The Mara wildlife "crash" - how real is it?

The BBC's 2 June 2011 story about a “crash” in wildlife numbers in the Maasai Mara region has been widely picked up, in most cases without further comment. The research was first reported in 2009 and has now been published in the Journal of Zoology. In African conservation, news is rarely wonderful, but is the BBC story a case of hyping broad-brush data into a shock-horror news report?

The sense of impending disaster is certainly not what you get from visiting the Mara and staying in touch with travellers, conservationists and operators on the ground, so this post is my short – and doubtless flawed – investigation into the data behind the story. 

The research is based on 49 aerial surveys conducted between 1977 and 2009, visually counting various species – buffalo, eland, elephant, giraffe, Grant’s gazelle, impala, kongoni, ostrich, Thomson’s gazelle, topi, warthog, waterbuck, wildebeest and zebra – as well as domestic livestock, across calibrated areas. Observers sat in the back of a light plane flying 100m above the ground and making sound recordings as they counted the animals they could see between two marker rods projecting from the plane. Groups of ten or more animals were photographed to be counted later. Digital photography must make that a lot easier, but even so it sounds very imprecise. 

The paper was published on 20 May 2011 in the Journal of Zoology and I’ve been looking at the raw data available for free download as "supporting info" at the journal website, at as well as at the paper itself.  

Swings and slides

One would expect to see a decline. We know there’s been a decline, as wildlife habitats have been hammered by human population pressure and livestock herds. The so-called “dispersal area” around the unfenced reserve has become a much more heavily populated region, with tracks, fences and settlements all inhibiting wildlife behaviour and free movement. 


What is surprising, however, is how enormously variable the figures are, with estimates of the population of the various species swinging up and down wildly, sometimes by several hundred percent in the space of a month. For example:

Koiyaki

Buffalo: biggest swing from 40,553 in Jul 1979 to 9131 in Aug 1979 to 39,835 in Sep 1979

Elephant: biggest swing from 125 in Mar 1979 to 2407 in Apr 1979 

Giraffe: biggest upswing from 1766 in Nov 1986 to 3771 in April 1987; biggest downswing from 3568 in Dec 1983 to 2704 in Jan 1984

Topi: biggest downswing from 16,178 in May 1997 to 5641 in Nov 2000; biggest upswing from 7498 in Sep 2005 to 17,004 in May 2007

Waterbuck: biggest swing from 1188 in May 1986 to 0 in Aug 1986 to 856 in Nov 1986 

Oloololo escarpment

These huge swings must indicate serious flaws in the estimation system, or a remarkable ability of species to bounce back in a short space of time or the possibility of major wildlife movements in and out of the areas being surveyed. The relative ease of counting different species depending on their numbers, size and habits, must also be a factor: bush-loving waterbuck are likely to be harder to count than large elephant and giraffe. 

Whatever the causes, the huge swings are not discussed in the paper.

The researchers say the populations of many species have declined to “a third or less of their former abundance”. The BBC went further, reporting “During the wet season, when there is no migration, resident wildebeest in the reserve have all but disappeared, falling by 97%”. In fact, the researchers only undertook two wet season surveys in the last fourteen years (May 2005 and May 2007) and wet season surveys in April 1979 and May 1982 also recorded zeros for wildebeest inside the reserve.

Data gaps 

The problem is we’re not comparing like with like: the results of surveys every month throughout 1979 and every few months from 1983–86, are being compared with a few scattered snapshots taken since the late 1990s.  Only two counts were conducted between the counts of May 1997 and May 2005, both in November (2000 and 2002) and since then there have only been four counts – September 2005, May 2007, November 2008 and October 2009. In recent years, there have been no counts in the peak migration months of July (the last and only one was in 1979) and August (counts took place in 1979, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1996).

The problem with the figures is that they are so hard to interpret. Even the researchers acknowledge that while “the basic cause of the wildlife population declines seems to be the expanding human population in the ranches along with livestock influences spreading into the nominally protected area. . . the Mara ranches now support higher densities of some wildlife species than the protected area.” 

