Categories: Poverty Eradication:
- income generation
Environmental Management:
-
-ecological sustainability
-incentives for sound management
-monitoring and control
-resource management
Level of Activity: Neighbourhood
Ecosystem: Tropical/Sub-Tropical

Summary
The purpose of the project is to link conservation and development through sustainable utilisation of butterflies in support of a globally important forest. Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on Kenya's north coast is an island of unique biodiversity in a sea of human poverty. It harbours six globally threatened bird species, four threatened mammals and unknown numbers of other threatened species. It is surrounded by impoverished farmers with a mean per capita cash income estimated at less than $50. In 1991, 96% of the farmers were unhappy with the forest and 54% wanted it completely cleared for settlement. The major reasons for this were wildlife crop-raiding and hunger for land. Recognising that the forest cannot be conserved in the face of local hostility, the Kipepeo Project aims to win support by enabling the local community to benefit from its biodiversity. It has trained 150 forest-edge farmers how to rear forest butterflies using leaves of forest trees. The project buys the butterfly pupae they produce and exports them to Europe and America. Since 1994 Kipepeo has earned over US$100,000 in foreign exchange for Kenya and has paid out over US$35,000 to the farmers. In 1998, it added over US$37,000 to the annual value of the forest. Before and after butterfly monitoring has indicated no adverse impacts on wild butterfly populations. A 1998 survey of the butterfly farmers showed a major change in attitudes: 84% now support the forest. The project also has an active schools programme and has helped to start 17 Wildlife Clubs in forest-adjacent schools.

Narrative
SITUATION BEFORE THE INITIATIVE BEGAN
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on the north coast of Kenya (ranked the second most important forest in Africa for bird conservation, and under consideration as a World Heritage Site) was in trouble. A 1991 survey had revealed that 96% of the forest-adjacent residents were unhappy with the presence of the forest and 54% wanted it totally cleared. This was because of wildlife crop raiding, resource denial, and land hunger. Political pressure for excising part of the forest for settlement was building up and in August 1993 President Moi was rumoured to have approved the degazettement (excision) of 2000 hectares in the south of the forest at Kararacha. In February 1994, seven local councillors and some 5,000 squatters invaded the Kararacha area and started to cut plot lines.

The following quotes give a good impression of community feelings at this time: "This is Government's forest, you cannot get inside, if you are caught there with even a grass twig you are arrested"; "You receive a thorough beating even when goats are found browsing at the edge of the forest"; "It is not useful to me but to the Government because it benefits from it"; "Elephants have made us poor here"; "We don't plant here because of elephants"; "The land is frustrating because whatever you plant is destroyed"; "Those of us who live near the forest endure a lot but this is unknown to the authorities".

It is now widely recognised that conservation must go hand in hand with development. This approach is hard to implement but it is based on a strong foundation of common sense. It recognises that the future for conservation is bleak if rural communities do not support conservation efforts in their areas. It recognises that poverty destroys biodiversity as well as human lives. It recognises that if we want the people around Arabuko-Sokoke Forest to support its conservation, they have to benefit from it. And they have to benefit sustainably, in ways that do not harm the forest.

This then was the problem that had to be addressed. The East Africa Natural History Society (EANHS), in partnership with the National Museums of Kenya (NMK), found a surprising and innovative answer - butterflies. There was a considerable demand for tropical butterflies for the live butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and America. If the Arabuko-Sokoke butterflies could be reared for export, substantial revenues could be earned by the forest-edge community without a single tree needing to be cut.

PREPARING INFORMATION AND CLARIFYING PRIORITIES

We decided to work with those farmers who lived immediately on the forest edge because they were nearest the resource, suffered most from crop-raiding, and knew most about what was going on in the forest. Patrick Maundu, an NMK ethnobotanist, organised meetings through the local chiefs at which the project was explained. The households immediately next to the forest were identified. Maundu then visited each of these households, conducting a questionnaire and recruiting participants. He interviewed 142 households and 133 of them agreed to participate.

