REGIONAL REPORTS

Harnessing Butterfly Biodiversity

for Improving Livelihoods and Forest
Conservation: The Kipepeo Project
IAN GORDON
WASHINGTON A YIEMBA

The Kipepeo Project is n co111m11nity-bnsed butterfly farming project on the

margins of Arab11ko-Sokoke Forest on the north canst of Kenya. This f orest is n
globnlly important forest for biodiversity conservation. In the early 1990s,
54% to 59% of the local co11111111nity wanted the entire forest cl enred for settlement nnd tireforest wns i11vnded by farmers on several occasions. The Kipepeo
Project wns set 11p to c/rn11ge co1111111111ity nttit11des to tireforest by giving them n
stake in its conservation. Kipepeo trained farmers living next to the forest to
renr forest b11tterflies. B11tterfly pupae were p11rclrnsed fro111 the farm ers for
export to the live b11tterfly exhibit ind11stry in E11rope nnd tire United States.
C1111111lntive comm11nity earnings fro111 1994 to 2001 exceeded $130,000 with
significant positive effects on both livelihoods nnd attitudes. The project hns
been finmrcinlly self-s11stnining since 1999. B11tterfly monitoring indicates
tlrnt there hnve bee11 no adverse effects on wild butterfly populations.
Keywords: Arab11ko-Sokoke Forest; b11tterfly farming; inco111e generation;
11onti111berforest products;forest-ndjncent communities; benefit
shnri11g

Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (ASF) is an island of unique biodiversity in a

sea of human poverty. Lying on the north coast of Kenya and occupying
an area of 42,000 hectares, it is the largest remaining protected fragment
of a forest mosaic that once stretched from southern Somalia to northern
Mozambique. Because of its relictual status (Burgess, Clarke, & Rodgers,
1998), it is also one of the most important biodiversity sites in Kenya. It
has been ranked as the second most important forest for threatened bird
conservation on mainland Africa (Collar & Stuart, 1988) and is one of 19
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Kenya that have been prioritized as critical sites for intensive and immediate conservation action (Bennun &
fo11r11nl of E11 viro11111e11l & Develop111e11t, Vol. 12, N o. 1, March 2003 82-98
DOI: 10.1177 /1070496502250439
2003 Sage Publica lions

82

Schwartz I IMPACT OF STATE CAPACITY

81

Skocpol, T. (1990). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In
P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the state back in (pp. 3-43). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Smil, V. (1998). The e11viro11111ent outlook for Chinn. Unpublished manuscript.
State Environmental Protection Administration. (1998). Selected e11viro11111e11tnl standards of
the People's Republic of Chinn (1979-1997). Beijing: Author.
State Environmental Protection Administration. (n.d.) Report 011 the state of tile e11viro11111e11t
in Chinn 2000. Retrieved December 5, 2001, from http:/ /www.zhb.gov.cn/english/
SOE/ soechina2000 I english/water I water_e.htm
State plan for protection of the ecosystem good for all. (1999, February 15). T/1e Chinn Daily.
State Statistical Bureau. (1987-1997). Zhong Guo To11gji Nin11jin11 [State statistical yearbook of
China] . Beijing: Zhong Guo Tongj i Chuban She.
Stepan, A. (1978). The state and society: Peru in co111pnrntive perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Taihu's water quality improves. (1999, January 8). T/1e C/1i11n Daily.
Too many nutrients harm lake. (1998, December 3). The C/1i11n Daily.
Turner, J. L., & Wu, F. (2001). Development of environmental NGOs in Mainland China,
Taiwan and Hong Kong. In Proceedings ofGreen NGOn11d E11viro11111e11tnl ]oumnlist For11111
(pp. 1-2). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
World Bank. (1997). Clear water, blue skies: China's enviro11111ent in the new century. Washington, DC: Author.
World Health Organization. (1993). Guidelines for drinking water quality (2nd ed ., Vols. 1 and
2). Geneva: Author.
Wu, F. (2002). New partners or old brothers? GONGOs in transnational environmental
advocacy in China. Chinn E11viro11111e11t Series, 5, 45-58.
Young, 0. R. (1979). Co111plinnce and public nut/10rity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Yu, J., & Yang, J. (2001). National efforts to tackle pollution in Tni/111 Lnke. Retrieved May 12,
2001, from http:/ /www.chinaenvironment.com/ english/ channel/pollution/waste/
taihu.html
Yunnan Sheng Tongji Ju. (1986-1996). Y111111n11 To11gji Nin11jinn [Statistical yearbook of
Yunnan]. Beijing: Zhong Guo Tongji Chuban She.

]011nthn11 Schwartz is nssistn11t professor of political science nt tile State University of New York nt
New Paltz where he teaches courses in enviro11111e11t politics n11d i11temntionnl relations. His P/1.D.
i11 political scie11ce is fro111 the U11iversity of Toro11to. His research interests include evnl11nti11g the
effect of various factors i11J111e11ci11g policy e11force111ent, specifically, the role of civil society groups.
His regional focus is developing cou11tries in the Asia Pncific/Chi11n.

