S27.4: Threatened birds and rural communities: Balancing the equation

Ornithology Department, National Museums of Kenya, PO Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya, e-mail kbirds@africaonline.co.ke

Habitat loss is the most important single factor threatening bird species with extinction, worldwide (Collar et al. 1994). Within particular African countries, the vast majority of birds listed as globally threatened are so classed because of habitat loss and degradation. In East Africa, for example, habitat loss is the primary threat for 28/30 globally threatened species in Tanzania, 21/22 species in Kenya and 9/10 species in Uganda (see Appendix 1 in Collar et al. 1994). Regionally threatened species show similar patterns (Bennun & Njoroge 1996 unpublished data). The specific factors causing habitat loss are varied, but boil down to one underlying cause: the expanding needs of an expanding human population.

The problem can be expressed as a simple syllogism:

(1) population growth + rural poverty = habitat loss

(2) habitat loss + threatened birds = extinctions

thus, population growth + rural poverty + threatened birds = extinctions

Undoubtedly, people are the main problem in African biodiversity conservation. This suggests that they must be part of any solution as well. The idea that local communities must be involved in any successful conservation programme, once a radical notion, has become the prevailing orthodoxy (e.g. Biodiversity Support Programme 1993; IIED 1994; Carter 1995; Miller et al. 1995; Besong 1997; Gardner et al. 1997; Mupada 1997). While this approach must, fundamentally, be appropriate, community conservation is fraught with many difficulties (IIED 1994; Miller et al. 1995; Gardner et al. 1997). These problems range from the obvious to the subtle, and (along with the conservation opportunities) are often specific to particular sites. Thus, although some overall guidelines can be set out (IIED 1994; Miller et al. 1995), general models may be dangerous.

Here I will look briefly at how rural communities interact with the conservation of threatened birds at discrete sites and in agricultural landscapes, and suggest in outline how some of the special attributes of birds can be used to promote conservation. These will be familiar themes to those involved in community conservation. However, there appears to be a real need for bird conservation biologists and community conservationists to talk to each other. For instance, none of 34 contributions in a recent global review of bird conservation work (Coulson & Crockford 1995) touched more than tangentially on the topic of rural communities. Conversely, community conservationists have generally been pre-occupied almost entirely with forestry or large mammals (IEED 1994) - despite the importance of birds for global and regional conservation priority-setting (Grimmett & Jones 1989; Evans 1994; Stattersfield et al. 1998; Bennun & Fishpool in press), eco-tourism and conservation education (e.g. Fanshawe & Bennun 1993).

Most of my examples are drawn from Kenya. This is a species-rich country with a wide range of habitats, containing portions of four Endemic Bird Areas (Stattersfield et al. 1994), and where the conservation biology of a number of threatened bird species has now been studied (e.g. Kosgey 1998; Matiku & Bennun in press; Muchai & Bennun in press; Njoroge & Bennun in press; Virani in press).

Two types of community conservation approaches can be discerned. One, generally applied to forests, has been focused directly on ‘islands’ of habitat in protected areas (e.g. Bwindi National Park, Uganda: Watts et al. 1996). The other, generally applied to large mammals in savanna areas, has focused on community-owned land outside park boundaries (e.g. the CAMPFIRE project in Zimbabwe: IEED 1994). These ‘landscape’ approaches have not yet been applied to densely settled agricultural areas, which tend not to contain many large mammals but may contain threatened birds.

Wiens (1995) has cautioned against managing habitat fragments as islands divorced from the surrounding landscape. While this concern is valid, there is nonetheless a considerable practical conservation difference between the ‘island’ and ‘landscape’ cases outlined above. In the case of a well-defined block of habitat, such as a forest, it is possible in principle (though probably not desirable!) to throw a fence around it and ignore the surrounding population. Where the species of conservation concern live among human settlements, then local people have to be involved in their conservation - no alternative is possible.

