Management of highland wetlands in central Kenya:
the importance of community education, awareness
and eco-tourism in biodiversity conservation
Jane M. Macharia 1*, Thuita Thenya 2 and George G. Ndiritu 1
Abstract. The loss of natural habitats through destructive anthropogenic activities has been identified as one of the major drivers of environmental
degradation. This is even more prevalent in developing countries where poverty and ignorance of the value of biodiversity is rampant. A pilot
study was conducted in two highland wetlands in central Kenya to compile baseline data through the use of field survey, questionnaire and
subsequent seminars. The study showed that wetlands offer ecological, social and economic benefits that are not fully appreciated and hence
there is a lack of concerted efforts to advocate for their sustainable use. Initial findings showed that both wetlands were rich in biodiversity,
especially birds. However, these ecosystems were experiencing environmental problems such as dumping of solid waste, over abstraction of
water, encroachment for commercial and residential use, wetland agriculture, overgrazing, improper land use practices on the watershed
and wildlife poaching. A follow-up series of public awareness and education campaigns to sensitize the local communities to the importance
of the two ecosystems helped change attitudes and perceptions. As a result, the local community organized themselves, revived a dormant
community group, and for the last two years have created an eco-tourism venture that has helped address many of the above threats. Future
conservation and management efforts for wetlands and their associated watersheds can achieve more with well informed stakeholders. Public
education and awareness of the benefits of biodiversity conservation, adoption of wetland user-friendly alternatives, and income generating
enterprises offer a unique opportunity to sustainably manage and conserve wetlands amidst increasing populations, poverty and limited resources.
Keywords: Wetlands, landscapes, community conservation, eco-tourism, poverty alleviation
Authors’ Addresses:
Wetlands and Marine Section, National Museums of Kenya, P.O. Box
40658 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
2
Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of
Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
*Corresponding author jmwihaki2000@yahoo.com
1
Introduction
Human activities have been identified as the major drivers of global
environmental change on the planet and as a consequence directly
influence biodiversity (Vitousek 1994). Changes in land use/cover are
projected to have the largest impact on biodiversity, followed by nitrogen
deposition, invasive species and increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (Sala
et al. 2000). The effects of land use changes are expected to be the
most severe in the tropics (Myers et al. 2000). Although anthropogenic
activities and their influences are widespread around the globe, their
intensity and severity are higher in ecosystems rich in biodiversity
and natural resources such as tropical forests and wetlands, some of
the most threatened of ecosystems (Mathooko and Kariuki 2000;
Mathooko 2001; Ndiritu et al. 2006). Fortunately the economic, social,
cultural, biodiversity and ecological significance of wetlands are widely
acknowledged, and global efforts are being sought to prevent further
degradation and loss (Ramsar Convention Bureau 2000; Mitsch and
Gosselink 2000).
Wetlands cover less than 9% of the earth’s land surface, but provide
habitat to disproportionately high numbers of species (Zedler and
Kercher 2005; Dudgeon et al. 2006), such as water birds, amphibians,
fish, invertebrates and variety of flora (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000).
Wetlands also offer ecosystem services such as water purification, flood
control, nutrient cycling and carbon sequestration (Zedler and Kercher
2005, Daniels and Cumming 2008).
In Kenya, wetlands cover approximately 14,000 km2 or (2.5%) of the
surface area of the country (Crafter et al. 1992). They are rich in living
and non-living natural resources, and are important sources of food, water,
medicinal plants, fuelwood, materials for building and handcrafts (Kareri
B
I
O
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
1992; Keter 1992; Gichuki et al. 1998; Thenya 2001, Terer et al. 2004).
The presence of unique animals and plants such as, water birds, reptiles,
amphibians, and fish make them popular tourist attractions (Visser 1992).
In some communities, selected wetlands sites are used to perform cultural
and spiritual rituals such as circumcision and prayers (Kareri 1992; Terer
et al. 2004). There has been significant exploitation of wetlands by local
communities in order to meet some of their basic and economic needs.