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

83

Njoroge, 1999). ASF is part of the East African Coastal Forest/Eastern

Arc Forest complex that ranks among the top 25 biodiversity hotspots on
Earth (Myers, Mittermeier, Mittermeier, da Fonseca, & Kent, 2000). The
forest is home to six globally threatened bird species and an additional
five bird species that are coastal endemics. Of the six globally threatened
species, two, the Sokoke Scops Owl and Clarke's Weaver, are each
known only from ASF and one other site (East Usambara Mountains in
Tanzania and the Dakatcha Woodlands, respectively) . A further eight
bird species (of a total of 270 species) found in ASF are regionally threatened. ASF also has an exceptionally diverse amphibian fauna, including
the coastal endemic Bunty's Toad. There are three rare near-endemic
mammals (Ader's Duiker, Golden-Rumped Sengi, and the Sokoke
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose). A small population of around 100 elephants
lives in the forest. There are six taxa of butterflies that are coastal
endemics including one (Charaxes blanda) that is virtually a forest
endemic. An unknown number of other invertebrate species must also
be forest endemics.
The forest is surrounded on all sides by village communities. There
are 51 villages actually bordering on the forest and having a population
of about 110,000 people. These people are predominantly of the Giriama
tribe who settled in the area west of the forest more than 100 years ago
and moved on to areas east of the forest in the 1950s and 1960s. Average
household size is more than 13, and 55% of the households consist of
multiple families. The population density ofKilifi District has risen from
47 to 60 people per km 2 between 1989 and 1997 (Government of Kenya,
1997). The original population of the surrounding area belonged to the
hunter-gatherer Sanya tribe. Prior to the protection (gazettement) of the
forest by the colonial government of Kenya in 1932, they used it freely for
their subsistence needs. A small group of Sany a still lives on the northern
side of the forest. Although they grow maize and other crops, they still
hunt in the forest and are frequently involved in illegal cutting of
polewood.
Subsistence agriculture is the main occupation of the surrounding
population. This includes the production of maize, cassava, and beans,
with income supplemented by cash crops such as cashew, mango, and
coconut. Agricultural land is generally poor, and crop yields are low. The
mean size of farm holdings is 6.9 ha (0.5 ha per capita), with farms growing an average of 1.6 ha of maize. Most households own goats (average
of five per household), but tsetse flies and a lack of grazing are constraints to cattle keeping. Although many uses of the forest for subsistence or income generation are illegal, they still continue. Forest usage
includes collection of water, fuelwood, poles, and herbs; butterfly farming; and hunting of wildlife for meat. Participatory assessments with
local communities indicate that building poles are perhaps the single
most important product used from the forest. Communities on the west-

84

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

em side of the forest rely on it more heavily than those on the east due to
differences in availability of trees on private land and a greater degree of
comparative affluence on the east.
In 1991 the average declared household income in the forest-adjacent
community was estimated at KSh 17,300, giving a per capita income of
only KSh 1,470 ($20 at current rates) (Mogaka, 1991). In 1993, an independent survey along the wealthier eastern margin of the forest gave a
per capita income of KSh 2,728 ($40) (Maundu, 1994). By any standards,
this is an impoverished community, and it is not surprising that its members have had little concern for the conservation of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. Instead, the forest has been seen as the source of many of their problems. In 1991, 96% of the farmers (N = 32) were unhappy with the forest,
and 54% wanted it completely cleared for settlement (Mogaka, 1991). In
a follow-up survey in 1993 (Maundu, 1994), 59% (N = 142) wanted the
whole forest cleared.
The reasons for this discontent will be familiar to any conservationist
working with the legacy of state-controlled forests in the developing
world: poverty, resource denial, wildlife crop raiding, and hunger for
land (Maundu, 1994; Mogaka, 1991). Because of poverty, the local communities were forced to rely on the" free resources" of the forest, yet their
legal access to these resources was strictly limited by the forest department and the status of the forest as a gazetted (protected) forest reserve.
To gain access, they had to risk arrest and beatings and / or pay bribes to
corrupt forest guards. Poverty was worsened by wildlife crop raiding by
animals from the forest (mainly elephants and baboons), causing considerable losses of maize, cassava, mangoes, and coconuts. Elephants also
caused deaths, injuries, and destruction to property and were the single
most important cause of hostility to the forest. There is no government
compensation for loss of crops or injuries caused by wildlife; only in the
event of death is any compensation paid, and then only KSh 30,000
($400), and that only after persistent claims. Hunger for land resulted in
forest invasions in 1993-1994, led by local councilors, and to sustained
campaigns for the removal of government protection (degazettement) in
two areas of the forest (Kararacha and Mida). The following quotations
(Maundu, 1994) give a good impression of community feelings about the
forest in the early 1990s:
This is Government's forest, you cannot get inside, if you are caught there
with even a grass twig you are arrested.
You receive a thorough beating even when goats are found browsing at the
edge of the forest.
It is not useful to me but to the Government because it benefits from it.
Elephants have made us poor here.
We don't plant here because of elephants.