Kakamega Forest in western Kenya illustrates some of the common problems inherent in conserving habitat islands that are surrounded by people. This 18000 ha forest is part Forest Reserve (managed by the Forest Department) and part National Reserve (managed by Kenya Wildlife Service). The eastern-most outlier of the Guinea-Congo forest type, it contains exceptionally rich biodiversity, including two threatened birds - Chapin’s Flycatcher Muscicapa lendu and Turner’s Eremomela Eremomela turneri (Fanshawe & Bennun 1993). Kakamega Forest has a long history of contraction, decline and degradation, and an equally long list of serious management problems (Wass 1995a,b). Chief among these is intensive, unauthorised and uncontrolled forest utilisation, including pitsawing, charcoal burning and cattle grazing. The population density around the forest is one of the highest in the country (Wass 1995a), land and employment opportunities are scarce, and encroachment into the forest persistent. There are also institutional problems, with a weak and ineffective Forest Department and little co-operation or communication between the two management authorities. The authorities’ relationship with the local people is also very poor (Wass 1995a).

As in many such sites, there is need to take some of the human pressure off the forest and at the same time improve its management for conservation. A package of interventions has been proposed (though not yet implemented): these include a combination of tighter policing with community consultation and local management agreements; multiple-use forest zoning; plantations of fast-growing trees; forestry extension; tourism and visitor programmes; and environmental education (Wass 1995a).

These kinds of components are standard for so-called Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs), although the balance and emphasis vary. Such projects, underwritten by donor funding, are now in place in a number of East African forests (e.g. Bwindi, Rwenzori and Elgon in Uganda: Watts et al. 1996; Arabuko-Sokoke in Kenya: BirdLife International, unpublished). Worldwide, ICDPs have a patchy record (Miller et al. 1995), with rather few clear successes to show. In part, this may be due to an over-optimistic view of how fast results can be achieved. Nonetheless, there are a number of commonly recognised general problems with ICDPs, including: (1) an inability to address the wider economic forces, policy and legal structures working against conservation; (2) lack of local and national political backing; (3) lack of real participation of the local people (despite, often, the best intentions); (4) failure to draw on existing rural development models and thus repeating well-recognised mistakes; (5) too short a time scale to achieve meaningful results; (6) lack of a meaningful linkage between conservation and development activities (and a lack of clear evidence that conservation and sustainable economic development are compatible); (7) lack of clear evaluation mechanisms, so that we can learn from mistakes.

Many of these are internal problems of project design and implementation that are increasingly being addressed. However, the external issues of institutional and policy frameworks and political support are crucial. Even the best-designed and implemented project will ultimately fail if Government and management bodies are not committed to its success (Areola 1987). An example is the Kenya Indigenous Forests Programme (KIFCON) in Kenya, which drew up the conservation and management proposals for Kakamega Forest mentioned above. Funded by the United Kingdom’s Overseas Development Agency, this programme folded after three years of activity when it became clear that the Kenyan Government would not support fundamental change of the forest management system, nor halt excisions from the indigenous forest estate.

Projects that have to work against institutional or political obstruction may of course help to slow down the rate of biodiversity attrition at a particular site. Still, they are likely to pour substantial resources into ultimately unrealisable goals. In such cases it should be realised that the attitudes of local communities (and therefore local voters) can often have substantial influence on central Government - for better or for worse. For example:

(1) Cattle-grazing in indigenous forests is not allowed in Kenya (though in practice it is hard to control) because the cattle prevent forest regeneration. This has been a serious problem in Kakamega Forest, where local people regarded the forest as a ‘free’ grazing area and resented being excluded. In 1994 the President of Kenya visited Kakamega during a by-election campaign, and granted a local petition that cattle grazing be permitted in this forest as a special case. (The ruling party candidate was duly returned to Parliament, reversing an earlier result.) The intensity of cattle-grazing in the forest has now increased enormously, causing great damage and bringing other policing problems in its wake. As a Presidential decree, this new policy is also very difficult to alter.

(2) In the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest at the Kenyan coast, a 2000 ha area called Kararacha-Mpendakula contains crucial habitat for two of the forest’s six threatened birds, Clarke’s Weaver Ploceus golandi and the Amani Sunbird Anthreptes pallidigaster. This portion was not originally part of the gazetted forest, but because of the sandy, infertile soils a decision was made some 30 years ago to keep this tract as forest and give land elsewhere for settlement. However, that land was given to outsiders, and the local people have felt cheated ever since. This has led to a vociferous campaign to de-gazette this area, which has been supported by some local councillors and the District administration. However, butterfly farming and eco-tourism initiatives at Arabuko-Sokoke have created a constituency locally that benefits economically from the forest, and is opposed to de-gazettement (Gordon in press). Their voices, added to those of the wider conservation community, eventually won the day against de-gazettement - at least for the time being.

