LAIKIPIA WILDLIFE FORUM

West Laikipia Fence Project

Monthly Report
July 2009

Nyumba T O Fence Committee meeting at Check Point-Mutara

LAIKIPIA WILDLIFE FORUM ROYAL NETHERLANDS EMBASSY LAIKIPIA ELEPAHNT PROJECT

Contents
1.0. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.0. Capacity Building for the fence committees .............................................................................. 3

3.0. Fence sections .......................................................................................................................... 3

3.1. Ex-Erok, Mutara and Pesi ..................................................................................................... 3

3.2. Laikipia West Nature Conservancy ....................................................................................... 4

3.3. Lombala, Ngorare and Kifuko ............................................................................................... 4

3.4. Olmaisor ............................................................................................................................... 5

3.5. Matigari ................................................................................................................................ 5

4.0. Rapid Response to Problem elephants ....................................................................................... 5

5.0. Problem elephant identification and management ...................................................................... 6

6.0. Distribution of crop raids and fence breakages .......................................................................... 6

7.0. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 6

List of Tables
Table 1: Fence breakages and crop raids .......................................................................................... 6

1.0. Introduction
This report draws data and discussions from the month of June, 2009 and field work for the
month of July, 2009. One fence meeting was held on the 14th July at Mutara and attended by
Ex-Erok, Mutara, Pesi and Matigari and LWF and ADC Mutara ranch officials. Two
community HEC awareness meetings were held at Lariak/Sipili on 16 th and 23rd July, and
presided over by the West Laikipia District KWS Warden Mr. Mwangi. Fence section at Pesi
is heavily under pressure from the Pastoralists and farmers.

One positive impact of the fence is the expansion of farms on Mutara, Pesi, Daraja, Thome and
Matigari areas. However, Pesi farmers have encroached on the ADC side of the fence thereby
providing more incentive for elephants.

17 cases of fence breakages were attended to by the rapid response team. 8 of the responses
involved elephants outside the fence while 7 involved elephants inside ADC but near the fence.
78 cases of problem elephants were identified with each elephant being involved in at least 7
cases. Fence breakages in Ex-Erok increased from 21 in April to 30 in May while Mwenje
recorded 29 from 13 in April. Only Pesi recorded a reduction in fence breakages (21 to 19).
Fence voltage in all fence sections still remained stable. Most fence breakages involved
elephants pulling down the posts and clearly avoiding the wires.

Phase Two of the fence construction is underway. Olmaisor has erected posts along a 5km
section and is expected to be completed in September. Ngorare is yet to commence the process.

2.0. Capacity Building for the fence committees

In order to enhance the capacities and effective participation of the fence committees in the
fence maintenance, the LWF organised a one day workshop on 14th July at Mutara. The
participatory workshop focused on the history of the fence from inception, fundraising,
construction to maintenance, changes in the configurations, problem elephant management
strategies such as the Rapid Response System and Problem Elephant Identification.

The workshop was attended by committee members from Ex-Erok, Mutara, Pesi and Matigari,
community leaders, ADC representatives, KWS (Rumuruti) and LWF officials. It was evident
that many community members have very little knowledge of the elephant conservation issues.
However, the Matigari team were more informed and this might have had an impact on their
approach to the Matigari fence maintenance. This is attributed to the HEC workshop that was
organised by the LWF and partners in March.

Issues of the use of the Rapid Response Vehicle were discussed and a protocol was adopted to
enhance responsible use and response to problems. All community members were called upon
to help clear at least 10m of fence line on both sides to ease access by the rapid response team,
report any sightings of elephants close to the fence, and join the response team on elephant
deterrence.

3.0. Fence sections

3.1. Ex-Erok, Mutara and Pesi

The Pesi fence section is currently under intense pressure of encroachment by both pastoralists
and farmers. A lot of livestock is grazing in ADC Mutara side while many farmers have
cultivated both sides of the fence including the ADC Mutara side. This has undoubtedly
contributed to the high crop raids reported and poor status of the fence at Pesi. The Ex-Erok
area currently is experiencing drought providing no attraction to elephants. However, elephants
are breaking regularly and move as far as Kiamariga to access crops and water.

