Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
82
81
Skocpol, T. (1990). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In
P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 3-43). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, V. (1998). The e11viro11111ent outlook for Chinn. Unpublished manuscript.
State Environmental Protection Administration. (1998). Selected e11viro11111e11tnl standards of
the People's Republic of Chinn (1979-1997). Beijing: Author.
State Environmental Protection Administration. (n.d.) Report 011 the state of tile e11viro11111e11t
in Chinn 2000. Retrieved December 5, 2001, from http:/ /www.zhb.gov.cn/english/
SOE/ soechina2000 I english/water I water_e.htm
State plan for protection of the ecosystem good for all. (1999, February 15). T/1e Chinn Daily.
State Statistical Bureau. (1987-1997). Zhong Guo To11gji Nin11jin11 [State statistical yearbook of
China] . Beijing: Zhong Guo Tongj i Chuban She.
Stepan, A. (1978). The state and society: Peru in co111pnrntive perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Taihu's water quality improves. (1999, January 8). T/1e C/1i11n Daily.
Too many nutrients harm lake. (1998, December 3). The C/1i11n Daily.
Turner, J. L., & Wu, F. (2001). Development of environmental NGOs in Mainland China,
Taiwan and Hong Kong. In Proceedings ofGreen NGOn11d E11viro11111e11tnl ]oumnlist For11111
(pp. 1-2). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
World Bank. (1997). Clear water, blue skies: China's enviro11111ent in the new century. Washington, DC: Author.
World Health Organization. (1993). Guidelines for drinking water quality (2nd ed ., Vols. 1 and
2). Geneva: Author.
Wu, F. (2002). New partners or old brothers? GONGOs in transnational environmental
advocacy in China. Chinn E11viro11111e11t Series, 5, 45-58.
Young, 0. R. (1979). Co111plinnce and public nut/10rity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Yu, J., & Yang, J. (2001). National efforts to tackle pollution in Tni/111 Lnke. Retrieved May 12,
2001, from http:/ /www.chinaenvironment.com/ english/ channel/pollution/waste/
taihu.html
Yunnan Sheng Tongji Ju. (1986-1996). Y111111n11 To11gji Nin11jinn [Statistical yearbook of
Yunnan]. Beijing: Zhong Guo Tongji Chuban She.
]011nthn11 Schwartz is nssistn11t professor of political science nt tile State University of New York nt
New Paltz where he teaches courses in enviro11111e11t politics n11d i11temntionnl relations. His P/1.D.
i11 political scie11ce is fro111 the U11iversity of Toro11to. His research interests include evnl11nti11g the
effect of various factors i11J111e11ci11g policy e11force111ent, specifically, the role of civil society groups.
His regional focus is developing cou11tries in the Asia Pncific/Chi11n.
83
84
em side of the forest rely on it more heavily than those on the east due to
differences in availability of trees on private land and a greater degree of
comparative affluence on the east.
In 1991 the average declared household income in the forest-adjacent
community was estimated at KSh 17,300, giving a per capita income of
only KSh 1,470 ($20 at current rates) (Mogaka, 1991). In 1993, an independent survey along the wealthier eastern margin of the forest gave a
per capita income of KSh 2,728 ($40) (Maundu, 1994). By any standards,
this is an impoverished community, and it is not surprising that its members have had little concern for the conservation of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. Instead, the forest has been seen as the source of many of their problems. In 1991, 96% of the farmers (N = 32) were unhappy with the forest,
and 54% wanted it completely cleared for settlement (Mogaka, 1991). In
a follow-up survey in 1993 (Maundu, 1994), 59% (N = 142) wanted the
whole forest cleared.
The reasons for this discontent will be familiar to any conservationist
working with the legacy of state-controlled forests in the developing
world: poverty, resource denial, wildlife crop raiding, and hunger for
land (Maundu, 1994; Mogaka, 1991). Because of poverty, the local communities were forced to rely on the" free resources" of the forest, yet their
legal access to these resources was strictly limited by the forest department and the status of the forest as a gazetted (protected) forest reserve.
