logo
Nairobi's lions are almost encircled by the city. A Maasai community offers a key corridor out

Nairobi's lions are almost encircled by the city. A Maasai community offers a key corridor out

The Guardian3 days ago

Nairobi national park in Kenya is the only large wildlife conservation area to fall within a capital city. It is hemmed in on three sides by human development, and unfenced only on its southern boundary – this gap providing a crucial wildlife passageway, linking the park's animals to other populations of wildlife and wider gene pools.
The gap, however, is also home to a small Maasai community, where farmers face an agonising choice between protecting livestock and making space for the predators that prey on their cattle.
Despite the dangers, the pastoralists are choosing to leave tracts of their land open, allowing the flow of wild animals to avoid what scientists call an 'ecological extinction' via a shrinking gene pool.
'Our forefathers found the wild animals here,' says 55-year-old Isaac ole Kishoyian, a resident of Empakasi, a small settlement overlooking Nairobi national park. 'There was enough prey before people built permanent settlements around the park.'
Now, wildebeests and impalas no longer migrate from the south, he says, and lions find his cows to be easy targets. 'But we still want our children to enjoy the same wild heritage as we did.'
Kishoyian has fenced off only a tiny portion of his 12-hectare (30-acre) piece of land. But lions still break through. A few weeks ago, a lion managed to enter the cattle pen while Kishoyian was away.
'My wife heard the commotion and scared the lion away before it could kill one of my cows,' he says.
Less than a mile from Kishoyian's home, 68-year-old Phylis Enenoa plays with her great-grandson outside her iron-sheet home. Like Kishoyian, Enenoa has left most of her 11-hectare field unfenced, and her four cows graze alongside zebras, impalas and the occasional wildebeest.
Lion sightings are frequent around her home, their intentions always clear. The flimsy barbed-wire fence around the homestead can barely keep out the hungry predators, which have been responsible for the loss of 10 sheep and three cows.
'Look at the black one,' she says, pointing to one of her cows, which survived an attack about two weeks ago. 'I don't know how long she will survive in that condition.'
The lions lie in wait for the opportune time to strike. As we drive along a narrow dirt road near one of the homesteads, we freeze as our guide points to the shade of an acacia bush less than 10 metres away, where a lioness lies motionless, her amber eyes fixed on us.
Before the turn of the last century, rangelands south of Nairobi, including the present-day Amboseli national park, were all interconnected, providing enough room for wild animals to roam. However, the growth of human settlements, infrastructure, commercial activity and land fragmentation have blocked this movement, largely confining wild animals to the 117 sq km (45 sq mile) Nairobi national park.
Conservationists say each lost corridor around the park further restricts the trickle of fresh genes, resulting in isolated herds breeding with 'cousins' rather than distant strangers. A smaller gene pool results in fewer wild herbivores, making hungry lions hunt more livestock.
'Shrinking genetic variety does more than change pedigrees – it chips away at survival traits forged over millennia,' says Dr Joseph Ogutu from Hohenheim University in Stuttgart, Germany, who has led wildlife researchers in publishing reports about the collapse of animal migrations in Africa.