The BBC story refers to a “wildlife crash”. If this happened, it took place in the 1980s, judging by  the research charts, with only a gradual decline since then, or even an increase in some cases. Where the BBC’s story captions a photo of a buffalo with the words “African buffalo are all but gone”, that is not what the research shows. Instead it indicates a buffalo population in the reserve, based on the seven surveys undertaken in the last decade, of between 5000 and 13,000 animals, which doesn’t sound a bad number for an area of 1530 square kilometres.

The Migration

And what about the Great Migration? The BBC reports “huge numbers of wildebeest no longer pass through the region on their epic migration”. Well maybe not as huge, but the awe-inspiring migration of hundreds of thousands of wildebeest still takes place every year. We just cannot be sure what the numbers are because the researchers haven’t conducted enough surveys, “owing to financial constraints” as they admit. Only two surveys have been conducted in the dry season since 1996 (one in September 2005 and one in October 2009). 

The last time the researchers conducted a survey in July or August – peak wildebeest migration months – was August 1996, when there were 334,488 wildebeest in the Mara region by their estimate. Previous figures show migration numbers can go up as well as down (Aug 1992 494,027; Aug 1991 278,986; Aug 1990 262,947; Aug 1986 228,723; Aug 1984 216,918; Aug 1983 491,882, August 1979 520,456). We have only one July survey in the whole study, from July 1979 (1,171,684). 

There’s some complicated statistical analysis in the paper about B-splines and automatic smoothers, which I don’t begin to understand, but the fact that the study is unable to compare like with like by producing estimated populations from the same months over a number of years, rather than a cluster of surveys from the 1977 to 1987 and then occasional counts up until 2009, is surely a serious shortcoming. There were thirty counts in the first 10 years  (1977–87), and only six in the last ten (1999–2009), a period which has also included serious droughts in 2005–6 and 2008–9.

Without the missing population estimates, in a constantly shifting eco-system like the Mara, we’re looking at the equivalent of a redacted intelligence report, with huge gaps of blacked-out data.

I’m guessing many statisticians would look at the way the data has been analysed and agree that it passes the reliability tests. I’m sure the paper has had the usual peer reviews and its mathematical models have been well tested elsewhere. On the other hand, the Mara eco-system is virtually unique, so finding other research studies to corroborate this one will have been hard. And indeed most of the references are from the Mara-Serengeti region.

I am certainly not advocating complacency, but the sheer paucity of data over the last decade, especially an absence of surveys conducted during the peak migration season, makes me wonder if there’s not something more nuanced going on here than the headlines are reporting. 

Community eco-tourism

The current lower numbers are still huge by comparison with most other wildlife areas in Africa, but the larger numbers of wildlife from the early decades after independence have gone forever, as Kenya’s population has quadrupled. With the land in the Mara region sub-divided and sold off and human population still growing, the old eco-system, in which the Maasai and the herds mingled with the wildlife, is beyond being challenged. Local people no longer tolerate lions and hyenas near their homes, or buffalo where their children are walking to school or elephants raiding their corn. The answer, in an imperfect world, is wildlife conservancies for the wildlife and ranching and settlement areas for people.

Ol Kinyei Conservancy

The theory being enthusiastically endorsed – and it seems confirmed – by conservationists and eco-tourism champions, is that wildlife populations in the twenty-first century can be sustained by changing land use, involving local communities leasing their lands to wildlife conservation managers and established eco-tourism operators that limit visitors to one bed per 700 acres (three beds per square kilometre) and no more than 12 tents in a camp. 

An earlier BBC report on the Mara, filmed in 2009 (below), starts with a set of alarming figures and quotes Joesph Ogutu, the paper’s chief researcher, warning about extinction, but then goes on to reach more positive conclusions about the future of the community conservancies.  These now occupy much of the area that the research paper describes as “ranches”. Here, wildlife numbers, far from being in precipitate decline, are level or growing sustainably. If you’re planning a visit, think of going to a small camp in one of these well-managed sanctuaries, rather than to the National Reserve. 