To gain access, they had to risk arrest and beatings and / or pay bribes to
corrupt forest guards. Poverty was worsened by wildlife crop raiding by
animals from the forest (mainly elephants and baboons), causing considerable losses of maize, cassava, mangoes, and coconuts. Elephants also
caused deaths, injuries, and destruction to property and were the single
most important cause of hostility to the forest. There is no government
compensation for loss of crops or injuries caused by wildlife; only in the
event of death is any compensation paid, and then only KSh 30,000
($400), and that only after persistent claims. Hunger for land resulted in
forest invasions in 1993-1994, led by local councilors, and to sustained
campaigns for the removal of government protection (degazettement) in
two areas of the forest (Kararacha and Mida). The following quotations
(Maundu, 1994) give a good impression of community feelings about the
forest in the early 1990s:
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.
85
The situation at Arabuko-Sokoke provided the context and the rationale for Kipepeo, a project administered by the East Africa Natural History Society (EANHS, now Nature Kenya [NK]) in partnership with the
National Museums of Kenya (NMK). Kipepeo was started in 1993 with
$50,000 from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Small Grants
Programme. Its objective was to change local attitudes by enabling the
forest-adjacent community to get cash incomes from rearing forest butterflies for export to the live butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and
America. This industry depends on the importation of live butterfly
pupae from tropical butterfly farms. The adult butterflies that eclose
from these pupae are flown in simulated natural surroundings in protected enclosures, and members of the public pay gate fees to view them.
From small beginnings in Britain and Japan in the late 1970s, the live butterfly exhibit industry has grown to become a multimillion-dollar global
enterprise. In the early 1990s, there were no large-scale suppliers of African butterflies for the exhibit market.
Butterfly farming is particularly well suited as an income-earning
venture for forest-adjacent communities. It requires relatively little
investment, uses simple equipment and materials that are usually
locally available in one form or another, and the basic skills are easily
learned. Moreover, because the resource base for butterfly farming (in
terms of both butterflies and foodplants) depends on the continued presence of forest habitat, butterfly farmers experience a daily and compelling linkage between their livelihood and forest conservation. Butterfly
farming also has spin-offs for ecotourism through the publicity and curiosity that it generates (particularly when first introduced) and through
the opportunity it provides for living and attractive displays of its own
operations and of forest biodiversity.
Project History
It was decided to work with those farmers who lived immediately on
the eastern forest edge because they were easily accessible, nearest the
resource, suffered most from crop raiding, and knew most about what
was going on in the forest. Patrick Maundu, an NMK ethnobotanist,
organized meetings through the local chiefs where the project was
explained. The households immediately next to the forest were identified. Maundu then visited each of these households, conducting a ques-
86
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
87
2001
2000
Year
Table 1
Financial Breakdown of Butterfly Export Business (2000-2001)
Item
2000
56,023
113,518
99,320
12.51
73.56
7,306,227
2,806,415
2,080,248
1,221,270
1,198,294
2001
50,494
103,471
94,055
9.10
76.30
7,176,432
2,529,666
2,042,078
901,430
1,703,258
Note: The loss rate is expressed in terms of lost income in dollars and arises because some
of the pupae do not survive the transit process and no payments are received for these. Production costs include payments to the community for the butterfly pupae they produce
together with all other costs incurred by the normal operations of the butterfly export business. As a community project of the East Africa Natural History Society and National
Museums of Kenya, butterfly earnings are tax exempt.
the project (Figure 2). In 1994 they amounted to just over KSh 0.26 million (about $5,000 at that time). In 2000, annual earnings were just over
KSh 2.8 million ($38,000 at that time), a tenfold increase since 1994.
Cumulative community earnings from 1994 to 2001 exceeded KSh 10
million ($130,000 at today's rates).
The growth in community and project earnings from 1994 to 1999 was
made possible by an expanding market, particularly in the United
88
2,000,000
+-------------------!