'Inbreeding can shorten lifespans, curb fertility and weaken immune systems, leaving animals less able to navigate drought, disease or the urban noise,' he says.
'Every lion cub conceived [in the park] is denied the chance to mate beyond the tightening evolutionary noose,' he adds, warning of an 'ecological extinction if the gene pool that once flowed across an open savanna is stagnating'.
A single adult lion, says Ogutu, requires as much as three tonnes of meat a year – equivalent to 14 wildebeests but the park holds only a few hundred large ungulates other than buffalo and giraffe.
One of his research papers says wildebeests migrating between Nairobi national park and the adjacent Athi-Kaputiei plains 'decreased from 30,000 animals in 1978 to less than 1,000 today'. As wild prey diminishes, livestock in nearby homesteads become easy pickings for predators, with the lions' hunting 'on the hungriest nights, risking confrontations with people'.
But the residents are willing to tolerate this uneasy coexistence by leaving the remaining corridors open and giving up economic activities that are not in line with wildlife conservation, such as crop farming or keeping large herds of livestock, if both government and wildlife conservation organisations ramp up compensation processes for their losses while compensating them financially for protecting biodiversity.
With 65-75% of wild animals in Kenya living outside conservation areas, the government relies on private landowners to host and protect wildlife. It is reviewing wildlife laws to entrench a more community-led approach to conservation.
Silvia Museiya, from the state department for wildlife, says: 'If people see no benefits of hosting wildlife on their land, they will convert [the land] to other uses.'
In April 2025, 256 landowners, including those adjacent to Nairobi national park, Amboseli and Masai Mara, more than 100 miles away, received $175,000 (£129,000), the first of a biannual payment earned from a pilot programme that pays landowners to keep more than 14,000 hectares (35,000 acres) open and intact. Each landowner will be paid $5 an acre each year, a modest amount that locals hope will increase as more join the programme and it attracts more finance.
'I got 6,000 shillings [£34] for my 20 acres of grassland,' says 35-year-old Daniel Parsaurei. 'The amount is not much but … if we open up the land, we can all have enough grazing areas and help increase the wild animals so that lions can also have enough food and reduce attacks on cattle.'
The programme uses remote-sensing technologies developed by Andrew Davies at Harvard University to measure the extent of biodiversity within a given region and create 'biodiversity credits' to sell for its protection. Proponents of this programme say it is a more direct and immediate form of nature financing, to incentivise the individuals who directly protect such biodiversity every day.
Viraj Sikand, co-founder of EarthAcre, a local startup that finds funders for biodiversity and monitors how such capital reaches local communities, says: 'Unless such payments are delivered directly to landowners, all the land will go.'
According to Ogutu, without stakeholders restoring prey populations outside the park and reconnecting roaming routes, predators will remain both 'victims and villains in a drama of our own making'.
'The choice is stark,' he says, 'feed lions with functioning ecosystems, or watch them feed on livestock until neither can be sustained.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The beaver activists risking arrest to do ‘God's work'
The beaver activists risking arrest to do ‘God's work'