Moreover, the level of exploitation varies from one wetland to another
according to poverty levels among the local communities.
A negative perception of wetlands as ‘wastelands’ coupled with
increasing human populations and changing life styles has led to the
loss and degradation of wetlands through conversion into other land
uses such as agriculture, pastureland, fish farming and residential areas
(Owino and Ryan 2007; Macharia and Thenya 2007a, 2007b), that are
perceived to be more profitable.
Since the signing of the Ramsar Convention (the Convention on Wetlands
of International Importance) in 1971, significant progress has been made
to promote conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands (Ramsar
Convention Bureau 2000). While the implementation and adoption of the
Convention guidelines has been a success for wetlands of international,
regional and national importance, the situation is different for wetlands at
subnational and local levels. Generally wetlands at local levels are perceived
as less important because of their small size. Though small-sized wetlands
are sometimes seasonal, they can cover large areas during rainy seasons
as well as be very productive and rich in biodiversity (Ng’weno 1992;
Chambers 1999). Small sized and seasonal wetlands are mostly found on
private or community owned land, which make conservation interventions
by government agencies difficult to implement.
Challenges impeding prudent management of wetlands have been
identified as: political-tribal mediated insecurity; ineffective governance;
different use of resources by different ethnic groups; division of labour
along gender and age lines; poverty and inability to diversify resources;
traditions and neglect of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK); and
1 1 ( 1 & 2 ) 2 0 1 0
85
ecosystems. The aim was for all the stakeholders to learn
from each other and subsequently appreciate the vital role
each can play in the conservation of the environment. In
this article we describe some of the lessons learned using
these education and awareness methods.
Physical and ecological description
of Ondiri and Manguo wetlands
Ondiri wetland is a swamp with bog-like characteristics.
It covers an area of approximately 30 ha, is 2 to 3 metres
deep with a perimeter of about 3.3 km. The swamp is
located in Kikuyu division, Kiambu district, in the
central province about 200 metres from Kikuyu town.
Ondiri swamp lies at 2000 metres above sea level,
latitude 1º15’S and longitude 36º40’E. The area has a
mean annual temperature of 26ºC, which ranges between
20.4ºC in the upper highlands to 34ºC in the midlands
of Karai in Kikuyu division. Low temperatures are
experienced in July and August while January, February
and March are the hottest months. The rainfall is
bimodal, with long rains occurring in April and May and
short rains during the months of October and November.
The average annual rainfall is 1500 mm. Water quality
in the swamp is fairly good with conductivity ranging
between 230 to 450 μs, temperature 15 to 19°C and pH
from 6.1 to 8.2. The swamp is an important source of
water for Nairobi river, which passes through the city
of Nairobi (Ndiritu et al. 2006). Locally, the swamp
provides water for domestic use, irrigation and livestock
as well as fodder for livestock particularly during the dry
season (Macharia and Thenya 2007a).
Ondiri swamp provides habitat for a significant number
of resident and migratory bird species as well as aquatic
plants. Common wetland and semi-wetlands plants
include individual species of Typha domingensis, Vossia
cuspidate, Cyperus brevifolius, and grasses such as
Leersia hexandra, Eragrostis exasperate and Eriochloa
meyerana. These plants are mainly found growing on
the floating mat, an accumulated large amount of semidecomposed organic matter that forms a thick layer of
peat (approximately 0.5 m thick) on top of the water. The
disturbed edges of the swamp are primarily vegetated
by Polygomum pilchrum, Biden pilosa and Oxygonium
sinuatum. Sphaeranthus gomphrenoides and Melanthera
scandens occur along water canals in the farms. The
swamp water catchment and riparian areas are vegetated
with exotic tree species of Grevillea robusta, Lantana
camara, Eucalyptus sp., Jacaranda minosifolia, as well as
a number of indigenous species such as Croton spp, Ficus
spp, Acacia melanoxylon, A. mearnsii and Podocarpus,
remnants of the indigenous forest cover of the area.