(3) South Nandi Forest in south-western Kenya contains probably the world’s most significant population of the threatened Turner’s Eremomela Eremomela turneri. Despite a ban on logging of indigenous trees, a large timber company (with high-level political connections) has been operating in South Nandi since the early 1990s. It carries out a particularly destructive form of semi-selective logging that brutally damages the forest structure. One of their main target trees is Croton megalocarpus, which recent research shows is strongly preferred by the eremomelas for foraging (Kosgey 1998). The Forest Department has been unable to explain how and why the logging company is allowed to operate here. Local people benefit little if at all from the logging operations and have been seeing ‘their’ forest and heritage destroyed. Their protests, directed through the District administration and organised by a local conservation NGO, have been the major factor in the recent halting of the logging.

Building a local constituency for conservation may not always be easy, but projects that fail to do so run high risks - especially if they have lukewarm institutional support. Fortunately, birds appear to provide one of the best avenues for building awareness and interest in conservation, as I explain below.

Not all birds that are at risk live in well-defined areas of natural habitat. Two recent studies in Kenya offer insights into the case where threatened bird species live in an agricultural landscape. In both cases, they are endangered by rapid land-use changes.

Hinde’s Babbler Turdoides hindei

This Kenya endemic, listed as Endangered by Collar et al. (1994), occurs along river valleys the foothills of the Aberdares and Mt Kenya (the Mukurweini and Kianyaga areas, respectively) and the upper catchment of the Athi river, Machakos District (Turner 1992; Njoroge & Bennun in press). It is thought that its original habitat was dense riverine thicket, which has now been supplanted by cultivation over most of its range. Natural riverine vegetation still occurs in some parts of Machakos, but babbler densities in this low-rainfall area are very low (0.8 birds/km) compared to those in Mukurweini and Kianyaga (>3 birds/km: Njoroge & Bennun in press). Conservation concern thus focuses on these higher altitude, higher rainfall areas - which, unsurprisingly, also have high human population densities.

The babblers are comfortable enough foraging in the small-scale coffee, maize and banana plantations that now cover most of their home ranges (Njoroge et al. in press), but they still depend on thickets - in this case, small patches of the exotic shrub Lantana camara that colonises fallow land. The birds use the Lantana thickets for resting, roosting, sheltering from predators and nesting (Njoroge & Bennun in press; Njoroge et al. in press).

The babblers’ requirements are apparently modest. However, Lantana thickets are disappearing as human pressure on the land grows and less and less area is left fallow. The remaining thickets may already be too small to protect them when nesting: success rates are very low (one fledgling was produced in six attempts by five groups in 1994: Njoroge & Mutinda 1996). Nesting birds are often disturbed or killed by people. The babblers are also hunted and eaten in Kianyaga, though not in other parts of their range.

Sharpe’s Longclaw Macronyx sharpei

This species is endemic to the high plateau above 2400 m on either side of the Rift Valley in southern and central Kenya (Britton 1980). Originally, the habitat here was open tussocky grassland, grazed by large ungulates and with numerous tussock bogs along drainage lines. Settlement by small-holder agriculturalists started some 40 to 50 years ago, and this agriculturally productive area is now densely settled. Woodlots of water-hungry exotic trees have drained many of the swamps and moderated the climate, which is now warmer and drier than before. Large areas have been turned over to crops, mainly potatoes, cabbages, maize and wheat. Some open grassland remains, but is usually intensively grazed; also, many fields have been ploughed and re-seeded to remove the tussock species, which are unpalatable to cattle (M. Muchai, L. Lens, L. Bennun unpublished data; Muchai 1998). Because of the rapid deterioration in this species’ habitat, it was listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN criteria by Bennun & Njoroge (1996). Survey and research work show the following, in summary (Muchai 1998; M. Muchai, L. Lens, L. Bennun unpublished data): (1) Sharpe’s Longclaw occurs only in grassland; it is never found in cultivated fields or woodlots. (2) The species’ optimum habitat is short grass with tussocks. Here it occurs in densities of around 1.2 birds/ha. The birds nest in tussocks, forage around tussock bases, and retreat there when threatened. Foraging rates are higher in tussock than in non-tussock grassland. (3) In the absence of tussocks, long grass areas (density 0.8 birds/ha) are preferred over short grass areas (0.4 birds/ha). Long grass is associated with lower grazing pressures (fewer cattle and sheep). (4) The species is sensitive to habitat fragmentation. Densities depend on the size of particular grassland patches and on the surrounding matrix of habitats; they are low (<0.2 birds/ha) in patches of <20 ha, no matter what the grassland type. (5) Grassland loss is extremely rapid: nearly 9% of the grassland plots surveyed in North Kinangop in April 1995 had been converted a year later (conversion in South Kinangop was slightly less rapid, at c. 3% over the same period). Grassland is currently estimated to cover between one-third and one-half of its historical extent, and (as conversion happens in a patchwork manner) is increasingly fragmented. (6) The mean acreage of land-holding is decreasing, as plots are split up within families. Conversion of pastureland is accelerating because economic and climatic factors (low milk prices, delays in milk payments, a ready market for crops, and reduced instances of frosts and floods) now favour crop farming rather than livestock production.