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

85

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. (p. 34)

The situation at Arabuko-Sokoke provided the context and the rationale for Kipepeo, a project administered by the East Africa Natural History Society (EANHS, now Nature Kenya [NK]) in partnership with the
National Museums of Kenya (NMK). Kipepeo was started in 1993 with
$50,000 from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Small Grants
Programme. Its objective was to change local attitudes by enabling the
forest-adjacent community to get cash incomes from rearing forest butterflies for export to the live butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and
America. This industry depends on the importation of live butterfly
pupae from tropical butterfly farms. The adult butterflies that eclose
from these pupae are flown in simulated natural surroundings in protected enclosures, and members of the public pay gate fees to view them.
From small beginnings in Britain and Japan in the late 1970s, the live butterfly exhibit industry has grown to become a multimillion-dollar global
enterprise. In the early 1990s, there were no large-scale suppliers of African butterflies for the exhibit market.
Butterfly farming is particularly well suited as an income-earning
venture for forest-adjacent communities. It requires relatively little
investment, uses simple equipment and materials that are usually
locally available in one form or another, and the basic skills are easily
learned. Moreover, because the resource base for butterfly farming (in
terms of both butterflies and foodplants) depends on the continued presence of forest habitat, butterfly farmers experience a daily and compelling linkage between their livelihood and forest conservation. Butterfly
farming also has spin-offs for ecotourism through the publicity and curiosity that it generates (particularly when first introduced) and through
the opportunity it provides for living and attractive displays of its own
operations and of forest biodiversity.

Project History
It was decided to work with those farmers who lived immediately on
the eastern forest edge because they were easily accessible, nearest the
resource, suffered most from crop raiding, and knew most about what
was going on in the forest. Patrick Maundu, an NMK ethnobotanist,
organized meetings through the local chiefs where the project was
explained. The households immediately next to the forest were identified. Maundu then visited each of these households, conducting a ques-

86

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

tionnaire and recruiting participants. He interviewed 142 households,

and 133 of them agreed to participate (Maundu, 1994). Information on
the forest butterflies came from a 9-month inventory and monitoring
master's degree research project (Ayiemba, 1997). This showed which
species were most abundant, where, and when and provided valuable
baseline data on butterfly abundance before the project began.
Between June and December 1993, the groundwork for the project
was completed. Butterfly species targeted for export were selected on
the basis of likely demand, seasonal availability, and ease of rearing.
Local larval food plants were determined and seedlings grown in a nursery at the project headquarters at Gede Ruins. 1 Breeding techniques
were developed and field tested using 25 volunteers from the community. A large flight cage and a breeding shed were built. A contract was
negotiated with a U.K. entomological dealer, and export procedures
were developed in consultation with the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS)
and a courier company in Mombasa (Gordon, 1994). Government
involvement in the project was restricted to granting approval for its
operations through the District Development Committee and the issuing of export and forest access permits by KWS and FD.
Exports started on schedule in February 1994, 8 months after the
receipt of funds to start the project, and by the end of 1994, Kipepeo had
exported more than 10,000 pupae belonging to 14 species, earning a little
under U.S. $16,000 in revenues. The next 4 years saw steady growth in
exports and revenues, with more 23,000 pupae exported in 1997 and
more than $41,000 earned by the project (Figure 1). El Nino rains starting
in 1997 halted growth in 1998, but 1999 was a record year, with almost
55,000 pupae of more than 30 species exported and more than $81,000
earned. Exports peaked in 2000 with gross earnings of $99,320. By the
end of 2001, cumulative export earnings had passed $400,000, more than
eight times the initial grant that set up the project, and annual income
had grown sixfold since 1994. The project has been financially selfsustaining since 1999 (see Table 1 for a breakdown of costs and income in
2000 and 2001) . The number of butterfly farmers increased from 133 in
1994 to 700 in 2002, and they now completely surround the forest. Limits
on the number of butterfly farmers are set by the market rather than by
resource scarcity, and there are currently no plans to further expand the
number of farmers unless new markets are identified.
In 1994, a third of the pupae were produced by Kipepeo staff members
at the project headquarters at Gede Ruins, whereas by 2000 all of prod uction was community based. The average price paid per pupa has also
increased so that community earnings have grown faster than those of
1. Gede Ruins is a national monument site containing the ruins of a 13th-century Swahili fortified settlement and a small coral-rag forest. It belongs to the National Museums of
Kenya and lies 18 kilometres south of the tourist resort of Malindi.