Information on the forest butterflies came from a nine-month inventory and monitoring study by an MSc student from Nairobi University, Washington Ayiemba. This showed which species were most abundant, where and when, and provided valuable baseline data on butterfly abundance before the project began.

Other priorities then fell into place: identifying butterfly hostplants, developing breeding techniques, building infrastructure at the project headquarters, finding markets, and establishing export procedures. Local butterfly hostplants were determined and seedlings grown in a nursery at the project headquarters at Gede. Breeding techniques were developed and field tested using 25 volunteers from the community. A large flight cage and a breeding shed were built. A contract was negotiated with a UK entomological dealer, and export procedures were developed in consultation with the Kenya Wildlife Service, and a courier company in Mombasa.

FORMULATION OF OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES, AND MOBILISATION OF RESOURCES

The long term goal was to build local support for the forest through the economic incentive of butterfly farming. The short term objectives were matched to the priorities described above and were all more or less accomplished within the first six months after funding was received in June 1993. They were formulated by Dr Ian Gordon in consultation with Ms Irene Muguyii, National Co-ordinator of the Small Grants Programme of the Global Environment Facility. Dr Gordon subsequently led the implementation of the initiative together with Mr Ayiemba as his Kenyan counterpart.

Despite the delicate political situation regarding the forest, the potential benefits of the project were clear to local leaders: given the widespread and severe poverty of their people, income generation was a top priority. Formal District approval for the project was obtained in August 1993 through the Kilifi District Development Committee. Licenses were obtained from the Kenya Wildlife Service and the Forest Department. These two institutions had already signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and the project was fully in line with the MoU.

The human and natural resources were already in place: it was only left to link the two by providing the community with the requisite skills and facilities. Training was conducted both on the farms and at the project headquarters. For the first two years, newly hatched caterpillars was provided to the farmers from the breeding facilities at Gede. Subsequently they were authorised and trained to obtain their own livestock from the forest. The simple equipment that was needed could easily be made using local materials.

PROCESS

Although the first six months had proceeded smoothly and exports started on schedule in February 1994, Kipepeo subsequently experienced several difficulties, especially in maintaining production of butterflies and finding reliable markets. The original purchaser in the UK proved to be a late payer, causing severe cash flow problems, and he eventually went bankrupt in 1995, leaving the project with a bad debt of US$ 4,000. The project was saved by the National Museums of Kenya who continued to pay project salaries despite the poor prospects of repayment. New markets were identified and Kipepeo now exports to five clients in the US and two in the UK. Seasonality and disease are severe constraints on production. In the dry season poor quality foodplants, low butterfly populations and low egg production are all limiting, while in the late rains, diseases become a problem.

Amongst the farmers there have been problems associated with the Self-Help groups they formed in 1995. Some group representatives abused their positions. There was also a lack of experience in running such groups which Kipepeo has rectifed by training workshops. Some of these problems have corrected themselves as new officials were elected.

RESULTS ACHIEVED

All of the short term objectives were achieved and Kipepeo has seen four years of steady growth in butterfly production and export earnings. The number of pupae exported grew from around 10,000 in 1994 to over 23,000 in 1997. So far in 1998, thanks to the El Nino rains, production has been double that for the same period in 1997. Earnings have increased correspondingly from just under US$ 16,000 in 1994 to over US$ 37,000 in 1997. Payouts to the community have also increased from around KSh 260,000 in 1994 to over 800,000 in 1997. Cumulative export and community earnings now exceed US$ 100,000 and KSh 2,000,000.

Progress towards the long term goal of the project, increasd local support for the forest, is obviously harder to assess. Maundu repeated his survey in 1997 and found that the project had had significant impact on both attitudes and incomes. The proportion wishing to conserve at least part of the forest had risen from 41% in 1993 to 84%, and butterfly earnings estimated to contribute some 73% of farmer's cash incomes from farm products. These figures may however have been influenced by the respondents desire to please and they need to be independently validated.

