Analysis of the monthly sample counts indicates that losses are as high as 95 percent for giraffes, 80 percent for warthogs, 76 percent for hartebeest, and 67 percent for impala. Researchers say that evidence of declines is supported by previous studies and that the culprit is growing human population, and crop and livestock production, all of which have destroyed wildlife grazing territory. Wildlife in the Mara Reserve is also under pressure from hunters seeking food and profit.

The report is based on one of Kenya's longest running wildlife monitoring programs and involved the analysis of 15 years of monthly counts for seven species of ungulate: Coke's hartebeest, warthog, waterbuck, zebra, giraffe, impala and topi.

As predicted, the study has attracted global attention; hundreds of news articles lamenting the demise of one of the world's greatest wonders followed. Here in Kenya, the report caught many by surprise and prompted disbelief. One paper condemned the report as false; at least one manager in the Mara denied the results and said he did not know which part of the ecosystem the study actually referred to. The study is alarming and is discussed on one Kenyan blog.  Joseph Ogutu, the co-author of the study, is a statistical ecologist at ILRI; he explained the severity of the situation when I interviewed him.

There is no doubt that the declines in giraffe, warthog, impala, topi and hartebeest are linked to rapid growth of Maasai settlements around the reserve.

Using a hand-held GPS and relying on national census data, Ogutu physically counted and mapped every homestead. Land adjudication in the Mara ecosystem is partly to blame for the explosion of bomas, as it led to the break up of group ranches into individual land titles. Families that once lived in small communal bomas in a large land area have now built their own homesteads on individual parcels of land. This multiplication of settlements has greatly increased the human footprint.

Even though the increasing human populations is occurring outside the reserve, it is dramatically affecting wildlife inside the reserve. 

Wildlife resident in the Mara Reserve are non-migratory but they still move between adjacent ranches and the Reserve seasonally; the constant grazing of livestock outside the reserve keeps the grass low and nutritious in the wet season. Inside the reserve, the grass grows much faster than it can be consumed, becoming tall and fibrous. Tall grass is not only unpalatable, it also hides predators, so grazers seek short grass for safety.  Once the wildebeest arrive on their annual migration, and after fires burn down the grass, these animals move back to the Reserve. Events outside the Reserve matter to migratory and resident species inside.

Ogutu warns that we are in for catastrophic declines in wildlife if we do not act now. He said that it was unfortunate that some people have challenged the study because some population increases have occurred locally -- if you are in the Mara Triangle wild animals are increasing simply due to displacement of wildlife from elsewhere including the Loita plains.

The Northern migration is virtually dead.

"In the Mara Reserve, some species are declining to worrying levels, but it is in the greater system, in Lemek Koiyaki, Loita and Siana that there is a real cause for alarm", he says. According to Ogutu, we have already reached the tipping point in the northern wildebeest migration, which is restricted to Kenya. This unique but smaller migration involves the movement of wildebeest from the Mara Reserve to the Loita plains group ranches. The number of wildebeest has dropped from 120,000 - 190,000 in 1979 to fewer than 10,000 today. The wildebeest calving grounds of the Loita Plains have been ploughed, fenced and filled with cattle. Ironically, the increasing numbers of cattle have been paid for from tourism earnings.  Having studied wildlife in the Mara for 20 years now, Ogutu says that it is not clear if this northern migration exists anymore and laments that people see this daily but nobody is saying anything about it.

Culture change amongst the Masai is to blame.

The traditional Masai way of life can co-exist with wildlife if their numbers and cattle do not exceed a certain density. Individual land ownership has led to the abandonment of traditional nomadic pastoralism in favour of cultivation, which has now reached the Mara Reserve boundary. Subsistence farming and large-scale commercial wheat farming are filling up the plains and destroying wildlife habitats, while rapidly growing developments including the settlements of Talek, Sekenani and Aitong are also blocking the migration routes. Add to this the illegal and unregulated extraction of water from the Mara river, and the destruction of the Mau forests which feeds the Mara River and we have a ticking time bomb. "Without the Mara River, the migration will cease" Ogutu warns. 

It may not be too late for the Mara.

One of the more positive signs of hope is the growth in community-owned wildlife conservancies. If this can be supported we can keep large parts of the the Greater Mara ecosystem open. Conservancies are becoming increasingly popular. The Masai like the conservancy idea because the land is rented by tourism companies from the individual land owners. This eliminates the corruption which was rife when dealing with elders and chiefs representing large communities on group ranches.

But, it's no easy task to create a conservancy. Since the land is divided into 100- or 150-acre individually owned units, creating a conservancy needs the collective and coordinated action of numerous families. This can be difficult and slow. Nevetheless, families are signing contracts with tourism concerns. These leases typically run for up to 5 years -- not long enough to ensure sustainable long-term management. Longer leases would benefit both the investor and the land owner but neither side is willing to take the risk. Given what happened after the elections in 2007, investors are hesitant to accept full liability should tourism nosedive again, while families want to be assured of payments regardless of visitation. But there is no policy framework or legal foundation for establishing private conservation areas in Kenya.  KWS, he says, provides no leadership or direction in this area, and are virtually absent on the ground.  As a result, each group ranch works independently, with little or no legal support.

"KWS and DRSRS have been monitoring wildlife numbers for decades, but are they simply monitoring them into extinction? Why are they not analyzing trends and making the findings available to the public, the policy makers and the land owners?"

Ironically, KWS recently celebrated the launch of their new strategic plan which was proudly presented to the public by the Minister for Wildlife and the KWS Chairman, who hailed its contribution to Kenya's Vision 2030. Among the strategies, KWS intends to improve customer service and raise park fees to improve the viability of the KWS.

One consequence of the KWS strategy is the alienation of Kenyan conservationists and a shrinking community of Kenyans who visit wilderness areas to enjoy the peace and pleasure of unspoiled landscapes, hikers and climbers, birdwatchers. The new KWS strategy does not mention strategies to inspire Kenyans to care about wildlife. Instead KWS is looking to extract more money from the few Kenyans who do still go to the parks. No wonder the KWS Director feels alone when neither the public nor businesses come out to support his proposals for greater government commitments to our wildlife heritage.

What can Kenyans do to turn around the conservation situation, win over the general public, and support the government bodies and the management authorities so that we save our wildlife heritage for this and future generations?