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

87

2001

2000

Year

Figure 1: Kipepeo Export Earnings: 1994-2001

Table 1
Financial Breakdown of Butterfly Export Business (2000-2001)
Item

Number of shipped pupae

Invoice value of shipped pupae (US$)
Value of viable shipped pupae (US$)
Loss rate (%$)
Exchange rate (KSh/US$)
Earnings from viable shipped pupae (KSh)
Production costs for pupae: purchases (KSh)
Production costs for pupae: operational (KSh)
Production costs for pupae: salaries
Profit from pupae business (KSh)

2000

56,023
113,518
99,320
12.51
73.56
7,306,227
2,806,415
2,080,248
1,221,270
1,198,294

2001
50,494
103,471
94,055
9.10
76.30
7,176,432
2,529,666
2,042,078
901,430
1,703,258

Note: The loss rate is expressed in terms of lost income in dollars and arises because some
of the pupae do not survive the transit process and no payments are received for these. Production costs include payments to the community for the butterfly pupae they produce
together with all other costs incurred by the normal operations of the butterfly export business. As a community project of the East Africa Natural History Society and National
Museums of Kenya, butterfly earnings are tax exempt.

the project (Figure 2). In 1994 they amounted to just over KSh 0.26 million (about $5,000 at that time). In 2000, annual earnings were just over
KSh 2.8 million ($38,000 at that time), a tenfold increase since 1994.
Cumulative community earnings from 1994 to 2001 exceeded KSh 10
million ($130,000 at today's rates).
The growth in community and project earnings from 1994 to 1999 was
made possible by an expanding market, particularly in the United

88

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

2,000,000

+-------------------!

~
~ 1,500,000
c:

+-------------------!

"'

+-------------------!

.c

en

.E
UJ

1,000,000

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Years

Figure 2:

Community Earnings From Butterfly Sales: 1994-2001

States. In 1994, Kipepeo exported to a single client. By 1999 there were 11

major customers, two based in the United Kingdom and accounting for
more than 60% of sales and the rest in the United States and Canada.
Since 1999, however, markets have been more or less static. In 2001 they
were impacted by the foot and mouth epidemic in Britain and the September 11th atrocity in the United States, both of which reduced the
numbers of tourists. Despite the setbacks that periodically affect tourism, butterfly exhibits have proved to be enduring public attractions and
are now a standard feature of the tourist industry from Asia to the Americas. The majority are owned by the private sector, although some are
run by museums and nonprofit organizations. They have attracted substantial private and corporate investment: A highly successful exhibit at
Niagara Falls was constructed in 1996 at a cost of $11 million and was
profitable in its first year of operation.

A Self-Evaluation
This brief history of Kipepeo raises several questions. How much has
it added value to Arabuko-Sokoke Forest? Has it affected local attitudes
to the forest? How much has it succeeded in improving community livelihoods? Have there been any unanticipated negative effects? Have the
earnings been evenly spread? Have the socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the community benefited from Kipepeo? Have
there been any other spin-offs for conservation? Has butterfly harvesting for farming operations affected wild butterfly populations in the for-

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

89

est? Is Kipepeo sustainable? Can it be replicated? Some of these questions are more easily answered than others.
ADDED VALUE

Kipepeo has certainly added value to the forest. Table 2 shows official
institutional revenues generated from the forest from 1996 to 2001. Over
this 6-year period, butterfly sales account for 80% of all recorded revenues from the forest, with 15% coming from forest department licenses,
fines, and royalties for timber products; 3% from tourism; and 2% from
beekeeping. This could be viewed as further evidence for the high value
of non timber forest products but is best seen as an artifact of unrecorded
and illegal off-take (particularly of Brachylaenn for carving and
polewood for house construction), low government royalties for timber
products (especially fuelwood), and a forest from which most of the
commercially valuable timber has already been removed. One incidental conclusion, however, is unaffected by this caveat: Tourism is a low
earner in a forest where the average visitor sees little but trees.
ATTITUDES AND LIVELIHOODS

Kipepeo has had an effect on both attitudes and livelihoods, but it is

hard to judge how great this effect has been. In 1997, Patrick Maundu
repeated his socioeconomic and attitudinal survey of 1993 (Maundu,
Sojah, & Kilili, 1997). He found that the proportion of Kipepeo farmers
wanting the entire forest cleared and settled had fallen from 59% to 16%
and that butterfly earnings contributed some 73% of farmers' cash
incomes from farm products. In 1999, the average butterfly earnings of a
subset of 217 Kipepeo farmers had risen to KSh 5,854, more than twice
the per capita income recorded in 1993 (KSh 2,728).
The problem is of course that Kipepeo farmers constitute a small fraction of the forest-adjacent community (at best, including family members, some 8% of the 110,000 people in the 18 sublocations next to the forest). For this reason, an independent assessment by the African Wildlife
Foundation concluded that Kipepeo had had little penetration although
its impact had been significant for those who participated in the project.
It is clear that Kipepeo alone cannot solve the problem of local hostility to
the forest, but at another level, its impact has been greater than is at first
apparent. Since Kipepeo started, the local commwtity has been able, for
the first time, to enjoy legal cash revenues from the forest. The awareness
of this, aided by favorable local press coverage, has spread beyond the
target group of Kipepeo farmers and has influenced public perceptions
of the forest, not least in the consciousness of the district administrations.
A more concrete demonstration of impacts on attitudes has emerged
from the farmers' actions in response to the threatened excision at