Hinde’s Babbler and Sharpe’s Longclaw (like birds in other agricultural landscapes, such as those in Europe: Tucker & Evans 1997) present special problems. On the one hand, they are able to co-exist with people provided the landscape is managed appropriately. Hinde’s Babbler requires patches of Lantana that are sufficiently large to allow it to nest successfully, and sufficiently close together that dispersal between groups is possible (the dynamics of inter-group movements are unknown). Sharpe’s Longclaw can co-exist with livestock (indeed, may benefit from their presence) provided the pasture contains tussock grasses and (we presume) the grazing pressure is not too high.

On the other hand, such species tend to be entirely left out by the protected areas system. Protecting them requires not just better management, and appropriate local participation, but resisting or re-directing the often potent economic forces that are driving land-use changes.

The problems involved in conserving threatened birds in either discrete sites or landscapes may appear depressingly complex and intractable. However, birds themselves do offer several advantages as a focus for conservation, and there are a number of actions we can take to exploit these. These must be underpinned by appropriate, though not necessarily prolonged, biological research.

Obviously, any conservation strategy should be based on an adequate knowledge of the conservation biology of the threatened species concerned. We know very little about most of our threatened birds, but fortunately they are often relatively easy to study. At the minimum, we need some knowledge of distribution, density, habitat preferences and response to different land-uses or management regimes. Such information can generally be acquired within six months to a year by a Master’s student, without large amounts of funding (but with the useful side-effect of building scientific capacity in conservation biology). Preliminary studies will point the way to any additional research that may be needed. For instance, in the case of Sharpe’s Longclaw we now need to know the economics of different land-uses and different grazing regimes, and their effects on vegetation structure, so as to understand the opportunity cost of managing land to benefit the birds.

Where management of discrete sites involves notions of ‘sustainable use’ - a phrase that means many things to many people - we also need to investigate the implications for threatened birds. For example, dead wood collection might be ‘sustainable’ from a forestry point of view, but could negatively affect the populations of a threatened bird (e.g. Matiku 1996).

The need to carry out research can often be used as an excuse not to take action. This must be guarded against: even preliminary results often give us enough material to identify the key areas of concern.

The few examples above show that if the local community is genuinely concerned about the future of their site, this can be a powerful force for conservation. Birds lend themselves in several ways to creating an interest in, and concern for, the wider environment:

(1) Birds often make excellent ‘flagships’, i.e. a rallying point or focus for conservation efforts. For example, the Mt Kupe Bush Shrike Telophorus kupeensis, found only on Mt Kupe in Cameroon, has been adopted by the conservation project there and the local community as a symbol of the forest’s conservation importance. Local children painted a giant bush-shrike as part of an environmental mural on the wall of the community hall (Bowden 1993) and the bird has become an item of pride for the entire community.