Figure 1. A map of Kenya (inset) showing the location of Ondiri and Manguo swamps. Shown on the map of
Ondiri swamp are the different land use types. On the Manguo swamp side are the three main ecological units of
open water, marshes and floodplains.
inadequate formal education (e.g. Terer et al. 2004; Mathooko et al. 2009; Hamerlynck
et al. 2010).
One of the most popular strategies of managing designated wetlands of importance
is to limit human access to these areas in order to minimize destructive activities.
Unfortunately this is not applicable for small-sized wetlands that are largely found on
private- or community-owned land. This situation is well discussed by Hardin (1968)
in his article the tragedy of the commons. Hardin concluded that the only way humans
can nurture nature is through education and awareness, which can counteract the natural
tendency to do the wrong thing and the inexorable succession of generations requires
that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.
Manguo wetland is a typical tropical swamp, covering
an area of approximately 50 ha. It is located in Limuru
division, Kiambu district central province, at latitude
1º06’S and longitude 36º38’E and 2200 metres above
sea level. The rainfall of the area is bimodal with long
In an effort to contribute to the management and conservation of two small highland
wetlands of Manguo and Ondiri swamps in central Kenya, a series of public education
and awareness seminars were conducted to help people understand the relationship
between the local communities, researchers, resource managers and the two wetland
86
T
R
O
P I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
N
C
Y
rains occurring in April and May and the short rains occurring in
October and November. The area receives an average annual rainfall of
1200 mm. The area has an annual mean temperatures ranging between
15.2ºC and 17.6ºC during the cold season (mainly between June and
Augusts) and 20ºC to 24ºC during the hot season (January through
March). Water quality in Manguo swamp is fairly good with neutral pH
values of approximately 7.03, low concentrations of cations, phosphates
and nitrates, a situation attributed to presence of fringing macrophytes
that limit nutrient flow into the swamp (Macharia and Thenya 2007b).
The swamp is an important source of water for Limuru town and the
surrounding rural area mostly through two boreholes located in the
northern low flooded area of the swamp. Manguo swamp has three
unique ecological units (i.e. open water, swamp and floodplain) that
support substantial populations of bird species and wetlands plants
(Macharia and Thenya 2007b). Over 30 species of resident bird and
palearctic bird species have been recorded in the swamp, a feature that
make it an important site for bird watchers and researchers. Common
plants in the swamp consist of the sedges Cyperus dives, C. dercilema,
C. rigidifolius, C. exactatus, Typha domingensis and Potamogeton spp.
and the grass Eragrostis esperata. The riparian and catchment areas are
mainly covered by exotic eucalyptus trees, a phenomenon characteristic
of much of the central Kenya highlands after the clearing of the original
indigenous trees in the early part of the 20th century.
Study methods and information gathering
This study was carried out in the Ondiri and Manguo swamps in Kiambu
district in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The study entailed gathering
data in the field and from published sources on local population, wetland
ownership, values, uses and threats, current wetland conservation and
management practices. First, all secondary data were solicited from
libraries, individuals and government offices. This was later followed by
fieldwork which involved collection of data on water quality, vegetation,
birds and the socio-economic status of both swamps (Macharia and
Thenya 2007a,b). Water quality parameters (pH, temperatures and
conductivity) were manually determined in the field using water
measuring meters. Birds were identified using Zimmerman et al. (1999),
grasses (Ibrahim and Kabuye 1987), sedges (Haines and Lye 1983) and
herbaceous flowering plants (Agnew and Agnew 1994). Socio-economic
information was obtained using both structured questionnaires and oral
discussions. Focus Discussion Groups (FDGs) were organized in the
field and later during the education and public awareness seminars.