A more concrete demonstration of impacts on attitudes has emerged from the farmers actions. Some protested to the local District Commissioner against the proposed excision at Kararacha. One of the Kipepeo Self-Help Groups delivered a protest letter to a Presidential Commission, when it visited to investigate the matter. More recently, a spokesman for the farmers went to the press, saying in the Daily Nation that the forest should be left alone and that any excision at Kararacha would deprive them of their butterfly farming income. President Moi has now made it clear that there would be no excisions at Arabuko-Sokoke.

Kipepeo has also contributed to awareness raising about the forest and its global biodiversity significance. Two short videos on the project have been broadcast on international television. There have been numerous articles on the project in the national press and radio interviews for the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation and Studio Brussels. Talks on the project have been given in Kenya, Britain, Costa Rica and the US. Over 4,000 visitors to the project have learned about the forest, and 17 Wildlife Clubs have been established by Kipepeo in forest adjacent schools.

Contributions to capacity building have included community training in butterfly farming and in the organisation and running of Self-Help Groups, linguistic training for Kipepeo guides, supervision of an MSc and a PhD degree,and arranging overseas training in Conservation Biology at the University of Chicago for Washington Ayiemba.

SUSTAINABILITY

For Kipepeo to be sustainable it must be financially self sufficient and it must not damage its resource base. Financial sustainability depends on continued growth in export earnings; These increased by 14% in 1995, 45% in 1996 and 34% in 1997. By 1997 the project had become self-sufficient in terms of running costs other than salaries and in 1998 it is expected to also be able to meet its salary bills. There are favourable economies of scale, and continued growth will ensure full financial sustainability and the repayment to the Museums for the backlog of salaries

The resource base of the project is the butterflies in the forest. Mr Ayiemba was able to repeat his 1993 butterfly monitoring in 1997, after three years of butterfly farming. By comparing the relative abundance ranking of harvested and unharvested butterflies in the two years, he was able to demonstrate that there had been no adverse impact on the wild butterfly populations.

LESSONS LEARNED

The entire philosophy of the project was based on lessons learned during decades of conservation work in Africa and elsewhere. Much of the technical basis for butterfly rearing had been acquired by Dr Gordon during his scientific research on African butterflies while he was a University lecturer. Community outreach skills were brought to the project by Patrick Maundu from his experience at the National Museums, and were enhanced by Samuel Katoi, the project extension officer, who had previously worked with rural credit schemes for women's groups.

The three most important general lessons learned were that: (i) business skills are vital; (ii) rural farmers will welcome new income- generating activities even when they are culturally bizarre; and (iii) the sustainable utilisation of wildlife does help conservation efforts. None of these lessons are new, although the second ran counter to some initial negative feedback on the project's prospects. The first lesson has been incorporated by bringing to the project a business advisor (a Japanese volunteer), and the third has given Kipepeo the faith and confidence to continue and expand its activities.

TRANSFERABILITY

Kipepeo is a replicable project subject to market demands. While the global market for live butterflies has expanded greatly in the last decade, there has been overproduction in some parts of the world (particularly in Asia). There is however much room for expansion of production in Africa, especially in areas where communications are good, tourism is well developed and there are possibilities of developing local butterfly exhibits. A number of visitors to the project have shown interest in replicating it in other areas, and another branch has been started at Shimba Hills on the south Kenyan coast. Most importantly, Kipepeo has shown that this cottage industry can be harnessed to wider social goals such as poverty alleviation and environmental protection.

Key Dates
JUNE 1993 - GEF funds received to start project
FEBRUARY 1994 - first butterflies exported

AUGUST 1996 - export earnings pass US$50,000

SEPTEMBER 1996 - farmers protest against forest excisions

FEBRUARY 1998 - community earnings pass KSh 2,000,000

References
Butterfly Plan for Foreign Exchange. Anon. Daily Nation, Coast Edition, July 16 1993.
Socio-economic Survey & Forest Attitude Report For The Community Bordering Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. Patrick Maundu. Unpublished Kipepeo Report, December 1993: pp 71.

