanting feasibility
Adapted from Brody, 2010
B A
Potential Tree Nurseries New Establishments Visual Impression , Key to Area
A, B Paredes, 2015
Adopted from Google Maps 2020
MBG, 2006
V) CONCLUSIONS & SUPPLEMENTARY METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL Positive
Negative
▪More security over poaching ▪Improved monitoring of large mammals and migratory species ▪Monitor fire rends thus forewarn staff ▪Improved inspection of sensitive site with little interference
▪ Minimal disturbance due to setting up of cameras, and maintenance changing footage
SOCIAL Positive ▪Improved inspection on cases of humanwildlife conflict South of the park
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
SOCIAL
SOCIAL
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
Negative
Positive
▪ Risk of conflict with pastoralists and privacy concerns
▪Habitat Regeneration Reduction in visual and noise pollution ▪Air quality and Carbon absorption functions, dust dispersion reduced
▪Climate change increase: Trees in droughts, fire hazard ▪ Disturbance expected during construction phase ▪Loss of land for construction
▪Sustainable use of unfit & surplus trees as fuel for pastoralists ▪Added Value of Park in enabling greater education and engagement ▪Ecotourism activity, park tourism value & increased community conservation support ▪Employment opportunities
▪ Reduce visual animal cover for tourism game drives
▪Increased research and knowledge gained on park-Critically Endangered Status ▪More security, & discouragement over poaching ▪Improved monitoring of large mammals and migratory species ▪Ecotourism activity, online expeditions
▪Vehicular emission from game drives ▪Vehicles presence can cause disturbance in behaviour of animals
▪Added Value of Park in enabling greater and regular education and engagement on a global scale ▪Improved inspection and dialogue on cases of human-wildlife conflict South of the park ▪Employment opportunities
RECOMMENDATIONS - Keep records of variable activity on camera(monthly, quarterly, annually) - Hold public consultations and workshops on privacy concerns - Install/Replace cameras during low-peak activity
RECOMMENDATIONS - Opportunity to engage local schools, universities, and corporations in catchment area - Assessments on tree densities in cases of burning. - Land assessments before construction
Negative ▪ Risk of conflict with pastoralists and privacy concerns ▪Rangers risk at greater risk of animal attack
RECOMMENDATIONS - Risk Analysis on filming feasibility, health and safety check on the rangers - Establish running communication methods, radios.
Funding
FUNDING & STAKEHOLDERS
TYPE OF FUNDING
KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTNERS
GRANT STREAM (Restricted stream to be spent on a specification)
Government Grant: Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund To be approved and adjusted by Kenya Wildlife Service Board of Trustees
Partnership Conservation Grants Care for the Wild International, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Worldwide Fund for Nature
Available Conservation Grants Kenya Wildlife Trust
DIRECT FINANCIAL STREAM (Direct stream for flexible use within purpose of project)
Television Revenue from Filming of Park and Online Expeditions EQUITY STREAM With Liabilities Attached
PRIMARY REVENUE
Competitions and Debates on Park Proposals (Entrance Fees) -Catchment Higher Secondary School Competitions and Debates/ Entrance Fee -Competitions for Catchment Universities (8) students and Researches Entrance Fee Local Pastoralist, Tree Maintenance equity of sustainable charcoal provision
Early educational Teaching Programmes NNP Staff involvement: on tree planting, wildlife history, contemporary park matters.