The aim was to obtain consensus on the wetlands’ values, uses, threats,
extent of involvement of community members and local environmental
NGOs and government agencies. Lastly, education and public awareness
were delivered through seminars in three phases: sensitization of the
local communities, identification of the environmental problems and
realization of opportunities. Phase One consisted of dissemination of
the physical, ecological and socio economic information gathered on
wetlands to the local community. Phase Two was identification and
ownership of the environmental problems and; Phase Three involved
deliberation of alternative wise use and restoration of wetlands.
Socio-economic values and uses
of Ondiri and Manguo swamps
Eight one percent of the people interviewed in Manguo indicated that
the swamp had high value for them and that they used it throughout the
year (Fig. 2). The two most important uses were recreation and livestock
B
I
O
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
grazing. The swamp offers a good place where locals relax and watch
birds. It is also a famous stopover for international birdwatchers who visit
on transit to other tourist destinations in the Rift Valley. Nature Kenya,
an international environmental non governmental organisation (NGO),
regularly organizes outings for birdwatchers. The National Museums of
Kenya has included the swamp on the list of wetlands for annual water
bird counts and has noted the presence of unique species such as the Grey
Crown Crane (Balearica regulorum) and other palearctic migrants. The
presence of palatable and nutritious fodder plants on Manguo floodplain
and swamp, make it important for livestock grazing, particularly during
the dry seasons. Other uses of the swamp include sources of water for
irrigation of the neighbouring farms, washing of cars and skin hides.
Similarly, Ondiri swamp is an important resource and provides numerous
benefits to the local people. The swamp is a source of water for farming
activities, horticulture and livestock rearing. Local communities and
schools that obtain water from the Ondiri swamp include Alliance high
school, Kikuyu hospital, University of Nairobi (Kikuyu campus), residents
of Kikuyu Town Council, locations of Karai, Nderi, Maai Hii and Kenya
Railways. In addition, the swamp is the source of the Nairobi River, which
courses through the middle of the city of Nairobi. During the dry seasons,
the swamp provides fodder for livestock and macrophytes are used as
mulching material in horticulture farms and tree nurseries.
It is apparent that both Manguo and Ondiri peri-urban wetlands are rich
in natural resources, features that make them support various socioeconomic activities. However, some of the activities in the swamps are
unsustainable and destructive.
Threats and conservation challenges
of Ondiri and Manguo wetlands
It was obvious during our study that both Ondiri and Manguo swamps
were experiencing serious environmental problems relating to the
dumping of solid waste, over abstraction of water, encroachment
of wetland for commercial and residential use, wetland agriculture,
overgrazing, improper land use practices on the watershed and wildlife
poaching. Most of the recorded uses were incompatible with wise use of
wetlands such as washing of cars, irrigation, harvesting of macrophytes
for fodder and mulching and waste disposal (Fig. 2). Bird poaching and
collection of their eggs was also common around Manguo swamp. Just
like in the Manguo area, Ondiri swamp was threatened by unsustainable
anthropogenic activities in the swamp.
Normally, small-sized wetlands such as Manguo and Ondiri are reserved
as government property under either the local county council or central
government. However, due to an inadequate government supervisory role
there is free access to every member of the community and over time this
has lead to their over-exploitation and degradation. For example around
Manguo swamp, 70% of the degradation was attributed to private land
owners, 10% to the municipal council and 5% to the entire community.
Moreover challenges to conservation of the swamps are due to private
land ownership (53%), corruption and illegal land excision within the
municipal council (16%), theft of tree seedlings (13%) and lack of funds
to initiate conservation activities (3%).