Butterflies Save Forest. Ras Dime. Kenya Times, August 17, 1995: p 20.

Butterfly Project May Save Forest. Anon. Daily Nation (Coast Edition), August 28, 1995: p 27.

The Kipepeo Project. Ian Gordon. Swara. Nov-Dec 1995: p 15-16.

Denizens of Kenyan Rain Forest Are Aflutter About Trip Abroad. Catherine Bolgar. The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 1996.

A Priceless National Asset. Anon. The Weekly Review. April 19 1996: p 15.

Case For The Conservation of Arabuko- Sokoke Forest. Robert Nyagah. Daily Nation, April 23, 1996: p 22-23.

Scientists Oppose Move on Forest. Robert Nyagah. Daily Nation (Coast Edition), April 22, 1996.

Forest Adjacent Communities and Coastal Forests. Ian Gordon. Coastal Forested Ecosystems Management Workshop, Proceedings, KWS/FD MoU, Mombasa May 23-24, 1996: 38-40.

The Kipepeo Community Project. Ian Gordon. Coastal Forested Ecosystems Management Workshop, Proceedings, KWS/FD MoU, Mombasa May 23-24, 1996: 50-52.

Using Butterfly Biodiversity For Income Generation. Ian Gordon & Washington Ayiemba. In African Forest Policy Forum Volume 2, World Bank Africa Region Environment Group, World Bank/UNEP, Nairobi, August 29-30, 1996: 143-148.

Butterfly Business Spreads Its Wings. Pamphil Kweyuh, Gemini News Service. Found on the Internet, October 26 1996.

Kilifi Goes Butterflies. Philip Shida. Kenya Times, October 28,1996.

A Study of the Diversity of Butterflies at Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Washington Ayiemba. Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Nairobi, 1997: pp100.

Butterfly Farming In Kipepeo. Anon. Coastmail, February 17-March 3, 1997: p 10

Report on the Impact of Kipepeo Project on the Economic Status and Forest Attitude of the Community Bordering Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve. P.M. Maundu, L. Sojah & G. Kilili. Unpublished Kipepeo Report, October 1997

Rare Project Earns Sh600,000. Robert Nyagah. Daily Nation. November 11, 1997.

Government Urged To Protect Forest. Anon. Daily Nation, December 17, 1997: p 20

Contact

Ian Gordon
Gede Ruins
Box 57
Kilifi
Coast Province
Kenya
none
254 122 32380
254 122 32380
kipepeo@africaonline.co.ke
none
Type of Organization: Non-governmental organisation (NGO)

Nominating Organization
UNDP
Minnie Gitahi
KICC, Harambee Avenue,
Box 30218,
Nairobi
Kenya

254 2 228776-9
254 2 331897/211336
Type of Organization: International Agency (Multilateral)

Partners
East Africa Natural History Society
Dr Leon Bennun
NMK, Museum Hill
Box 44486
Nairobi
Kenya

254 2 749957 / 746090
254 2 741049
eanhs@africaonline.co.ke

Type of Organization: Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
Type of Partner Support: Administrative Support

National Museums of Kenya
Dr Mohammed Isahakia
NMK, Museum Hill
Box 40658
Nairobi

Kenya

254 2 742131/161

Type of Organization: Para-statal
Type of Partner Support: Financial Support

Kipepeo Self-Help Groups
Mr Samuel Katoi
Gede Ruins , Gede
c/o Box 57
Kilifi
Coast Province
Kenya

254 2 32380
254 2 32380
Kipepeo@africaonline.co.ke

Type of Organization: Community-based organisation (CBO)
Type of Partner Support: Other/Rearing butterflies for export