~
~ 1,500,000
c:
+-------------------!
"'
+-------------------!
.c
en
.E
UJ
1,000,000
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Years
Figure 2:
A Self-Evaluation
This brief history of Kipepeo raises several questions. How much has
it added value to Arabuko-Sokoke Forest? Has it affected local attitudes
to the forest? How much has it succeeded in improving community livelihoods? Have there been any unanticipated negative effects? Have the
earnings been evenly spread? Have the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the community benefited from Kipepeo? Have
there been any other spin-offs for conservation? Has butterfly harvesting for farming operations affected wild butterfly populations in the for-
89
est? Is Kipepeo sustainable? Can it be replicated? Some of these questions are more easily answered than others.
ADDED VALUE
Kipepeo has certainly added value to the forest. Table 2 shows official
institutional revenues generated from the forest from 1996 to 2001. Over
this 6-year period, butterfly sales account for 80% of all recorded revenues from the forest, with 15% coming from forest department licenses,
fines, and royalties for timber products; 3% from tourism; and 2% from
beekeeping. This could be viewed as further evidence for the high value
of non timber forest products but is best seen as an artifact of unrecorded
and illegal off-take (particularly of Brachylaenn for carving and
polewood for house construction), low government royalties for timber
products (especially fuelwood), and a forest from which most of the
commercially valuable timber has already been removed. One incidental conclusion, however, is unaffected by this caveat: Tourism is a low
earner in a forest where the average visitor sees little but trees.
ATTITUDES AND LIVELIHOODS
90
Table 2
Recorded Revenues From Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (1996-2001)
Item
Kenya Wildlife Service tourism
Forest department revenues
Beekeeping
Butterfly sales
Total
KSh
911,653
4,785,753
805,106
25,794,566
32,297,078
2.8
14.8
2.5
79.9
Kararacha and the 1994 squatter invasion of this area. Some of the
Kipepeo farmers protested to the local district commissioner against the
campaign for degazettement. One of the Kipepeo Self-Help Groups 2
(formed with the assistance of the project) delivered a protest letter to a
presidential commission when it visited to investigate the matter. In
December 1997, a spokesman for the farmers went to the press, saying in
the Daily Nation 3 that the forest should be left alone and that any excisions would deprive them of their butterfly farming income. President
Moi has since made it clear that there would be no excisions at ArabukoSokoke. There were several forces behind this decision, including vigorous lobbying by Nairobi-based nongovernmental organizations, but
there is a widespread belief on the ground that community divisions
(pro- and antidegazettement) related to Kipepeo greatly weakened their
claims on the forest and the case for degazettement. This has had unfortunate consequences in the form of death threats to Kipepeo farmers from
community members who supported the degazettement campaign and
who also suspected that the butterfly farmers were informing the forest
management about poaching activities in the forest.
In terms of livelihoods, an important issue, concealed by average and
total earnings is the distribution of income within the participating individuals and households. Figure 3 shows this distribution of the subset of
217 farmers in 1999. It is regrettably but inevitably J-shaped, broadly
reflecting the amount of effort each individual/household put into butterfly farming. Ten percent of the group earned nothing at all, and 53%
earned less than KSh 3,000. Nineteen percent earned between 3,000 and
6,000 shillings, whereas 4% earned more than KSh 27,000. The biggest
earners were the representatives of the self-help groups who are respon2. Eight Kipepeo self-help groups were formed by the farmers in 1996. Each group had
its own constitution (broadly dedicated to conservation and development) and bank
account and was registered with the Department of Social Services. Kipepeo holds back
KSh 5 for each butterfly pupa purchased from the members of each group and pays the
accumulated amount into the self-help group savings account at the end of the year.
3. The Daily Nation is Kenya's most widely read newspaper with a circulation of 180,000
and an estimated readership of 3.8 million.