The management and conservation of Ondiri and Manguo swamps
presents enormous challenges primarily due to the nature of ownership
which allow free access by every member of the community. It was
apparent both wetlands were experiencing ownership crisis, with
1 1 ( 1 & 2 ) 2 0 1 0
87
water, while key stakeholders were recognized as land owners, the
business community, conservationists and research institutions.
different stakeholders (i.e. private, local government and central
government) claiming ownership and use, but no conservation and
restoration responsibilities. This scenario resembled Hardin’s “free
rider” assertion, where degradation and over-use is linked to a common
property regime (CPR). For example approximately 70% of the lands
surrounding both swamps are privately owned, with most of the land
owners having less than 2 ha. Due to high human population growth
in the area and the need for more land, a significant portion of the
population is turning to government lands to supplement their economic
needs. Usually communities are unlikely to invest resources and time
conserving land that has no security of tenure or where ownership is not
clear. During FDG sessions, most local people reported being unaware
of the impacts of their activities on the swamps, though during their
lifetime they have observed the size of the two wetlands decrease and
a deterioration in the natural resources.
During the plenary session, all participants acknowledged that the
workshops had enlightened them about the value, environmental problems
and unexploited potential of the Manguo swamp. To move forward, the
participating community members agreed unanimously to revive the
dormant Manguo Land Owners Association which had been formed earlier
to conserve the wetland under a new name, Manguo Eco-tourism and
Conservation group (MECONG). A committee of ten people was selected to
oversee registration and formulation of bylaws that will guide its operations.
The NMK, KWS, UoN and the local authority agreed to continue working
with the group and assist with technical support whenever required.
In 2008, the NMK, and UoN together with the MECONG management
committee secured a small grant from the Ecosystems Grants Programme
(EGP) of the Netherlands embassy. This has helped to boost the group
meet some of its set targets. For instance, the group has managed to put
up a fence around the swamp, build a bird viewing platform, train some
members as local bird guides as well as buy ecotourism accessories such
as some binoculars and birding guide books. The funding has also helped
the group develop and produce publicity and education materials, which
have assisted in earning some income from donations and in-kind support
from visitors and well wishers. Also, the group recently received some
funds from the government under the Economic Stimulus Progamme.
The funds were used for a fish farming initiative, Two fish ponds were
built with the aim of selling fingerlings to farmers and recreational
facilities. In the near future there are plans for the members of the group
to start tree nurseries, to help restore the watershed with its indigenous
tree population. Overall, all the above activities have made the members
of the group united in purpose and most members are willing to assist in
the conservation of Manguo swamp and its catchment.
Public education and awareness
The Public Education and Awareness (PEA) campaign provided a unique
platform for all major stakeholders to interact, and exchange ideas and
experiences on the best way to restore and conserve the Manguo swamp.
The PEA process involved seminars, carried out in three phases. During
Phase One and Two, the local communities appreciated the importance
of the swamps and identified environmental problems. In Phase Three
alternative sustainable use practices were deliberated upon. Guided by
relevant government ministries and departments, the local community
freely discussed the following three themes: (1) opportunities and
challenges of developing income generating activities; (2) who should
be responsible for conservation and management of the swamp and; (3)
institutional and community participation in wetland management.
The community members in the Manguo area identified land ownership
as the major impediment to implementation of any conservation activity
in the swamp. Though members discussed the issue of compensation,
it was found to be unrealistic and non-viable as the government
might not be willing to compensate them with cash or offer them
alternative land. Members identified ecotourism as the most viable and
environmentally friendly programme to undertake for the swamp. The
people acknowledged that the swamp is strategically situated along
the rich tourist circuit of the Rift Valley lakes and Kikuyu escarpment,
famous for their scenic beauty, splendour and richness in biodiversity.
To resolve the issue of land ownership and use, members agreed that
resource utilization in the swamp will fall under wise use guidelines
and those activities detrimental to the wellbeing of the swamp will be
disallowed. These activities were identified as car washing, dumping of
waste and wetland agriculture. The local authority agreed to discourage
these activities. The hunting of birds and collection of their eggs will no
longer be allowed in the swamp in an effort to enhance bird populations
and diversity, with enforcement entrusted to the Kenya Wildlife Service
and the local authorities. A grazing fee was introduced to control
overgrazing, with the money collected used to demarcate and fence the
critical area as well as improve supervision by employing a caretaker.
