The Mara Cheetah Project (MCP) is a long-term, science-driven cheetah conservation initiative in the Greater Mara ecosystem. It was established to answer a deceptively simple but high-stakes question: are cheetahs in the Mara truly secure, and if not, what precisely is driving decline—and what interventions will actually work? An authoritative Oxford summary describes MCP’s core purpose as conserving cheetahs in one of their remaining strongholds by identifying threats and developing sustainable mitigation solutions.

Why cheetah conservation was necessary in the Masai Mara

Population size was small and uncertain:
By around 2013, cheetah numbers in the Masai Mara were widely cited as low (roughly on the order of a few dozen individuals), but—critically—these figures were based on opportunistic sightings and rough extrapolations, not robust population science. This uncertainty itself was a conservation risk.
No reliable baseline or trend data:
Prior to the establishment of the Mara Cheetah Project, there was no long-term, individual-based monitoring of cheetahs in the Mara. Conservation decisions were being made without knowing whether the population was stable, declining, or already functionally vulnerable.
Extremely low cub survival rates:
Research emerging around this period showed that cub survival in open savannah systems like the Mara can be very low, often with only a small fraction of cubs surviving to independence, driven by predation (especially by lions and hyenas) and disturbance. Low recruitment meant that even small increases in adult mortality could trigger decline.
High sensitivity to disturbance compared to other predators:
Unlike lions or hyenas, cheetahs are behaviorally sensitive. In 2013, increasing tourism vehicle density, especially around hunts and kills, was suspected to interfere with feeding success and cub provisioning—posing a threat that was largely unmanaged and unmeasured at the time.
Habitat fragmentation outside the reserve:
By 2013, land subdivision, fencing, and settlement expansion in areas surrounding the Mara were already reducing dispersal space. For a wide-ranging, low-density species like the cheetah, loss of these buffer areas increased isolation and risk.
Low tolerance for additional mortality:
With naturally low densities, slow population growth, and high cub mortality, cheetahs in the Mara had very little demographic buffer. Even modest increases in adult female mortality—through conflict, disease, or displacement—could have long-term population consequences.
Mismatch between global perception and local reality:
Although the Masai Mara was (and is) perceived globally as a wildlife stronghold, evidence in 2013 suggested that cheetahs were not benefiting equally from this status and could quietly decline without targeted conservation attention.

In short: cheetah conservation became necessary not because cheetahs had already vanished from the Masai Mara, but because the combination of low numbers, poor data, low cub survival, rising human pressure, and high uncertainty created a real risk of unnoticed decline—prompting the launch of focused, science-led conservation action.

1) Founding and institutional home

Founding (year and who established it)

Multiple independent sources converge on the same founding fact: the Mara Cheetah Project was established in 2013 by Kenya Wildlife Trust.
A program quarterly report snippet (from the project’s publication archive) specifies June 2013 as the start date.

Scientific leadership and affiliations

MCP is widely described as being led by Femke Broekhuis, with academic linkage to **University of Oxford and its Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU).
This matters because MCP’s credibility rests on long-horizon field ecology paired with publishable inference—exactly the WildCRU “applied conservation science” tradition.

2) Main goals (what MCP is designed to achieve)

Across the project’s published descriptions, MCP’s goals consistently resolve into five operational objectives:

Establish reliable population status and trends (not “guesswork” estimates) for cheetahs in the Greater Mara.
Identify drivers of risk—especially human-driven pressures—across reserve and conservancy mosaics.
Understand fine-scale behavior and space use (movement, hunting, marking, interactions) to reveal where/when cheetahs are most vulnerable.
Translate evidence into practical solutions (wildlife-viewing rules, conflict mitigation, and land-use guidance).
Build durable local stewardship through engagement with guides and communities so solutions persist beyond grant cycles.

3) Founders and funders: who built and backs the work

Founders (institutional)

The project is described as founded/established by Kenya Wildlife Trust.

Key funders and supporters (as publicly described)

Because the Mara is a tourism-driven conservation economy, MCP has historically attracted philanthropic conservation foundations and safari-industry partners. Public donor/partner descriptions include:

Banovich Wildscapes Foundation—described as supporting the Mara Predator/Cheetah work and associated infrastructure/collaring efforts.
The Safari Collection—publicly describes support for cheetah monitoring and community/outreach dimensions of the cheetah workstream.
Longstanding lodge/camp partners (e.g., major collections) frequently support monitoring capacity and coexistence work in the wider predator program ecosystem (often via logistics + direct funding).