LOAN (Stream expected to be repaid in future with interest) VOLUNTARY (None-monetary Contributions)
Corporate Responsibility Incentive Establish partnerships with companies to improve corporate image
Corporate Advertising Incentive Equipment and services for surveillance, product advertising
Volunteers catchment schools and universities for Tree planting: Diamond Junior, Bellevue, Hillcrest, Brookhouse, Banda (18 in walking distance)
SECONDARY REVENUE
SUBSIDIARY REVENUE
Corporate Responsibility Volunteering Resources / Services
Early Fundraising Boxes withing Park Ecotourism
IMPLIMENTATION TIME SCALE “Uwe na safari njema” “Have a good journey” Time Period (By Wet & Dry Seasons) Overall
5 months Government Briefing Assignment
1 year
1.5 years
Team Training
Training Ranger Guides and Community Volunteers Tree Planting
Stakeholder Engagement
Construction & expansion for tree Nursery areas Health & Safety Breadth Viability Studies
Workshops with responsive Schools & Universities
Nearby School & University Visits Newspapers Public Consultation
Tree Planting with Volunteers
Live Safari Staff Examination
3.5 years
4 years
AGM
Future
AGM
Stakeholder Drop Ins
Transplant trees
Tree Weeding
Focus Group with pastoralists
Volunteer Advertising
Small scale TV Interview
Web Developers Live Safari Local & Youtube Launch
Tree Hardiness off site building site Cost Analysis Failed trees community charcoal reuse
Equipment Purchase Combined Focus Groups
Feedback Report
Nursery & Primary Schools
Local Television Broadcasting Networks Fundraising
Live Safari Cast Selection
Open Dedicated Tree Building Site
Stakeholder Workshops
InterEducational Focus Groups
Other
3 years
Annual General Meetings and Annual Surveillance Report
Steering Group
Reaching Out
2.5 years
AGM
On-Going
Depth
2 years
Public Drop In-s
Transplanting 1st trees to SGR
Live Broadcasting Sectioning
Investor Lobby
Question feed
Website Launch Upgrade Surveillance Equipment
Kids programme
State of the park broadcasting
24 Hour Running
Invite Local Researchers
Invite Global Researchers
Active broadcastings, and social media engagement Children’s Competition
Wider Broadcasting
Dedicate Website Research Competitions
References 1.
2018. Guidelines For The Conservation Of Lions In Africa. [ebook] Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, p.50. Available at: <https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/publication/GCLA%20%20181220%20%28E%29_0.pdf> [Accessed 25 April 2020].
2.
Benson, John F. & Roe, M. H. (eds)(2007) Landscape and Sustainability (Routledge)
3.
Betsill, M. and, Bulkeley, H. (2005) Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance (Routledge Studies in Physical Geography & Environment)
4.
Brody, A. K., Palmer, T. M., Fox-Dobbs, K., and Doak, D. F. (2010). Termites, vertebrate herbivores, and the fruiting success of Acacia drepanolobium. Ecology, 91(2), pp.399-407.
5.
Chongwa, M. B. (2012, January). The history and evolution of national parks in Kenya. In The George Wright Forum (Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 39-42). George Wright Society.
6.
Gredler, V., 2017. Upperhill From Nairobi National Park. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/145233855@N03/37298597776/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
7.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2020. The IUCN Red List Of Threatened Species. [online] Available at: <https://www.iucnredlist.org/> [Accessed 24 April 2020].
8.
IUCN, S. (2006). Cat Specialist Group. Conservation strategy for the lion (Panthera leo) in Eastern and Southern Africa.
9.
Kenya Wildlife Service, 2017. Conservation and Management Strategy for Lion and Spotted Hyena in Kenya.pdf. [online] Nairobi: Kenya Wildlife Service. Available at: <http://www.kws.go.ke/file/1399/download?token=BqXeOBGZ> [Accessed 25 April 2020].
10.
Kenya Railways Corporation, 2016. PROPOSED STANDARD GAUGE RAILWAY PROJECT FROM NAIROBI SOUTH RAILWAY STATION-NAIVASHA INDUSTRIAL PARK-ENOOSUPUKIA, NAROK. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSME2NT (ESIA) STUDY. Nairobi: Kenya Railways Corporation, China Communications Construction Company Ltd, Habitat Planners, pp.51, 58, 54, 65.
11.
Kenya Wildlife Service, 2017. KENYA BLACK RHINO ACTION PLAN (2017-2021) Sixth Edition. KENYA BLACK RHINO ACTION PLAN. [online] Nairobi: Kenya Wildlife Service. Available at: <http://www.kws.go.ke/file/2834/download?token=w8LWwNyK> [Accessed 25 April 2020].
12.
Kenya Wildlife Service, n.d. Nairobi National Park Draft Management Plan, 2020-2030.