Meanwhile public education and awareness initiatives in Ondiri swamp
yielded positive and similar results to those in Manguo swamp. To minimize
unsustainable wetland use, the local community in collaboration with Athi
River Water Resources Management Authority and Kikuyu Town Council
decided to form a Water Resource Users Association (WRUA) to control
water abstraction for domestic and irrigation purposes. This community
association has succeeded in regulating water abstraction from the swamp,
by registering active boreholes and putting a limit to the area of land that
each member can irrigate. The WRUA is in the process of formulating
an integrated management plan for the whole ecosystem that is intended
to demarcate and zone the swamp for conservation purposes, increase
scientific knowledge, control unsustainable practices and organize regular
environmental awareness education sessions for the local community.
Recently the Friends of Ondiri Swamp a community based conservation
group secured a second grant from Rufford Foundation, an international
funding organisation to strength and support their conservation and ecotourism initiatives in the swamp (Mungai 2010). These were good news
and shows that environmental education is one way of empowering a
society to conserve biodiversity while at the same time alleviating poverty
among them.
The local people agreed they were unaware of the rich biodiversity
and unexploited potential of the swamp and the National Museums of
Kenya (NMK), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), the local authority and
the University of Nairobi (UoN) were given the task of enlightening the
community. Relevant government’s institutions to assist in the management
of the swamp were identified as the ministries of environment, land and
88
T
R
O
P I
C
A
Conclusions
It is evident from these two case studies that future conservation
and management efforts of the environment lies with well informed
stakeholders including local communities, natural resource managers,
L
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
N
C
Y
Response (%) .
100
80
1
2
3
60
40
Figure 2.
Ranks of major uses of
Manguo swamp (n=30).
Ranks represent (1) very
important, (2) important,
(3) less important and
(4) not important
4
Domestic
water
Car wash
Waste
disposal
Agriculture
Livestock
watering
Grazing
Washing
cars/hides
Irrigation/fodder
Tourism
0
Recreation
20
Major prefered uses
policymakers, law enforcers and researchers. This reinforces Hardin’s
assertion that “the only way humans can nurture nature is through
education and awareness, which can counteract the natural tendency
to do the wrong thing and the inexorable succession of generations
requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed”.
Apparently during this study most members of the community were
unaware of whether their activities had an impact on the environment.
This was attributed to serious communication breakdown between all
stakeholders, particularly the educators and researchers on one side and
local communities, natural resource managers, policy makers and law
enforcers on the other. Although environmental education is offered in
schools, colleges and universities in Kenya, its application has not yet
been transferred to the general public, a major reason why environmental
problems are widespread (Ndaruga, 2003; 2009).
Photo 1. Grazing cattle near the wetlands.
B
I
O
D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
1 1 ( 1 & 2 ) 2 0 1 0
89
Ellis, E.C. and N. Ramankutty, 2008. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the
world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 439–447.
Finlayson, M. and M. Moser, 1991. Wetlands. International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research
Bureau (IWRB). Oxford UK/ NewYork USA.
Gichuki, N.N., H. A. Oyieke and G.G. Ndiritu, 1998. Assessment and monitoring of wetlands
for conservation and development in drylands: A case study of Kajiado district, Kenya. In:
Finlayson, C.M., N.C. Davidson, N.J. Stevenson (Eds.), Wetlands Inventory , assessment and
Monitoring. Practical Techniques and Identification of Major Issues. Supervising Scientist
Report 166: 99-107.
Gichuki, N.N. and J.M. Macharia, 2003. Participation of Local Communities in the Management
of Wetlands in Magadi Area, Kenya. In: Lemons, J., R, Victor and D. Schaffer (eds). Conserving
Biodiversity in Arid Regions: Best Practices in Developing Nations. Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Boston. Pp 87-104.
Haines, R.W. and K.A. Lye, 1983. Sedges and Rushes of East Africa. A Flora of Families:
Juncaceae and Cyperaceae in EA - with Particular Reference to Uganda. East African Natural
History Society. Nairobi, Kenya.