90

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

Table 2
Recorded Revenues From Arabuko-Sokoke Forest (1996-2001)
Item
Kenya Wildlife Service tourism
Forest department revenues
Beekeeping
Butterfly sales
Total

KSh

911,653
4,785,753
805,106
25,794,566
32,297,078

2.8
14.8
2.5
79.9

Kararacha and the 1994 squatter invasion of this area. Some of the
Kipepeo farmers protested to the local district commissioner against the
campaign for degazettement. One of the Kipepeo Self-Help Groups 2
(formed with the assistance of the project) delivered a protest letter to a
presidential commission when it visited to investigate the matter. In
December 1997, a spokesman for the farmers went to the press, saying in
the Daily Nation 3 that the forest should be left alone and that any excisions would deprive them of their butterfly farming income. President
Moi has since made it clear that there would be no excisions at ArabukoSokoke. There were several forces behind this decision, including vigorous lobbying by Nairobi-based nongovernmental organizations, but
there is a widespread belief on the ground that community divisions
(pro- and antidegazettement) related to Kipepeo greatly weakened their
claims on the forest and the case for degazettement. This has had unfortunate consequences in the form of death threats to Kipepeo farmers from
community members who supported the degazettement campaign and
who also suspected that the butterfly farmers were informing the forest
management about poaching activities in the forest.
In terms of livelihoods, an important issue, concealed by average and
total earnings is the distribution of income within the participating individuals and households. Figure 3 shows this distribution of the subset of
217 farmers in 1999. It is regrettably but inevitably J-shaped, broadly
reflecting the amount of effort each individual/household put into butterfly farming. Ten percent of the group earned nothing at all, and 53%
earned less than KSh 3,000. Nineteen percent earned between 3,000 and
6,000 shillings, whereas 4% earned more than KSh 27,000. The biggest
earners were the representatives of the self-help groups who are respon2. Eight Kipepeo self-help groups were formed by the farmers in 1996. Each group had
its own constitution (broadly dedicated to conservation and development) and bank
account and was registered with the Department of Social Services. Kipepeo holds back
KSh 5 for each butterfly pupa purchased from the members of each group and pays the
accumulated amount into the self-help group savings account at the end of the year.
3. The Daily Nation is Kenya's most widely read newspaper with a circulation of 180,000
and an estimated readership of 3.8 million.

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

0-3000

300 1-6000

600 19CXlO

9001-1 2000

12001 -15000

1500 1-1 6000

1600 1-21 000

2 100 1-24000

2400 1-27000

91

>27000

KSh earned

Figure 3: Frequency Distribution of Farmer Income Levels in 1999 (N =217 Farmers)

sible for collecting and distributing the payments for the pupae produced by their groups and who got KSh 5 per pupa for doing so. The top
farmer, who was a representative, earned KSh 78,825 ($1,120). This subset of farmers was not characterized for social status and wealth ranking,
so the data do not address the question of benefits to the disadvantaged,
although it is worth noting that the top farmer, Kidhuku Baya, is disabled and has concentrated on butterfly farming precisely because it is
physically undemanding work.
OTHER BENEFITS

The major other benefits of Kipepeo have been in awareness raising

and education. More than 10,000 visitors to the project have learned
about the forest and its adjacent communities. For most of them this was
their first exposure to the biological uniqueness of the coastal forests of
Kenya and to the problems of forest-adjacent communities (most notably with forest wildlife). More than 50 schools and polytechnic and university groups have also visited the project. Through the efforts of a British volunteer, Tansy Bliss, Kipepeo established 17 Wildlife Clubs in
forest-adjacent schools, and the project has served as a focus for some of
their activities. The Kipepeo farmers and their families have also learned
about the forest and its global significance as well as about the butterflies
and their foodplants. They now have an easy familiarity with many of
the Latin names, and their in-depth experience in rearing has taught
them about insect parasites and diseases. Many of the children know
more about insect life histories than the average zoology undergraduate
in the country's universities.
On a wider front, three short videos on the project have been broadcast on international television (one on more than 80 different TV channels worldwide), and radio interviews have been aired on the Kenya

92

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

Broadcasting Corporation, 4 BBC World Service, Studio Brussels, US

Public Broadcasting Service, and the Voice of America African Service.
There have been numerous articles on the project in magazines and the
national and international press. In 1998, Kipepeo was 1of10 winners of
the Dubai International Award for Best Practices in Improving the Living Environment,5 and this led to further publicity in the international
print and electronic media. Talks on the project and the forest have been
given in Kenya, Uganda, Dubai, Britain, Costa Rica, and the United
States. All of this free publicity has helped to raise awareness about
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest. The cost of the airtime alone would far exceed
the money raised for the project from donors.
SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY

The sustainability of Kipepeo depends on (a) maintaining and

improving production levels, (b) expanding markets, and (c) the
resource base. Current plans are to increase production levels in pace
with expanding markets, but this is an awkward balancing act that leads
to disappointment for the client or the community when it fails. The biggest problem is the vulnerability of butterfly operations to unfavorable
weather. The effect of El Nino on production was noted earlier and
resulted from excessive rains. There was no dry season in 1997-1998, and
the normal boom in production in May and June did not take place in
1998. Figure 4 shows monthly production levels in the 2 years: That for
1999 is normal, and that for 1998 aberrant. It is likely that the more or less
continual rains through the intervening dry season allowed pathogen
and parasite levels to persist through the dry season months. Another
factor may have been the lack of a nutrient flush in the forest at the start
of the rains in May and June. If too much rain is a problem, too little is
worse. If there were two or three dry years in succession, Kipepeo would
need support to stay afloat. Butterfly farming is just as vulnerable to
weather as is conventional agriculture.
Markets present a further challenge. Although the general market
trend has been upward, four clients have been lost: one went bankrupt
(leaving the project with a bad debt of $4,000), two withdrew because of
an unsuitable species mix for their particular exhibits, and one was
dropped after pressure from a rival. There is still an overreliance on one
major client (Stratford Butterfly Farm), and if this client were lost,
Kipepeo would be in trouble (Figure 5). Kipepeo is also likely to face
increasing competition as butterfly farming spreads through the African
4. The Kenya Broadcasting Service has up to 8 million listeners within Kenya.
5. The Dubai International Award is jointly administered by the Dubai Municipality
and the United Nations Habitat programme. It recognizes outstanding achievements in
improving the living environment. In 1998, there were 450 submissions worldwide. The 10
winning projects each received a cash prize ($30,000) and a trophy.

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

93

Month

lo 199s a 1999 I
Figure 4:

Kipepeo Monthly Exports: 1998-1999

$3,192.78

$30,549.00

C Butterfly Pavilion
Butterfly Place

D Cambridge, Ontario
0 Chesterfield, Ohio

Day
CFlorida
London Pupae Supplies

0 Michael Boppre
North Carolina
D Philadelphia
DStratford

Figure 5: Kipepeo Earnings From Different Clients in 1999

continent. Maintaining and improving product quality, continued attendance at the annual International Congress of Butterfly Exhibitors and
Suppliers6, and a Web site (www.kipepeo.org) will all help to keep the
market edge that Kipepeo currently enjoys, but developing a local mar-

94

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

ket in the form of a tourist exhibit in Mombasa is essential for longer term
market security. A proposal for such an exhibit is being developed for
submission to the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) and the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
The resource base of Kipepeo is the forest itself, its vegetation, and its
wild populations of butterflies. As long as the forest is there, the vegetation will not be a problem, but what about the butterflies? Table 3 shows
results from two 9-month periods of butterfly monitoring, one in 1993
before butterfly harvesting started and one in 1997 after 4 years of operations. Monitoring involved walking transects and counting sightings.
This produced data on 60 species, of which 23 had been harvested and 37
had not. As climatic conditions and overall butterfly abundance were
very different in the two years, comparisons between them of numbers
on an individual species basis would not be helpful. Instead, the overall
ranks are compared for the two periods on the hypothesis that if harvesting had adversely affected wild populations, then there would be a significant difference in ranking and the harvested species would have
lower ranks in 1997 than in 1993. The results show that although butterflies were significantly more abundant in 1997, there was no significant
change in rank abundance for the set of 60 species and that harvested
species actually ranked nonsignificantly higher in abundance in 1997
than they had in 1993. On the basis of this evidence, butterfly harvesting
seems not to be having any impact on wild populations, but the project
continues to monitor the situation.
The last question is whether Kipepeo is replicable. The answer is yes,
subject to markets, the capacity to get pupae to the markets quickly (in
practice, within 4 to 5 days from pupation), and rainfall patterns. Costa
Rica, where butterfly farming has been practiced since the early 1980s,
currently exports around $1 million worth of live butterflies a year, and
the market for East African butterflies must be at least as large. Even so,
the market ceiling is low. Kipepeo is only an hour's drive away on a tarmac road from international couriers, and the paperwork required for
export can now be obtained in a matter of minutes: Similar conditions of
rapid access to couriers and minimal paperwork would be essential for
any replicate operation. The other factor in Kipepeo's favor is the rainfall
pattern: Although the rains start too late to catch the annual surge in
global demand that starts in March and April and ends in October, peak
production (June to August) still coincides with the main market season.
A butterfly farm in an area where the rains came a little earlier in the year
would be well placed to succeed.
6. The International Congress of Butterfly Exhibitors and Suppliers is attended by the
world's leading butterfly farmers and butterfly exhibitors and was first held in 1997. It provides a major marketing opportunity for butterfly farmers to make personal contacts with
their clients.