(2) Birdwatching is intrinsically appealing to many - the process just needs encouragement and facilitation. In Kenya over the last 10 years, there has been a remarkable development of interest in birds and birding. From being the preserve of a small, relatively wealthy and largely expatriate élite, birding has been taken up by burgeoning numbers of urban youth, and is now spreading rapidly into rural areas. The birding groups outside the capital city presently lack experience and resources. However, they are highly enthusiastic and have great potential for active involvement in conservation work, especially environmental education. Obviously, they can also form the nucleus of local pro-conservation pressure groups

(3) One reason for the growing popularity of birdwatching is the increasing importance of birds as a tourist attraction. Many people now visit Kenya primarily to go birding. Competent local guides are in demand both by tour companies and by lodges and hotels (as ‘resident naturalists’). Thus for many young people birdwatching represents not only an interesting and educational activity but a training towards a career. Eco-tourism has its own drawbacks, and is definitely only a part of the solution (Boo 1990); yet it can be an important part. The potential for bird-based eco-tourism has been recognised by some conservation projects (e.g. Mt Kupe, BirdLife 1993; Arabuko-Sokoke, J. Fanshawe unpublished), but the focus of wildlife authorities in most countries (and certainly in East Africa) seems still to be almost exclusively on large mammals. Putting birds firmly on the tourism map is a challenge, but surely an achievable one.

(4) Birds are an ideal gateway into environmental education. It is a truism that by interesting children in the environment one is both determining the attitudes of future decision-makers and creating an effective means to influence their parents. Where local bird-watching groups exist or can be set up, they often provide an ideal mechanism for developing schools’ wildlife clubs or similar organisations.

(5) Birds (possibly, but not necessarily, threatened species) also provide an appropriate group for monitoring the conservation status of sites and habitats, and assessing the effectiveness of interventions. For a number of reasons, local people should preferably be the ones to do the monitoring. Pioneering work to set up local monitoring teams has been carried out in Kilum-Ijim Forest, Cameroon (Carter 1996). Much remains to be done elsewhere to set up appropriately robust, simple and informative monitoring methods, and to train local people to apply them (Bennun & Fanshawe 1997).

BirdLife International’s Important Bird Areas Programme is identifying sites of global conservation significance for birds across the African continent (Bennun & Fishpool in press). In eight African countries, this first stage of the IBA process is now complete, and (with support from the Global Environment Facility, through UNDP) BirdLife Partner organisations are moving ahead with action and advocacy for conservation. There are two main strands to this. One involves putting IBAs on the conservation agenda of national governments, through a high-level liaison committee among other means. The other operates at the site level, and involves setting up and building capacity in site-support groups of local people. These groups should be able to monitor their sites, take conservation action, help spread environmental awareness, and work with management authorities on the ground.

This approach is new and there is much to learn. Yet with a modest amount of support, advice and materials, it appears that these local groups can make some conservation headway even in the absence of ICDPs and enormous inflows of donor money - at least at discrete sites. Their existence also provides an excellent foundation for larger conservation projects in the future. Sharing experiences and building up models of how best such site-support groups can develop in particular circumstances will be an important activity for the Afrcan BirdLife Partnership over the next half-decade.

In the case of landscapes, the challenges are more substantial. Attempting to divert the course of hugely powerful economic and demographic forces may be a quixotic effort. Even in the developed world, with strong institutions and the availability of economic subsidies to offset opportunity costs, the conservation of species such as the Corncrake Crex crex in agricultural landscapes is a difficult challenge (Stowe et al. 1993; Tucker & Evans 1997). A more realistic, though undoubtedly expensive, option, could be to set up a network of sanctuaries through land purchase. In the case of a species like Hinde’s Babbler, these need only consist of Lantana clumps and might be very small in size. They could even be located in the compounds of schools, churches and other public institutions with some environmental interest. In the case of Sharpe’s Longclaw, land set aside for bird conservation would also support livestock (at some level to be determined), thus offsetting part of the purchase and management costs. Nonetheless, such a major intervention remains well beyond the means of local conservation NGOs, and would require considerable international funding.

We can identify some key features that should make up any successful approach to conserving birds.

(1) Economic opportunities. Rural poverty remains an enormous barrier to conservation, but the linkage between rural development programmes and conservation is often unclear. Many different approaches are needed, but developing bird tourism (which sustainably uses the resource that is to be protected) is often feasible and can be very beneficial.

(2) Environmental understanding. People are unlikely to be concerned about a resource unless they understand its value. The effectiveness of environmental education is often hard to assess but it must be attempted - and preferably by those living and working within the community.