Hamerlynck, O., J. Nyunja, Q. Luke, D. Nyingi, D. Lebrun and S. Duvail. 2010. The Communal
Forest, Wetland, Rangeland and Agricultural Landscapes Mosaics of the Lower Tana, Kenya: A
Socio-ecological Entity in Peril. In: Belair, C., K. Ichikawa, B.Y.L. Wong and K.J. Mulongoy
(eds.) Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes.
Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative for the Benefit of Biodiversity and Human Well-being’
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Technical Series No. 52. pp
54-62.
Hardin, G., 1968. The Tradegy of the Commons. Science 16: 1243-1248.
Ibrahim, K.M. and C.H.S. Kabuye, 1987. An Illustrated Manual of Kenya Grasses. FAO Rome.
Kareri, R.W., 1992. The sociological and economic values of Kenya’s wetlands. In Crafter, S.A.,
S. G Njuguna and G. W. Howard (eds), Wetlands of Kenya. Proceedings of the Kenya Wetland
Working Group Seminar on wetlands of Kenya. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya:
99-107
Keter, J. K., 1992. Wetlands and water supply in Kenya. In Crafter, S.A., S. G Njuguna and G. W.
Howard (eds), Wetlands of Kenya. Proceedings of the Kenya Wetland Working Group Seminar
on wetlands of Kenya. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya: 155-160.
Macharia, J. and T. Thenya, 2007a. Conservation and Management Assessment of Ondiri
Swamp: Shared Natural Resources. A Baseline Study. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Macharia, J. and T. Thenya, 2007b. Socio-economic and Ecological Status of Manguo Swamp. A
Baseline Study. National Museums of Kenya/University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
Maltby, E. 1991. Wetands and Their Values In: Finlayson, M. and M. Moser (eds). International
Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB). Oxford UK/ New York USA.
Mathooko, J.M. 2001. Disturbance of a Kenyan Rift Valley stream by the daily activities of local
people and their livestock. Hydrobiologia 458: 131-139.
Mathooko, J.M. and S.T. Kariuki, 2000. Disturbances and species distribution of the riparian
vegetation of a Rift Valley stream. African Journal of Ecology 38: 123-129.
Mathooko, J. M., C.M. M’Erimba, J. Kipkemboi and M. Dobson, 2009. Conservation of
highland streams in Kenya: the importance of the socio-economic dimension in effective
management of resources. Freshwater Reviews 2: 153-165.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. Third edition. John Wiley and sons, New
York, New York, USA.
Mungai, N. 2010. Building a Local Community Conservation Group and Establishing Ecotourism
Activities Around the Ondiri Swamp, Kenya’s Only Quaking Bog. Proposal submitted to
Rufford Foundation and funded. http://www.ruffordsmallgrants.org/rsg/projects/naftali_
mungai_0 (accessed on August 9 2010).
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent, 2000.
Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.
Ndaruga, A.M. 2003. Use of environmental days to foster environmental conservation by primary
schools in Kenya. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 2: 107-117.
Ndaruga, A.M. 2009. Teacher valuation and use of posters to promote sustainability of wetlands in
Kenya. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 8: 85-93.
Ndiritu, G.G., N.N. Gichuki, and L. Triest, 2006. Distribution of epilithic diatoms in response
to environmental conditions in an urban tropical stream, Central Kenya. Biodiversity and
Conservation 15: 3267-3293.
Ng’weno, F. 1992. Seasonal Wetlands in Nairobi. In: Crafter, S.A., S.G. Njuguna and G. W.
Howard (eds), Wetlands of Kenya. Proceedings of the Kenya Wetland Working Group Seminar
on wetlands of Kenya. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya. Pp. 55-64.
Owino, A.O. and P.G. Ryan, 2007. Recent Papyrus Swamp Loss and Conservation Implication in
Western Kenya. Wetlands Ecological Management 15: 1-12.