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

95

Table 3
Counts of Butterflies in Arabuko-Sokoke Nature Reserve in 1993 and 1997

Species

Total
Cou11t
1993

Total
Collnt
1997

Mean
Count
1993
(189
Hours)

Papilio constantinus*
Papilio dardm111s*
Papilio 11ireus*
Papilio demodorns*
Gmplziwn philonoe*
Gmphium leo11idas*
Gmphium kirbyi*
Gmphiwn co/01111a*
Gmplzillm antheus*
Gmplziwn port/won*
Dixea clwrina
Catopsilia flore/la
Eure111a species
Pinacopteryx eviphia
Nephronia tlwlassina
Eron in cleodom
Colotis regina
Colotis ione
Colotis euippe
Colotis eris
Colotis auxo
Colotis evagore
Belenois creona
Belenois gidica
Belenois thysa
Appias epap!zia
Leptosia a/cesta
Mylothris agathina
Danaus chrysippus*
Amauris niavius*
A111auris och/ea
Melanitis leda*
Bicyc/11s safitza
Ypthima asterope
Euryplmm aclilys
Bebearia cliriemhilda
E11phaedm neophro11*
Neptis species
Byb!ia ilitlzyia
E11rytela dryope

522
265
470
81
120
14
70
135
164
64
158
727
1,722
21
234
1,406
495
732
913
252
114
24
316
7
621
48
1,883
76
104
7
8
22
142
28
80
29
327
235
45
25

1,259
832
639
768
255
2
20
547
270
210
604
883
4,292
28
446
2,355
783
629
976
118
265
0
5,114
335
2,551
934
3,301
34
264
5
0
134
297
0
36
20
856
133
518
4

2.76
1.40
2.49
0.43
0.63
0.07
0.37
0.71
0.87
0.34
0.84
3.85
9.11
0.11
1.24
7.44
2.62
3.87
4.83
1.33
0.60
0.13
1.67
0.04
3.29
0.25
9.96
0.40
0.55
0.04
0.04
0.12
0.75
0.15
0.42
0.15
1.73
1.24
0.24
0.13

Mean
Count
1997
(187
Hours)

Rank
1993

Rank
1997

6.73
4.45
3.42
4.11
1.36
0.01
0.11
2.93
1.44
1.12
3.23
4.72
22.95
0.15
2.39
12.59
4.19
3.36
5.22
0.63
1.42
0.00
27.35
1.79
13.64
4.99
17.65
0.18
1.41
0.03
0.00
0.72
1.59
0.00
0.19
0.11
4.58
0.71
2.77
0.02

10
16
12
31
26
49
34
24
20
35
21
7
2
45.5
19
3
11
6
5
17
28
43
14
56.5
8
36
1
33
29
56.5
54
44
22
41
32
40
13
18
38
42

8
14
20
16
32
54
46.5
24
29
34
22
12
2
45
26
6
15
21
9
38
30
58
1
27
5
10
4
43.5
31
51
58
35.5
28
58
42
46.5
13
37
25
52.5

(co11ti1111ed)

96

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

Table 3 (continued)

Species
Hypolinmas misipp11s*
Hypolimnas deceptor
Hypolimnas anthedon
Salamis anacardii*
f1111onia oenone*
f1monia hierta
f unonia natalica
Junonia terea
Phalanta phalantha
Acraea species
Pardopsis punctatissima
Phsycaeneura leda
Charaxes varanes*
Charaxes candiope*
Charaxes cithaeron*
Charaxes protoclea*
Euxanthe wakefieldi*
Tirwnula petiverana*
Pseudacraea boisduvali
Hanna theobene

Total
Count
1993

Total
Count
1997

Mean
Count
1993
(189
Hours)

574
102
6
12
279
21
141
6
919
125
46
119
43
8
18
17
11
4
10
8

1450
903
14
134
766
34
575
4
4216
744
10
672
242
9
95
39
1
47
0
0

3.04
0.54
0.03
0.06
1.48
0.11
0.75
0.03
4.86
0.66
0.24
0.63
0.23
0.04
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.04

Wilcoxon's
Singed Test

Rank
1993

Rank
1997

7.75
4.83
0.07
0.72
4.10
0.18
3.07
0.02
22.55
3.98
0.05
3.59
1.29
0.05
0.51
0.21
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00

9
30
58.5
50
15
45.5
23
58.5
4
25
37
27
39
54
47
48
51
60
52
54

7
11
48
35.5
17
43.5
23
52.5
3
18
49
19
33
50
39
41
55
40
58
58

Speannan's
Correlation

Unharvested

z = 2.949

p = .003

r 2 = 0.9772

Harvested
(marked*)

z = 3.832

p < .001

1'2

All species

Mean
Count
1997
(187
Hours)