(3) A birdwatching ethos. This may sound out of place, or even laughable, among the hard-nosed prescriptions usually given for rural development. Nonetheless, it is increasingly evident that birdwatching can be a powerful positive force. Recent developments in Kenya show that, with some encouragement, birding can take root in what might seem unpromising settings, and can bring about strong social groupings that have a passionate commitment to conservation.

(4) Strong institutions. If habitats are to be managed, then effective institutions are needed to police them. These are not necessarily departments of central Government, but might be traditional community structures (e.g. Gardner et al. 1997). Where institutions are weak, efforts to build their capacity and commitment, at least locally, are essential.

(5) Targeted research. Conservation and development workers are often impatient with research, and vice versa. Yet properly targeted research that answers clear questions is essential underpinning for the conservation of any threatened bird.

With sufficient thought, planning and resources, therefore, we should be able to re-write the equation presented at the start of this paper as follows:

rural communities + economic opportunities + environmental understanding + birdwatching ethos + strong institutions + targeted research = successful bird conservation.

I thank the IOC Organising Committee for financial assistance to attend the 22nd IOC in Durban. Paul Matiku and Solomon Mwangi made helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Areola, O. 1987. The political reality of conservation in Nigeria. In: Anderson, D & Grove, R. (eds) Conservation in Africa. People, politics and practice. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press: 277-292.

Bennun, L. & Fanshawe, J. 1997. Using forest birds to evaluate forest management: an East African perspective. In: Doolan, S. (ed.) African rainforests and the conservation of biodiversity. Oxford; Earthwatch Europe: 10–22.

Bennun, L. & Njoroge, P. (eds) Birds to watch in East Africa: A preliminary Red Data list. Research reports of the Centre for Biodiversity, National Museums of Kenya: Ornithology: 23: 1–16.

Bennun, L.A. & Fishpool, L.D.C. in press. Important Bird Areas in Africa. Ostrich (suppl.).

Besong, J.B. 1997. Best options for securing the future of African rainforest. In: Doolan, S. (ed.) African rainforests and the conservation of biodiversity. Proceedings of the Limbe conference. Oxford; Earthwatch Europe: 39–42.

Biodiversity Support Programme 1993. African biodiversity: Foundation for the future. Washington; World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy and World Resources Institute: 149pp.

BirdLife International 1993. Mount Kupe Forest Project, Cameroon. 2nd annual report to EC, October 1992–September 1993. Cambridge; BirdLife International: 117pp.

Boo, E. 1990. Ecotourism: the potentials and pitfalls. Volume 1. Washington; World Wildlife Fund: 72pp.

Bowden, L. 1993. Where spirits meet. World Birdwatch 15(3): 10–13.

Britton, P.L. 1980. Birds of East Africa: habitat, status and distribution. Nairobi; EANHS: 271pp.

Carter, J. (ed.) 1996. Recent approaches to participatory forest resource assessment. Rural Development Forestry Study Guide no. 2. London; Overseas Development Institute: 322pp.

Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J & Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to Watch 2: The world list of threatened birds. Cambridge; BirdLife International.

Coulson, J. & Crockford, N.J. 1995. Bird conservation: the science and the action. Tring; British Ornithologists’ Union: 250pp.

Evans, M.I. 1994. Important Bird Areas in the Middle East. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 2. Cambridge; BirdLife International: 410pp.

Fanshawe, J.F. & Bennun, L.A. 1991. Bird conservation in Kenya: creating a national strategy. Bird Conservation International 1: 293–315.

Gardner, A., Anders, S., Asanga, C. & Nkengla, J. 1997. Community forest management at the Kilum-Ijim Forest Project: Lessons learned so far. In: Doolan, S. (ed.) African rainforests and the conservation of biodiversity. Proceedings of the Limbe conference. Oxford; Earthwatch Europe: 62–67.

Gordon, I. in press. The Kipepeo Project: Conservation with the butterfly touch. NMK Horizons.

Grimmett, R.F.A. & Jones, T.A. 1989. Important Bird Areas in Europe. ICBP Technical Publication No. 9. Cambridge; ICBP.

IIED 1994. Whose Eden? An overview of community approaches to wildlife management. London; International Institute for Environment and Development: 124pp.