The Independent

time17 minutes ago

  • The Independent

The beaver activists risking arrest to do ‘God's work'

An anonymous activist group is illegally releasing beavers into the English wild, claiming they are skirting cumbersome bureaucracy to do 'God's work'. Releasing beavers without a license is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, prompting calls for stronger government action against unauthorised reintroductions. The government approved licensed beaver releases earlier this year to help reduce flooding risks and restore natural habitats. Beavers, which disappeared from Britain centuries ago, are recognised for their vital role in shaping environments, creating diverse habitats, and mitigating floods and droughts. The National Farmers Union has voiced concerns regarding the potential negative impacts of beavers on agricultural land, business, and food production, urging a comprehensive management plan.

Activists illegally releasing beavers into wild say they are doing ‘God's work'
Activists illegally releasing beavers into wild say they are doing ‘God's work'

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Activists illegally releasing beavers into wild say they are doing ‘God's work'

A secret underground network that is illegally releasing beavers into the wild says they are 'doing God's work'. Members of the activist group risk arrest and potential prison time by carrying out the unlicensed release of beavers. It is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to release beavers into the wild without a license, and countryside groups have called on the government to take stronger action to manage illegal releases. However, Ben, who spoke anonymously to the BBC, said: "It is just essentially God's work. We're undoing the damage of hundreds of years ago and bringing back these extraordinary animals.' The government approved the release of beavers into the English wild earlier this year in hopes of cutting down on flooding risks and restoring nature. A licensing system has been introduced to allow the reintroduction of the semi-aquatic animals, whose dams, canals, and ponds enhance wildlife and offer protection against floods and droughts. There have only been two full applications to release beavers into the wild: The River Otter Beaver Trial from 2015-2020, and the recent National Trust's Purbeck Beaver Project, which released two pairs in Dorset earlier this year. Beavers, vital for shaping their environments, disappeared from Britain over four centuries ago due to hunting. They have since reappeared in England's rivers through escapes and illegal releases and were legally protected in 2022. However, Ben, whose name has been changed, told the BBC that legal routes to release beavers are "too bureaucratic", so they are taking matters into their own hands. The group operates under a shroud of secrecy to protect themselves from being arrested. "You don't want to be caught with a box of beavers in the boot, so you have to be quite quick," Ben said. "You open the door, do it and drive away. They are instantly much happier in the water." However, the National Farmers Union have said farmers are worried about the impacts beavers can have on their land, business and food production. NFU Deputy President David Exwood said: 'With existing legal and illegal populations of beavers expanding across England, government needs to take stronger action to manage illegal releases and develop in consultation its long-term beaver management plan before any further releases are permitted.' 'The NFU wants to work with the government in developing its approach and will continue to monitor existing beaver populations and policy developments to ensure that the right strategy, management options and support are in place to minimise any negative impacts,' he added. Conservationists have long advocated for licensed wild reintroductions to enrich the UK's biodiversity and benefit communities. Evidence from a five-year trial on the River Otter in Devon demonstrates that beaver-created habitats support diverse wildlife, including water voles and dragonflies. They also slow the flow of water, reducing the risk of flooding downstream, and can store water in the landscape during drought, as well as purifying polluted river systems, removing sediment and storing carbon. Dr Angelika von Heimendahl, beaver reintroduction manager at The Wildlife Trusts, said the organisation does not endorse releasing wild animals without a licence, but stressed the 'fantastic work that beavers do across our river systems' must be recognised. She added that The Wildlife Trusts hope to see a 'meaningful number of wild release licences granted going forward', as restoring beavers to the wild will play a key role in tackling the nature and climate emergencies. Natural England said it is important that species reintroductions are conducted carefully, to maximise benefits and minimise risks.

Grizzly with checkered past swims miles to Canadian island – and into hot water
Grizzly with checkered past swims miles to Canadian island – and into hot water