Ramsar Convention Bureau, 2000. Ramsar Handbooks for Wise Use of Wetlands. Ramsar
Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.
Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber–Sanwald,
L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M.
Oesterheld, N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, and D.H. Wall, 2000. Global
Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2000. Science 287: 1770–1774.
Terer, T., G.G. Ndiritu, and N.N. Gichuki, 2004. Socio-economic Values and Traditional
Strategies of Managing Wetlands Resources in Lower Tana River, Kenya. Hydrobiologia 527:
3-14.
Terer, T. and N.N. Gichuki, 2001. Cultural values of birds and biodiversity conservation by
Kipsigis community in Kenya. Ostrich Supplement 15: 158-160.
Thenya, T., 2001. Challenges of conservation of dryland shallow waters, Ewaso Narok swamp,
Laikipia District, Kenya. Hydrolobiologia 458: 107-119.
Visser, N.W., 1992. Wetlands and tourism. In: Crafter, S.A., S. G Njuguna and G. W. Howard
(Eds.), Wetlands of Kenya. Proceedings of the Kenya Wetland Working Group Seminar on
wetlands of Kenya. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya: 135-138
Vitousek, P.M., 1994. Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change. Ecology 75: 18611876.
Zedler, J. B., and S. Kercher, 2005. Wetlands resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and
restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30:39-74.
Zimmerman, D.A., D.A. Turner and D.J. Pearson, 1999. Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania.
Christopher Helm London.
Photo 2. Refuse dumping at Manguo wetland.
These studies showed that it is possible to integrate economic activities
and environmental conservation in privately owned lands. This is
promising for the future of a significant part of biodiversity that is
found on populated biomes (Eliss and Ramankutty 2008). Adoption
of environmental user friendly alternatives and income generating
enterprises in the wetlands such as ecotourism, fish farming and tree
nurseries, have offered a unique opportunity to sustainably manage and
conserve wetlands amidst increasing populations, poverty and limited
resources. All these promising environmental conservation strategies are
consistent with Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Kenya’s
Vision 2030, which all seek to reduce poverty and ensure biodiversity
conservation.
Finally, there is an urgent need for the Kenyan Government to take a
more active role in conservation of the environment. There should be
incentives and rewards for land owners who adopt environmental friendly
activities, and penalties for those who degrade the environment.
Acknowledgments
Support for the conservation projects were provided by the Royal
Netherlands Embassy Small Grant Fund (KNIP) in Nairobi during 2006
and 2007, the Ecosystem Grant Programme (IUCN Netherlands) under
Eco-tourism and Biodiversity Fund to J.M. The following students from
Nairobi University assisted in field data collection; K.E. Chekai, G.N.
Mutune, M.W. Kamau and E. N. Muthua. The conservation groups of
Ondiri and Manguo swamps under the leadership of their management
committees resolve and determine to conserve the environment. Views
and opinions expression in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of aforementioned donors.
References
Agnew, A.D.Q. and S. Agnew, 1994. Upland Kenya Wild Flowers: A flora of the Fern and
Herbaceous Flowering Plants of Upland Kenya. East Africa Natural History Society, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Chambers, P. 1999. Aquatic and Marine Biodiversity In: United Nations Environment Programme
(Ed.). Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Pp 397-434.
Crafter, S.A., S.G. Njuguna and G. W. Howard, 1992. Wetlands of Kenya. Proceedings of the
Kenya Wetland Working Group Seminar on wetlands of Kenya. National Museums of Kenya,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Daniels, A.E., and G.S. Cumming. 2008. Conversion or conservation? Understanding wetland
change in northwest Costa Rica. Ecological Applications 18:49-63.
Dudgeon, D., A. H. Arthington, M. O. Gessner, Z. I. Kawabata, D. J. Knowler, C. Leveque,
R. J. Naiman, A. H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M. L. J. Stiassny, and C. A. Sullivan. 2006.
Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological
Reviews 81:163-182.
90
T
R
O
P I
C
A
L
C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
N
C
Y