The current status of the Mara

In 2011, highly endangered wild dogs are back (not mentioned by the research paper, but described as “all but disappeared” by the BBC), both in the reserve itself and the neighbouring conservancies. The future for predators is always uncertain, but it would be good to have regular estimates of their populations: the Mara region has substantial numbers of lion, leopard and cheetah, but their numbers are small compared with the grazers.

It’s the Narok council-run Maasai Mara National Reserve, entered via Talek, Sekenani or Ololaimutiek gates, that has the biggest problems with human incursion, cattle and goat grazing, and poaching. By contrast, the private conservancies are policed by their community members and shareholders who have everything to gain by keeping their herds to other areas. The Mara Triangle (aka Mara Conservancy) in particular, has been highly successful in keeping poaching to a minimum, working in partnership with its neighbours across the border in Serengeti.

The future might not look rosy, but it's not the bleak and desperate pictured painted by the BBC report, either. As long as the conservancies thrive and the reserve management is kept under scrutiny, the reduced wildlife populations will thrive, the visitors will come and local communities will increasingly adjust to a future with better prospects and fewer cattle. 

I'd be really interested to get feedback on these issues from specialists and visitors alike. Please comment below or email me - see my profile.

"Defecating with the locals" – was Comic Relief's Kibera documentary a cross-cultural blunder?

Comic Relief’s Famous, Rich and in the Slums two-part documentary has generated some controversy and confusion in the Kenyan press. Taking its inspiration from the BBC’s Famous, Rich and Homeless in 2009, in which famous volunteers were exposed to the plight of Britain’s homeless by being dropped into London’s streets with nothing but a sleeping bag, the charity fund-raising show pitches comedian Lenny Henry, actor Samantha Womack, and presenters Reggie Yates and Angela Rippon into a week’s survival training in Nairobi’s notorious Kibera slum. In this format, the attention on the celebrities is unavoidable – that’s how you pull in the viewers.

Although the avowed intention was to expose the criminally negligent way that Kenya’s government* and local authorities have ignored the needs of Kibera’s 200,000-plus** people, raising money from the public by text-donation, this was always going to look to Kiberans on the ground like slum tourism. And that’s exactly how some of the Kenyan press – and readers, to judge by their comments – have viewed the exercise, calling it “poverty as entertainment". "The film shows the celebrities mingling, sleeping, eating and defecating with the locals.”

Another opinion piece goes further, though, suggesting a cynical effort to rubbish Kenya’s carefully rebuilt brand in the wake of the post-election violence. This piece, by Kenya’s Director of Information and Public Communications, tells readers that Kenya’s biggest comedy star would be prevented by Equity rules from doing the same in Britain, much as it might be amusing, for TV standup Churchill to be filmed trying to keep warm with Britain’s winter hypothermia victims.

What a good idea – and why not? – so long as it’s only wealthy Kenyans who are encouraged to dig into their deep pockets to help Britain’s poor.

Seriously though, the problem with Famous, Rich and in the Slums is that Comic Relief and the films’ independent producers, Love Productions, didn’t consider their impact on a much bigger, global audience, especially in this case those watching in Kenya, or seeing the films on YouTube years hence. Assimilating their meaning, especially out of any cultural context, is presumably as hard for some viewers in Kenya as is a session of Churchill for non-speakers of Swahili slang.

There's plenty of other criticism of this kind of crisis TV – the sentimentalisation of poverty, the focus on instant relief rather than long-term development and in this case the sharply one-sided impression that naïve viewers might form of Nairobi – but those aren’t the objections that the Kenyan press has majored on.

Comic Relief raised more than £70M this year, and once again showed millions of viewers aspects of life on Earth that they wouldn’t normally think about – or want to think about. And that’s got to be a good thing.

Judge for yourself when the films are repeated at 23.25 on 29th and 23.15 on 30th March.


*The MP for Kibera (and also the plush suburb of Langata) is Kenya’s Prime Minister, Raila Odinga
** The much quoted figure of one million inhabitants, making Kibera “the biggest slum in Africa” turned out to be a huge overestimate when the 2009 census gave a population of 170,000 – though under-reporting (many Kiberans are technically illegal squatters) may have produced a lower than true result.