The Guardian

timean hour ago

  • The Guardian

Grizzly with checkered past swims miles to Canadian island – and into hot water

Most visitors to Texada Island, a 30-mile sliver of land off the west coast of British Columbia, choose one of two main methods of arrival: a provincial ferry service with 10 daily sailings or a 3,000ft air strip, which welcomes the occasional chartered plane. But a four-year-old grizzly bear recently took a far more challenging route, braving strong currents and frigid water to swim nearly three miles across the Malaspina Strait. The exhausted young bear, named 'Tex' by locals, hauled himself ashore on 25 May, unleashing a fierce dispute between residents, conservation officers and First Nations over his future – and prompting a broader debate over the relationship between the Canadian province and its wildlife. Once a hub of logging and mining, Texada Island is now home to 1,200 residents and the one grizzly bear, who was last spotted just after sunset on 23 June. Before his odyssey, the four-year-old bear was known to conservation officers on the mainland, who had twice been forced to relocate him to avoid conflicts with human residents. On both occasions, he returned to urban areas within weeks. Before his swim, he was spotted breaking into fishing boats at marinas to access bait and once stalked two walkers on a trail. 'The people escaped by entering and remaining in the water for half an hour while the bear remained on shore circling back and forth,' the conservation service said. Despite his somewhat checkered past provincial officials said in a statement that there was a no 'kill order' on Tex. But, they added, 'if further behaviour by the grizzly bear occurs that threatens public safety, Conservation Officers will respond to those situations … It is our hope that it will not come to this, and the bear will move on independently.' Nicholas Scapillati, head of the Grizzly Bear Foundation said that such behaviour was to be expected for a young male bear. 'He's on the move. He's curious. He's a young male out of hibernation who was likely pushed off out of his home range by his mom and is now looking for mates in a different genetic pool,' Scapillati said. 'Now he's just exploring.' But Tex's presence on the island has sharply divided residents, unaccustomed to apex predators on their bucolic island. 'They should euthanize him if they aren't going to relocate him – he can't stay here, someone is going to get injured/killed,' wrote one resident on a local Facebook message board. 'It's only a matter of time before something horrible happens. It's shocking that some people think this isn't a serious public safety issue.' But others argue the young bruin hasn't harmed humans or livestock. Katrin Glenn-Bittner, a longtime resident of the island who has spotted the bear twice on her farm, has offered to help fund any relocation of the bear to a remote part of the province's west coast. 'There's no future here for him on Texada Island, because he's targeted, and if he makes a mistake – which may very well happen – he will be instantly destroyed,' she told the Globe and Mail. A First Nations community has offered to rehome the bear, but the request was rejected by the province's conservation service, which said Tex's 'high level of conflict history' meant he was 'not a candidate for relocation'. The Mamalilikulla First Nation says its Gwaxdlala/Nalaxdlala Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area (IPCA) in Knight Inlet, 100 miles north of Texada Island, would be the ideal home for the young bear. The IPCA was established in 2022 'based on the ancient concept of 'Aweenak'ola', which translates as 'we are one with the land, sea and sky and supernatural Ones and have a responsibility to care for all the beings''. And bringing the grizzly to the territory also aligns with the nation's broader aim of restoring populations of a species they view as sacred. 'Right now this grizzly bear is a ticking timebomb,' John Powell, elected chief of Mamalilikulla First Nation, told the Times Colonist. 'I think inevitably the bear is going to run into a human or animal and it's going to have a negative engagement. Texada is not a big place … It's going to die there.' In 2019, British Columbia enacted legislation meant to harmonize its laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and it has signed a string of treaties or reconciliation agreements with nations in the province. The case of Tex represents a test of that new relationship, says Scapillati, whose foundation has worked with both First Nations and the province. In 2020, a male grizzly named Gatu appeared on the northern tip of Vancouver Island, and became too comfortable around humans. First Nations pleaded with conservation officers to come up with a proactive approach. Their request was ignored and the bear was shot and killed. Months later, when another bear was spotted in the region, Mamalilikulla First Nation stepped in and requested it be moved. The young grizzly was successfully translocated to an area on the mainland. At the time, the province's then minister of environment praised the result, saying the 'desire for reconciliation' with Indigenous peoples helped guide the process. 'If First Nations want to look at how to handle these issues differently then the province has an obligation to talk to them and come up with a solution,' said Scapillati. 'This request to translocate Tex is going to open up a whole discussion over how to balance the wildlife policies of various First Nations with the province's wildlife policies,' he said. 'It's unique, it's exciting – and it could be a gamechanger for wildlife stewardship in the province.' Biologists remain convinced the bear can be moved safely. 'Having done field surveys of grizzly bear habitat surveys in the IPCA for the Mamalilikulla I can attest to the fact that the estuary is prime habitat for such a translocation at this time,' biologist Wayne McCrory wrote in a letter to the province. 'Even given the possibility that the bear may not remain in the area if translocated again, I fully support … [the Mamalilikulla First Nation''s] wishes to have the bear taken there.' McCrory said that while translocation doesn't always work, the further a bear is moved from where it was captured, the better the odds of success. 'I feel [not moving the bear] is a bad mistake that will only lead to the bear's eventual demise, either [at the hands of conservation officers] or some local residents.' And while it has shaken residents, the bear's arrival on the island also reflects a slow-moving success of conservation. In recent decades, populations of grizzly bears have rebounded dramatically thanks to a hunting ban and investment in stewardship. 'Texada needs to get prepared. When you live in nature, bears are part of that. This is going to be a wake-up call for the community and all the other islands on the coast,' said Scapillati. 'After years of work to recover populations, bears are on the move. And people need to get prepared to coexist with them.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store