Kosgey, D.K. 1998. Status and habitat choice of Turner’s Eremomela Eremomela turneri (Van Someren 1920) in South Nandi Forest Reserve, Kenya. MPhil thesis, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya.

Lens, L., Muchai, M., Bennun, L. & Duchateau, L. in press. How grassland fragmentation and change in land-use affect Sharpe’s Longclaw, Macronyx sharpei, a Kenya highland endemic. Ostrich (suppl.).

Matiku, P.M. & Bennun, L.A. in press. Distribution and population size of the threatened East Coast Akalat in Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Ostrich (suppl.).

Matiku, P.M. 1996. Habitat selection and distribution of the East Coast Akalat Sheppardia gunningi sokokensis in Arabuko-Sokoke forest, Kenya. M.Phil. thesis, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya.

McNeely, J.A. 1995. Economic incentives for conserving biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. In: Bennun, L.A., Aman, R. & Crafter, S.A. (eds) Conservation of biodiversity in Africa: Local initiatives and institutional roles: 185–193.

Miller, K., Allegretti, M.H., Johnson, N. & Jonsson, B. (eds) 1995. Measures for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components. In: Heywood, V.H. & Watson, R.T. (eds) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press for United Nations Environment Programme: 1140pp.

Muchai, S.M. 1998. Some aspects of the conservation biology of Sharpe’s Longclaw (Macronyx sharpei Jackson, 1904) - a Kenya grassland endemic bird. MPhil thesis, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya.

Mupada, E. 1997. Towards collaborative forest management in the conservation of Uganda’s rain forests. In: Doolan, S. (ed.) African rainforests and the conservation of biodiversity. Proceedings of the Limbe conference. Oxford; Earthwatch Europe: 68–76.

Njoroge, P. & Bennun, L. in press. Status and conservation of Hinde’s Babbler Turdoides hindei, a threatened species in an agricultural landscape. Ostrich (suppl.).

Njoroge, P. & Mutinda, D. 1996. Notes on nesting of Hinde’s Babbler Turdoides hindei and Northern Pied Babbler T. hypoleucus in Kenya. Ostrich 67: 170–172.

Njoroge, P., Bennun, L.A. & Lens, L. in press. Habitat use by the globally endangered Hinde’s Babbler Turdoides hindei and its sympatric relative, the Northern Pied Babbler T. hypoleucus. Bird Conservation International.

Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. & Wege, D.C. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world. Priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife Conservation Series no. 7. Cambridge; BirdLife International.

Stowe, T.J., Newton, A.V., Green, R.E. & Mayes, E. 1993. The decline of the corncrake, Crex crex in Britain and Ireland in relation to habitat. Journal Applied Ecology 30: 53-62.

Stuart, S.N. 1995. Conservation of biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Bennun, L.A., Aman, R. & Crafter, S.A. (eds) Conservation of biodiversity in Africa: Local initiatives and institutional roles: 185–193.

Tucker, G.M. & Evans, M.I. 1997. Habitats for birds in Europe. A conservation strategy for the wider environment. BirdLife Conservation Series no. 6. Cambridge; BirdLife International: 464pp.

Turner, D.A. 1992. Threatened birds of Kenya 2: Hinde’s Pied Babbler. Kenya Birds 1:46–47.

Virani, M. in press. Home range and movement patterns of Sokoke Scops Owl Otus ireneae. Ostrich (suppl.).

Wass, P. (ed.) 1995a. Kenya’s indigenous forests. Status, management and conservation. Gland & Cambridge; IUCN: 205pp.

Wass, P. 1995b. The Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project (KIFCON): An integrated approach to site conservation. In: Bennun, L.A., Aman, R. & Crafter, S.A. (eds) Conservation of biodiversity in Africa: Local initiatives and institutional roles: 271–284.

Watts, J., Scott, P. & Mutebi, J. 1995. Forest assessment and monitoring for conservation and local use: experience in three Ugandan National Parks. In: Carter, J. (ed.) Recent approaches to participatory forest resource assessment. Rural Development Forestry Study Guide no. 2. London; Overseas Development Institute: 212–245.

Wiens, J.A. 1995. Habitat fragmentation: island v. landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Ibis 137, suppl. 1: 97–104.