0-3000
300 1-6000
600 19CXlO
9001-1 2000
12001 -15000
2 100 1-24000
2400 1-27000
91
>27000
KSh earned
sible for collecting and distributing the payments for the pupae produced by their groups and who got KSh 5 per pupa for doing so. The top
farmer, who was a representative, earned KSh 78,825 ($1,120). This subset of farmers was not characterized for social status and wealth ranking,
so the data do not address the question of benefits to the disadvantaged,
although it is worth noting that the top farmer, Kidhuku Baya, is disabled and has concentrated on butterfly farming precisely because it is
physically undemanding work.
OTHER BENEFITS
92
93
Month
lo 199s a 1999 I
Figure 4:
$3,192.78
$30,549.00
C Butterfly Pavilion
Butterfly Place
D Cambridge, Ontario
0 Chesterfield, Ohio
Day
CFlorida
London Pupae Supplies
0 Michael Boppre
North Carolina
D Philadelphia
DStratford
continent. Maintaining and improving product quality, continued attendance at the annual International Congress of Butterfly Exhibitors and
Suppliers6, and a Web site (www.kipepeo.org) will all help to keep the
market edge that Kipepeo currently enjoys, but developing a local mar-
94
ket in the form of a tourist exhibit in Mombasa is essential for longer term
market security. A proposal for such an exhibit is being developed for
submission to the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
The resource base of Kipepeo is the forest itself, its vegetation, and its
wild populations of butterflies. As long as the forest is there, the vegetation will not be a problem, but what about the butterflies? Table 3 shows
results from two 9-month periods of butterfly monitoring, one in 1993
before butterfly harvesting started and one in 1997 after 4 years of operations. Monitoring involved walking transects and counting sightings.
This produced data on 60 species, of which 23 had been harvested and 37
had not. As climatic conditions and overall butterfly abundance were
very different in the two years, comparisons between them of numbers
on an individual species basis would not be helpful. Instead, the overall
ranks are compared for the two periods on the hypothesis that if harvesting had adversely affected wild populations, then there would be a significant difference in ranking and the harvested species would have
lower ranks in 1997 than in 1993. The results show that although butterflies were significantly more abundant in 1997, there was no significant
change in rank abundance for the set of 60 species and that harvested
species actually ranked nonsignificantly higher in abundance in 1997
than they had in 1993. On the basis of this evidence, butterfly harvesting
seems not to be having any impact on wild populations, but the project
continues to monitor the situation.
The last question is whether Kipepeo is replicable. The answer is yes,
subject to markets, the capacity to get pupae to the markets quickly (in
practice, within 4 to 5 days from pupation), and rainfall patterns. Costa
Rica, where butterfly farming has been practiced since the early 1980s,
currently exports around $1 million worth of live butterflies a year, and
the market for East African butterflies must be at least as large. Even so,
the market ceiling is low. Kipepeo is only an hour's drive away on a tarmac road from international couriers, and the paperwork required for
export can now be obtained in a matter of minutes: Similar conditions of
rapid access to couriers and minimal paperwork would be essential for
any replicate operation. The other factor in Kipepeo's favor is the rainfall
pattern: Although the rains start too late to catch the annual surge in
global demand that starts in March and April and ends in October, peak
production (June to August) still coincides with the main market season.
A butterfly farm in an area where the rains came a little earlier in the year
would be well placed to succeed.
6. The International Congress of Butterfly Exhibitors and Suppliers is attended by the
world's leading butterfly farmers and butterfly exhibitors and was first held in 1997. It provides a major marketing opportunity for butterfly farmers to make personal contacts with
their clients.