One major issue with the fence is the fence voltages. Currently the energizers are configured to
cover 10-11km each, this is found to be ineffective as demonstrated by the results from the
neighbouring Kifuku ranch. According to George Aggette (Kifuku), when the energizers cover
longer distances, the power output diminishes and is more often unstable. On 27th July, I
contacted George Aggette to check the energizer and establish why they were not producing
sufficient power output. The findings were:
 1. At the main gate, the energizer had an output of 9.9kv, and only 6.1kv and 6.6kv were
measured on the fence at the start and end of the lines respectively.

2. Ex-Erok energizer had an output of 5.7kv of which 5.7kv and 7.3kv were recorded at
the start and end respectively.

3. The Pesi energizer had an output of 5.8kv of which 5.8kv and 7.8kv were recorded at
the start and end points respectively.

George was categorical that the fence voltages were affected by the distance between
energizers, and that the only way to address this is to add at least two more energizers. It is
clear that while Kifuko ranch has maintained an average voltage of 8.5kv, with energizers at
6km intervals, the ADC Mutara section has voltages averaging 5.5kv and energizers at
intervals of 10-11km. More pressure is added by the outriggers which, according to George
increase the distances covered enormously. The result is very low voltages, delayed response to
breakages and lack of human present to provide disincentive to the elephants. This has made it
very easy for elephants to pass through the fence even when it is powered. Indeed, according to
many community members, the fence is ‘never powered’ and is only a monument to ‘cheat’
elephants.

The fence line is covered by thick vegetation providing very narrow passage. Since the fencers
must walk along the fence, it has proven risky as they encounter buffalos on these thickly
vegetated areas. These include Suguroi valley and several far flung sections from the energizer
house or main road.

3.2. Laikipia West Nature Conservancy

One of the major challenges at LNC and Mwenje is the disregard for the fence by the Mwenje
community. While this had been denied by the community for so long, the result being strained
relationships between LNC and Mwenje people; the community leadership has lately
recognised the occurrence of such activities such as illegal grazing, firewood collection,
stealing of equipment such water pipes, solar panels and other ranch property. According to the
fence chairman, Mr. Nyongio, people living near the fence line have been caught jumping over
the fence into the ranch to access firewood and grass. This has undoubtedly compromised the
efforts to make the fence effective. Aware of this, the chairman has been working with local
leaders to address the issues and to seek audience with the LNC management.

3.3. Lombala, Ngorare and Kifuko

There was an influx of elephant population in Lombala. This led to an increase in fence
breakages and crop raids in the month of June and July. However, there has been an increase in
cultivation along the river bank at Thome and Daraja areas. The farmers are working very
closely with the ranch officials to provide timely response to fence breakages and crop raids.
Most of the breakages reported at Lombala involved elephants from Muruku area driven into
the ranch by the farmers. Construction of phase two of the fence at Ngorare has still not started.
It is not clear why Ngorare management have fallen behind schedule but this represents a
major delay and has implications for human-elephant conflict in west Laikipia. Indeed, a lot of
crop raids are now occurring at Chong’oti area at the end of the fence.

3.4. Olmaisor
The fence construction is ongoing and s expected to be completed by the end of September.
The fence will have to be connected with the Ngurare (Phase one) section at Chong’oti.
However it will be important to consider the best and most effective way to do this. Currently,
John Perret and Martin Evans are of the opinion that the fence crosses directly through the
Sosian swamp to join Ngurare. However the original plan was to have the fence go round
Mathira and join Olmaisor after running round the swamp. Environmental implications on the
swamp may also need to be considered to protect the integrity and functions of the swamp