13.
Liquete, C., Kleeschulte, S., Dige, G., Maes, J., Grizzetti, B., Olah, B., and Zulian, G. (2015). Mapping green infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, pp.268-280.
14.
Litoroh, M., Omondi, P., Kock, R., and Amin, R. (2012). Conservation and management strategy for the elephant in Kenya. Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi.
15.
Marchant, R., 2019. Showing The New Controversial SGR Railway Which Cuts Through The National Park.. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/157321343@N05/48846478388/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
16.
Mbatia, T. THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF NAIROBI NATIONAL PARK.
17.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, 2017. WILDLIFE MIGRATORY CORRIDORS AND DISPERSAL AREAS Kenya Rangelands And Coastal Terrestrial Ecosystems. Nairobi: Government of the Republic of Kenya, pp.122-123, 139.
18.
Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, 2013. National Environment Policy. Nairobi: Government of Kenya, p.54.
19.
Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, 2011. Draft Wildlife Policy. Government of Kenya, p.20.
20.
Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, 2017. THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STATUS REPORT. Nairobi: Government of Kenya, p.145.
References 1.
Ambani, M. M. (2017). GIS Assessment of environmental footprints of the standard gauge railway (SGR) on Nairobi National Park, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation)
2.
Berg, D., 2018. Give Me My Bottle!. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/darrenberg/42506517690/> [Accessed 24 April 2020].
3.
Bitran, R., 2013. Tawny-Flanked Prinia (Prinia Subflava) Nairobi National Park, Kenya 2013. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/bitranbirdsoftheworld/34602517305/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
4.
Borda-de-Ă gua, L., Barrientos, M., Beja, P., and Pereira, H. M. (2017) Railway Ecology. Springer.
5.
Des Souza, 2016. An Amazing View Spoilt By An Unnecessary Railway At The Nairobi National Park Kenya. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/139651897@N05/44200674295/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
6.
Flickr, 2016. Nairobi. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/sterminator/27354477702/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
7.
Jackson, S.D. (2000). Overview of Transportation Impacts on Wildlife Movement and Populations. pp. 7-20 In Messmer, T.A. and B. West, (eds) Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socioeconomic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society.
8.
Lusigi, W. J. (1978). Planning human activities on protected natural ecosystems. The conservation unit approach to the planning and management of national parks
9.
Missouri Botanical Garden, 2006. Closeup Of Lenin Festo Preparing Specimen Of Acacia Drepanolobium.. [image] Available at: <http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/tanzania/tanzaniaimages.shtml> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
10.
Monique, P., 2015. Savanna. [image] Available at: <https://www.thinglink.com/scene/688852064960249857> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
11.
Mutu, K., 2019. 20190114_001. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/kamweti/40421720793/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
12.
Mutu, K., 2019. 20190114_010. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/kamweti/40421719733/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
13.
Ochungo, E. A., and Odira, W. O. The inaudible voice from wildlife habitat: the case of interaction between; wildlife, ecosystem and infrastructure development in Kenya.
14.
Oduor, N. M., Ngugi, W., and wa Gathui, T. (2012). Sustainable tree management for charcoal production Acacia species in Kenya.
15.
Selman, P. (2012) Sustainable Landscape Planning, The reconnection agenda (Earthscan/Routledge), p.87.
16.
Shah, K., 2018. An Amazing View Spoilt By An Unnecessary Railway At The Nairobi National Park Kenya. [image] Available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/139651897@N05/44200674295/> [Accessed 9 March 2020].
17.
Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. 2020. Global Challenges Facing Wildlife | Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. [online] Available at: <http://www.sheldrickwildlifetrust.org/about/challenges> [Accessed 23 April 2020].
18.
Steinitz, C. (2012) A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design (ESRI Press)
19.
The Director of Surveys, 1913. Mombasa-Victoria (Uganda) Railway and Busoga Railway, Nairobi Government Printers, B.E.A (1913)
20.
WildEarth. 2019. Safarilive. [online] Available at: <https://wildearth.tv/safarilive/> [Accessed 27 April 2020].
21.
Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act. 2013