New year, new fees: Kenya visa charges and national park entry fee rises

Kenya single-entry visa fees have returned to the US$50 rate (see "Comments": the increase was finally  enacted on 1 July 2011). The fee was reduced to $25 (and under 16s were exempt – all passport-holders now pay the same fee) after the post-election violence early in 2008, in order to “stimulate visitor numbers”. With numbers duly stimulated, the government is now cashing in again, all of which leads to a level of hassle and disruption to every visit that has a generally negative PR effect and surely offsets the value of the fees, especially once processing costs – and inevitable leakage – have been accounted for.

You can apply in advance at your local embassy or high commission (which requires two photos and extra fees for mailing) or get the visa on arrival, whether you’re flying into Kenya or arriving overland. There’s no advantage whatsoever in applying in advance, apart from going through formalities on arrival slightly more quickly. Such is the lack of a queueing system at Nairobi and Mombasa, however, that even that advantage is often negligible.

If you’re getting your visa on arrival, to save time at the visa desk, you should print out the visa form and fill it in in advance. You won’t need photos if you’re applying on arrival, just the completed form and the exact sum in cash only – either US$50, €40 or £30 per person – for all the members of your party.

The single-entry visa actually allows you to leave Kenya for any of the other East African Community countries – Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi – and return to Kenya on the same visa (you’ll still need visas for the other countries). So for a trip that starts and finishes in Kenya (and includes only two stays in Kenya), you won’t need a multiple-entry visa. For a multiple-entry visa, which is valid for a year, you now pay US$100, €80 or £60.

It’s worth noting that South Africans and New Zealanders staying less than thirty days in Kenya don’t require visas. Most other nationalities do. Commonwealth passport-holders are generally exempt, except for Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Canada, Guyana, India, Malaysia (more than 30 days), New Zealand (more than 30 days) Nigeria, South Africa (more than 30 days), Sri Lanka, St Christopher & Nevis, and the UK. The thirty-day exemption isn’t that widely understood at immigration desks, so you may have to argue the case.

Meanwhile, the Kenya Wildlife Service, who run the National Parks (not the national reserves), have announced new fees for 2011, including seasons for the busiest of the parks, Amboseli, Lake Nakuru, Tsavo East, Tsavo West and Meru.

It's worth emphasising that the fees schedule doesn't include Kenya's national reserves which come under the authority of local county councils rather than the Kenya Wildlife Service. That includes the Maasai Mara National Reserve and the combined Samburu-Bufffalo Springs-Shaba National Reserves.

Currently, the Maasai Mara fees for tourists quoted on the Narok County Council website are $60 for adults and $30 for children. However, the site is often down. Samburu-Bufffalo Springs-Shaba fees as quoted on Samburu County Council's site are here

Narok have recently announced changes to the entry fees to Maasai Mara National Reserve in the Kenyan press. Their fee of $70 per 24 hours puts them roughly in line with the KWS fees for Amboseli and Lake Nakuru ($75 in high season). However the inclusion of an $80 fee for being “outside” the reserve, is ambiguous, as the community ranches and private conservancies all have their own access fees. It’s hard to see what Narok County Council have to do with it.

Samburu County Council are likely to put their charges up soon. At least that payment covers 24-hour entry to all three reserves in the area – Samburu, Buffalo Springs and Shaba.

And how long is a safari?

If you’re booking a safari, it’s essential to check your operator has included the fees in the price. And you should also check how many days they've included, as all fees are based on a 24-hour period. It’s not uncommon at the very competitive budget end of the market, and especially where the lodge or camp being used is outside the fee-paying area, for a safari to arrive in the park/reserve area towards the end of day 1, but not enter the fee area until the beginning of day 2 and then leave again shortly after the expiration of the 24-hour ticket on day 3 (ticket rangers at the park and reserve gates usually allow an hour’s extension). This means that a “three-day safari” might start with a pre-breakfast game drive on day 2, entering the park at, say 6.30am, and finish with an early breakfast and game drive out of the park on day 3, exiting at 7.30 or 8am.

And that’s how budget operators make a one-day entry fee stretch to a three day safari.