95
Table 3
Counts of Butterflies in Arabuko-Sokoke Nature Reserve in 1993 and 1997
Species
Total
Cou11t
1993
Total
Collnt
1997
Mean
Count
1993
(189
Hours)
Papilio constantinus*
Papilio dardm111s*
Papilio 11ireus*
Papilio demodorns*
Gmplziwn philonoe*
Gmphium leo11idas*
Gmphium kirbyi*
Gmphiwn co/01111a*
Gmplzillm antheus*
Gmplziwn port/won*
Dixea clwrina
Catopsilia flore/la
Eure111a species
Pinacopteryx eviphia
Nephronia tlwlassina
Eron in cleodom
Colotis regina
Colotis ione
Colotis euippe
Colotis eris
Colotis auxo
Colotis evagore
Belenois creona
Belenois gidica
Belenois thysa
Appias epap!zia
Leptosia a/cesta
Mylothris agathina
Danaus chrysippus*
Amauris niavius*
A111auris och/ea
Melanitis leda*
Bicyc/11s safitza
Ypthima asterope
Euryplmm aclilys
Bebearia cliriemhilda
E11phaedm neophro11*
Neptis species
Byb!ia ilitlzyia
E11rytela dryope
522
265
470
81
120
14
70
135
164
64
158
727
1,722
21
234
1,406
495
732
913
252
114
24
316
7
621
48
1,883
76
104
7
8
22
142
28
80
29
327
235
45
25
1,259
832
639
768
255
2
20
547
270
210
604
883
4,292
28
446
2,355
783
629
976
118
265
0
5,114
335
2,551
934
3,301
34
264
5
0
134
297
0
36
20
856
133
518
4
2.76
1.40
2.49
0.43
0.63
0.07
0.37
0.71
0.87
0.34
0.84
3.85
9.11
0.11
1.24
7.44
2.62
3.87
4.83
1.33
0.60
0.13
1.67
0.04
3.29
0.25
9.96
0.40
0.55
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.75
0.15
0.42
0.15
1.73
1.24
0.24
0.13
Mean
Count
1997
(187
Hours)
Rank
1993
Rank
1997
6.73
4.45
3.42
4.11
1.36
0.01
0.11
2.93
1.44
1.12
3.23
4.72
22.95
0.15
2.39
12.59
4.19
3.36
5.22
0.63
1.42
0.00
27.35
1.79
13.64
4.99
17.65
0.18
1.41
0.03
0.00
0.72
1.59
0.00
0.19
0.11
4.58
0.71
2.77
0.02
10
16
12
31
26
49
34
24
20
35
21
7
2
45.5
19
3
11
6
5
17
28
43
14
56.5
8
36
1
33
29
56.5
54
44
22
41
32
40
13
18
38
42
8
14
20
16
32
54
46.5
24
29
34
22
12
2
45
26
6
15
21
9
38
30
58
1
27
5
10
4
43.5
31
51
58
35.5
28
58
42
46.5
13
37
25
52.5
(co11ti1111ed)
96
Table 3 (continued)
Species
Hypolinmas misipp11s*
Hypolimnas deceptor
Hypolimnas anthedon
Salamis anacardii*
f1111onia oenone*
f1monia hierta
f unonia natalica
Junonia terea
Phalanta phalantha
Acraea species
Pardopsis punctatissima
Phsycaeneura leda
Charaxes varanes*
Charaxes candiope*
Charaxes cithaeron*
Charaxes protoclea*
Euxanthe wakefieldi*
Tirwnula petiverana*
Pseudacraea boisduvali
Hanna theobene
Total
Count
1993
Total
Count
1997
Mean
Count
1993
(189
Hours)
574
102
6
12
279
21
141
6
919
125
46
119
43
8
18
17
11
4
10
8
1450
903
14
134
766
34
575
4
4216
744
10
672
242
9
95
39
1
47
0
0
3.04
0.54
0.03
0.06
1.48
0.11
0.75
0.03
4.86
0.66
0.24
0.63
0.23
0.04
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.04
Wilcoxon's
Singed Test
Rank
1993
Rank
1997
7.75
4.83
0.07
0.72
4.10
0.18
3.07
0.02
22.55
3.98
0.05
3.59
1.29
0.05
0.51
0.21
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
9
30
58.5
50
15
45.5
23
58.5
4
25
37
27
39
54
47
48
51
60
52
54
7
11
48
35.5
17
43.5
23
52.5
3
18
49
19
33
50
39
41
55
40
58
58
Speannan's
Correlation
Unharvested
z = 2.949
p = .003
r 2 = 0.9772
Harvested
(marked*)
z = 3.832
p < .001
1'2
All species
Mean
Count
1997
(187
Hours)
= 0.9926
Mean
rank=
28.68
Mean
rank=
33.23
Mean
rank=
30.18
Mean
rank=
30.98
r 2 = 0.9698
97
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was presented at the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
Regional Biodiversity Forum in Mombasa in 2000. The authors acknowledge financial support from the Global Environment Facility Small
Grants Programme, the IUCN-Netherlands Tropical Rain Forest
Programme, the Biodiversity Support Program, a consortium of World
Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Resources Institute, with funding by the United States Agency for International Development, the Chicago Zoological Society and Brookfield Zoo, the
National Museums of Kenya, and the EU-funded BirldLife International
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management and Conservation Project. Above
all, we thank the farmers of Arabuko-Sokoke who made Kipepeo a reality. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or any of the organizations or funding bodies.
