6 
Bulletin of the EANHS 28(2) 
of elephants”; “The land is frustrating because whatever 
you plant is destroyed"; “Those of us who live near the 
forest endure a lot but this is unknown to the 
authorities"; “It [the forest] is a saving for farm land" 
To anyone working with communities and 
conservation in the developing world, these will be 
familiar themes: poverty, resource denial, wildlife crop- 
raiding, and hunger for land. The time has long since 
passed when such problems could be brushed aside by 
the rhetoric and spectacle of glossy wildlife magazines, 
movies and videos. The human settlements on the 
margins of protected areas cannot be wished away or 
their needs ignored. To always pul wildlife before people 
is not only fundamentally inhumane, it is also 
counterproductive as a conservation strategy. It is a 
potent recipe for conflict between local communities 
and wildlife managers. This conflict wastes time, energy 
and resources, prevents collaboration with those who 
could be valuable allies, and gives dangerous political 
leverage to those opposed to conservation. 
It is now widely recognised that conservation must 
go hand in hand with development. This approach is 
hard to implement but it is based on a strong foundation 
of common sense. It recognises that the future for 
conservation is bleak if rural communities do not support 
conservation efforts in their areas. It recognises that 
poverty destroys biodiversity as well as human lives. It 
recognises that if we want the people around Arabuko- 
Sokoke Forest to support its conservation, they have to 
benefit from it And they have to benefit sustainably, in 
ways that do not harm the forest. 
This then was the problem that had to be addressed: 
how could the forest edge community benefit from its 
presence in a sustainable way? The East Africa Natural 
History Society (EANHS) in partnership with the 
National Museums of Kenya (NMK), found a surprising 
and innovative answer—butterflies. There was a 
considerable demand for tropical butterflies for the live 
butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and America. If 
the Arabuko-Sokoke butterflies could be reared for 
export, then substantial revenues could be earned by 
the forest-edge community without a single tree needing 
to be cut. 
Initial funding for the project came from a US$ 
50,000 grant from the Global Environment Facility 
Small Grants Programme, administered by UNDP. 
Further support has come principally from the Chicago 
Zoological Society, the Netherlands Committee-IUCN 
Tropical Rainforest Programme, and the BirdLife 
International Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Conservation and 
Management Project funded by the European Union. 
SUCCESS FACTORS 
The key contributing factors to the success of the project 
were (i) partnerships, (ii) market conditions, and (iii) 
simple and appropriate techniques. The partnership 
between EANHS and NMK is long-standing and is 
greatly strengthened by the sharing of personnel at a 
senior level As a local NGO. EANHS was able to act 
quickly to implement the project at a grassroots level in 
a flexible manner, entrusting decisions on the ground 
to a project manager with appropriate experience. As a 
parastatal, NMK provided technical and financial 
resources that a local NGO acting alone could never 
have commanded. The contribution and involvement of 
other partners in the project was also crucial. A 
Memorandum of Understanding between the Kenya 
Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Forest Department 
(FD), backed by a national policy that encouraged 
sustainable biodiversity utilisation, eased the way for 
the issue of forest licenses and wildlife export permits. 
The financial benefits for the local community ensured 
their participation and the co-operation of local 
govemmem officials, aided by a clear procedure for 
project approvals at District level. All of these factors 
together created an enabling environment for the 
partnerships that have underpinned the success of 
Kipepeo. 
The importance of market conditions for the project 
is obvious. Without the demand for African butterflies 
for the live butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and 
America, Kipepeo could not even have been conceived. 
Although this industry had been established for some 
time, most livestock had come from Asia and South 
and Central America. Butterfly exhibitors were eager 
to get new species and there were no large-scale 
suppliers of butterflies from Africa. There was therefore 
a vacant market niche. Access to this niche was 
facilitated by the relatively good communications and 
transport facilities that exist in Kenya, including 
telephone, fax and email links and the proximity of the 
project to international courier facilities in Mombasa. 
Simple and appropriate techniques for rearing 
butterflies ensured that farmers could be trained quickly 
and provided with the requisite material inputs. Rearing 
procedures for caterpillars could be boiled down to three 
simple rules: keep clean, keep safe, keep fed. Basic 
equipment consisted of pl astic containers (old margarine 
and cooking fat tubs) and mosquito-net bags, together 
with butterfly nets and traps. Local knowledge of forest 
trees and plants meant that appropriate foodplants for 
the different butterfly species were easily recognised 
and remembered. Two other factors contributed to the 
rapid adoption of a butterfly farming, quick rewards 
(four-six weeks from butterfly egg to the finished 
product) and flexible input of time and effort (from 
less than an hour a day to a full time activity, depending 
on commitment). 
PROJECT IMPACT 
The initial GEF grant was received in June 1993 and 
the first export went out in February 1994. By the end 
of the year Kipepeo had netted almost 16,000 US dollars 
in export earnings, and the forest edge community had 
earned over 250,000 Kenyan shillings (ca. US$ 4,000). 
By 1997, these annual earnings had risen to over 
US$ 37,000 and KSh 800.000 respectively. By August 
1996. cumulative export earnings had exceeded the 