3.5. Matigari
Matigari area now has the most motivated farmers. Having spent two complete months without
a single breakage or crop raid, the community that spent hours on end guarding crops can now
afford to sleep easy. So happy are the famers that even the pastoralist Samburu communit y
here have turned to farming. Many of them tell stories of how they hear elephants ‘scream’ at
night after being shocked by the fence. Many of the farms are very green and if all factors
remain constant, there is bound to be a bumper harvest. Besides, this community has taken over
the full fence maintenance and is planning to buy more wires to complete the five or more
strand plan. With the continued support from Kifuko, the partnership may provide a good
lesson to the rest of the ranches and communities along the West Laikipia Fence.

4.0. Rapid Response to Problem elephants

The rapid response had a great improvement in terms of cohesion, vehicle use and response to
incidents. However some of the incidents were still reported to the team late hence the response
was reactive rather than preventive. The team identified high pressure points especially
Suguroi valley and were able to effectively deter elephants from breaking. In addition, they
spent longer hours and went out between 4pm and 8pm. Never the less, some known fence
breakers still manoeuvred their way out of the ranch after the team had left.

In total, 26 incidents were attended to, of which 24 incidents involved elephants moving
towards or attempting to break the fence and 2 involved elephants outside the fence being
driven back. 24 responses took place between 4pm and 8pm, which was in contrast with the
June responses which were taking place in the morning as opposed to evening hours. The team
still made a lot of use of shooting as deter. This, as was observed from OPC, is not the best
strategy as elephants are soon to habituate to the gun shots and may prove difficult to drive
away in future.

One major obstacle to the response was the poor communication between fencers, community
and the rapid response team. Whenever the fencers spotted elephants near the fence, they had
to find the nearest energizer house to relay this information to the team. In addition, many
homes on Ex-Erok are far from the fence and hence elephants were only spotted after they
were on peoples’ farms.
5.0 Problem elephant identification and management
The research assistant is currently concentrating on the Ex-Erok fence section. He has been
working alongside Richard of OPC to ensure a consistent identification and naming of problem
elephants. Elephant ID cards are also being developed to aid the identification process. These
will be used by the research assistant while in the field.

5.0. Distribution of crop raids and fence breakages

Fence Section May June
Fence Fence Crop
breakages Crop raids breakages raids
Ex-erok &
Mutara& Ex-Erok 30 54 37 24
Pesi 26 11 18 9
Kifuko 0 0 0 0
Lombala 2 2 8 9
Ngurare 1 0 0 0
Mwenje 29 34 22 36
Olmoran - 19 - 41
Table 1: Fence breakages and crop raids

6.0. Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The West Laikipia Fence has positively contributed to food production in areas where the
fence is well maintained. With expansion of farms and emergence of new farms witnessed
in Matigari, Pesi, Mutara and Thome, it is evident that when famers know the importance
of the fence, they will try to actively participate in the maintenance. However, these
expansions have come with excessive water abstraction for irrigation.

2. The capacity building for the fence committees is a good opportunity to increase awareness
on conservation issues. However there is need to expand and structure the process so as to
include impact assessment and include more community members. In addition, there is
need to hold the same seminars as was done at Matigari in all the fence sections of Ex-
Erok, Mutara, Pesi, Thome, Chong’oti and Mathira. These may be done in within the
community premises to cut down on costs and also to localise them.

3. The energizers are currently covering longer distances. And as observed by George, there is
need to consider adding at least two energizers and reducing the distance between
energizers to approximately 6km. This will not only increase the fence voltages, but also
 response time to any breakages as they will be identified fast on the energizers, increase
human presence to deter elephants and provide security when walking along the fence.
Besides, this will provide a timely communication between the rapid response team and the
fencers (ref: rec 4 for June).

4. While ADC is keen to retain the posts at the current height, elephants are using these
exposed posts to break the fence. It will be important that ADC take urgent measures to
protect the integrity of this fence by either expediting the process of funds acquisition to
put up more wires or cutting down the fence posts.