References
Ayiemba, W. 0. (1997). A stI1dy of tlze butterfly diversity of Arnbllko-Sokoke Forest, Ke11yn.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Nairobi.
Bennun, L.A., & Njoroge, P. (1999). lnzportnnt Bird Arens in Kenya. Nairobi, Africa : Nature
Kenya.
Burgess, N . D., Clarke, G. P., & Rodgers, W. A. (1998). Coastal forests of eastern Africa: Status, endemism patterns and their potential causes. Biological foumnl of tlze Linnnenn Society, 64, 337-367.
Collar, N. J., & Stuart, S. N. (1988). Key forests for tlzrentened birds in Africa (Monograph Number 3). Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.
Gordon, I. J. (1994). Kipepeo project: Consultant's report. Unpublished manuscript.
Government of Kenya. (1997). Kilifi District develop111ent plan, 1997-2001 . Nairobi, Africa:
Government Printers.
98
Maundu, P. (1994). Socio-eco110111ic survey nnd forest attitude report of tlze co111111unity borderi11g
Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest n11d Gn111e Reserve. Unpublished report of the Kipepeo Project,
Nairobi, Africa.
Maundu, P., Sojah, L., & Kilili, G. (1997). Report 011 tlze i111pncl of Kipepeo project 011 tlzeeco110111ic
status nnd forest attitude of tlze co111111unity bordering Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve. Unpublished manuscript.
Mogaka, H. (1991). Local utilisntion of tlze Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Resen;e. Unpublished
manuscript.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000).
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.
ln11 Gordo11 cn111e to Africa fro111 Britain to work ns n u11iversity lecturer i11 1971. Si11ce tlze11, lze hns
tnug/11 nl five African U11iversities iii Ghnnn, Zi111bnbwe, n11d Ke11yn. lll 1993 he left tlze university
tenchi11g professio11n11d111oved to Kilifi on the Ke11yn11 canst to sin rt the Kipepeo butterfly fnn11i11g
project nt Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest. lll 1998, Dr. Gordon left Kipepeo to beco111e coordinator of the EUfu11ded BirdLife l11ter11ntionnl Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Co11servntio11 n11d Mn11nge111e11t Project,
which ended in March 2002. He currently works ns the liend of the E11viro111nentnl Hen/th Division
nt the l11temntio11nl Centre of lllsect Physiology nnd Ecology.
Wnshi11gto11 Ayie111bn hns been n research scientist with the Nntio11nl Museums of Kenya since 1994.
Currently lie is the 111a11nger of the Kipepeo Project, n position held since 111id-1998. He trni11ed as n
co11servntio11 biologist nl the University of Nairobi n11d /ms bee11 actively involved in biodiversity
co11servntio11 n11d sustni11able use activities in the Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest area. He isn 111e111ber of the
Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Mn11nge111e11t Ten111 thnl comprises four gover11111e11t depart111ents tlmt collnbornte closely witlz a Forest Adjacent Dwellers Associntio11, n11d he is chair to the Rural Develop111e11t Worki11g Group of the tea111.