= 0.9926

Mean
rank=
28.68
Mean
rank=
33.23

Mean
rank=
30.18
Mean
rank=
30.98

r 2 = 0.9698

Summary and Conclusions

The Kipepeo Project links conservation and development at
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest on the north coast of Kenya through communitybased butterfly farming. It was started in 1993 and has earned over
$400,000 since then through the export of live butterfly pupae to the live

Gordon, Ayiemba I THE KIPEPEO PROJECT

97

butterfly exhibit industry in Europe and North America. The butterflies

have been reared by the forest-adjacent community using parental butterfly stock from the forest and forest food plants for the caterpillars. Butterfly monitoring has shown that there have been no negative effects on
the wild populations of butterflies in the forest. Community earnings
have accumulated to more than $130,000since1993 and have had significant positive effects both on livelihoods and attitudes toward the conservation of the forest. Kipepeo has shown, albeit on a small scale, that
integrating conservation and development can be a practical and effective strategy for natural resource management.

Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was presented at the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
Regional Biodiversity Forum in Mombasa in 2000. The authors acknowledge financial support from the Global Environment Facility Small
Grants Programme, the IUCN-Netherlands Tropical Rain Forest
Programme, the Biodiversity Support Program, a consortium of World
Wildlife Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Resources Institute, with funding by the United States Agency for International Development, the Chicago Zoological Society and Brookfield Zoo, the
National Museums of Kenya, and the EU-funded BirldLife International
Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management and Conservation Project. Above
all, we thank the farmers of Arabuko-Sokoke who made Kipepeo a reality. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or any of the organizations or funding bodies.

References
Ayiemba, W. 0. (1997). A stI1dy of tlze butterfly diversity of Arnbllko-Sokoke Forest, Ke11yn.
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Nairobi.
Bennun, L.A., & Njoroge, P. (1999). lnzportnnt Bird Arens in Kenya. Nairobi, Africa : Nature
Kenya.
Burgess, N . D., Clarke, G. P., & Rodgers, W. A. (1998). Coastal forests of eastern Africa: Status, endemism patterns and their potential causes. Biological foumnl of tlze Linnnenn Society, 64, 337-367.
Collar, N. J., & Stuart, S. N. (1988). Key forests for tlzrentened birds in Africa (Monograph Number 3). Cambridge, UK: International Council for Bird Preservation.
Gordon, I. J. (1994). Kipepeo project: Consultant's report. Unpublished manuscript.
Government of Kenya. (1997). Kilifi District develop111ent plan, 1997-2001 . Nairobi, Africa:
Government Printers.

98

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT & DEVELOPMENT

Maundu, P. (1994). Socio-eco110111ic survey nnd forest attitude report of tlze co111111unity borderi11g
Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest n11d Gn111e Reserve. Unpublished report of the Kipepeo Project,
Nairobi, Africa.
Maundu, P., Sojah, L., & Kilili, G. (1997). Report 011 tlze i111pncl of Kipepeo project 011 tlzeeco110111ic
status nnd forest attitude of tlze co111111unity bordering Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve. Unpublished manuscript.
Mogaka, H. (1991). Local utilisntion of tlze Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Resen;e. Unpublished
manuscript.
Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000).
Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858.

ln11 Gordo11 cn111e to Africa fro111 Britain to work ns n u11iversity lecturer i11 1971. Si11ce tlze11, lze hns
tnug/11 nl five African U11iversities iii Ghnnn, Zi111bnbwe, n11d Ke11yn. lll 1993 he left tlze university
tenchi11g professio11n11d111oved to Kilifi on the Ke11yn11 canst to sin rt the Kipepeo butterfly fnn11i11g
project nt Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest. lll 1998, Dr. Gordon left Kipepeo to beco111e coordinator of the EUfu11ded BirdLife l11ter11ntionnl Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Co11servntio11 n11d Mn11nge111e11t Project,
which ended in March 2002. He currently works ns the liend of the E11viro111nentnl Hen/th Division
nt the l11temntio11nl Centre of lllsect Physiology nnd Ecology.
Wnshi11gto11 Ayie111bn hns been n research scientist with the Nntio11nl Museums of Kenya since 1994.
Currently lie is the 111a11nger of the Kipepeo Project, n position held since 111id-1998. He trni11ed as n
co11servntio11 biologist nl the University of Nairobi n11d /ms bee11 actively involved in biodiversity
co11servntio11 n11d sustni11able use activities in the Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest area. He isn 111e111ber of the
Arnbuko-Sokoke Forest Mn11nge111e11t Ten111 thnl comprises four gover11111e11t depart111ents tlmt collnbornte closely witlz a Forest Adjacent Dwellers Associntio11, n11d he is chair to the Rural Develop111e11t Worki11g Group of the tea111.