Note: Some “official” pages for the project and its report library intermittently block automated access in this environment (errors/timeouts). Where that occurred, I anchored details in accessible primary/academic sources (Oxford, peer-reviewed papers) and reputable partner documentation that explicitly references MCP’s founding and leadership.

4) Where MCP operates: geography and conservation units

MCP’s described study footprint has included the Masai Mara National Reserve plus adjoining conservancies, reflecting the reality that cheetah viability depends on the wider landscape, not just the reserve core. A widely cited project description lists:

Mara North Conservancy
Naboisho Conservancy
Olare Motorogi Conservancy
(plus other adjoining areas referenced in project summaries).

This reserve–conservancy mosaic is not a footnote: it is the central design feature of the project, because the main threats (disturbance, displacement, conflict risk) often intensify at interfaces.

5) The MCP conservation model: how it actually works

MCP is best understood as a monitor → explain → intervene → re-measure loop.

A) Long-term individual-based monitoring (the “population truth” layer)

Cheetah conservation fails fast when “numbers” are guessed. MCP’s approach explicitly pushes against unreliable estimates, emphasizing robust field inference.
Operationally, MCP has relied on:

Individual identification and repeated resightings (photographic ID, spot patterns) to track survival and reproduction over time (a standard gold approach in cheetah field ecology).
Structured sighting records from researchers and (often) trained guide networks in a tourism landscape.

B) GPS collaring + behavioral ecology (the “why/where risk happens” layer)

Peer-reviewed publications tied to Mara cheetah work show intensive use of GPS collar data to answer questions that directly inform management:

Male cheetah interactions and behavioral outcomes using GPS collars (PLOS ONE).
Carnivore dynamics and movement patterns in relation to ecological pulses (Ecography).

C) Human pressure analysis (tourism, livestock, and landscape change)

One of MCP’s defining contributions is making “tourism pressure” measurable rather than anecdotal. Reporting on MCP-linked findings highlights that high vehicle pressure can disrupt hunting and feeding, with downstream impacts on cub provisioning and breeding success—leading to explicit calls for enforceable viewing guidelines.

D) Solutions: from science to rules and practice

MCP’s intervention logic is typically behavioral and governance-facing rather than veterinary or fencing-led:

Recommend/advocate for wildlife viewing limits (vehicle numbers, distance, time-on-sighting) based on measured disturbance effects.
Inform conservancy/reserve decision-making on zoning, enforcement, and guide protocols (because cheetahs are “disturbance sensitive,” they function as an indicator species for tourism sustainability).
Engage communities and herders to reduce conflict escalation risk (a theme emphasized in public-facing project descriptions).

6) Key achievements over time (with evidence)

1) Establishing a long-term cheetah research baseline for the Greater Mara

Project sources describe MCP as a long-term research initiative launched “from scratch” in 2013, aimed at building the first sustained monitoring baseline for cheetahs in the Mara landscape.

2) Producing publishable science that changes how people talk about cheetah numbers

Oxford’s research communications explicitly flag that cheetah number estimates are often unreliable and situate MCP within the effort to replace speculation with evidence-based assessment.

3) Generating field evidence on tourism disturbance impacts and pushing actionable viewing guidance

MCP-linked reporting highlights that excessive tourist vehicle presence can reduce hunting success and disrupt feeding—an applied result with immediate policy relevance for the Mara.

4) Building a research-to-management pipeline through the predator programme structure

By 2018, the Mara Cheetah Project and Mara Lion Project are described as merging into the broader Mara Predator Conservation Programme—signaling institutional consolidation and shared infrastructure (community officers, reporting, monitoring operations).

7) Other essential entity topics to cover in a full Mara cheetah conservation chapter

If you’re building a truly “complete” MCP guide (or a pillar page), these are the topics that make it authoritative:

Cheetah ecology and life history in the Mara

Hunting ecology and prey preferences (including competition pressures)
Coalition dynamics (male coalitions, territory and scent-marking)
Cub survival constraints (predation risk, disturbance, habitat selection)

Threat landscape (Mara-specific)

Tourism density and chase behavior at sightings
Habitat fragmentation and fencing outside protected cores (corridors and dispersal)
Livestock interface (conflict, disease risk, and displacement)

Governance and enforcement (why evidence doesn’t automatically become practice)

Viewing-rule enforcement capacity, guide training, and incentive design
Conservancy vs reserve governance differences (rules are often stronger in conservancies)

Monitoring methods and scientific integrity

ID-based capture–recapture logic (why it beats “tour guide counts”)
Data quality control in a citizen-science-heavy tourism ecosystem

8) Practical takeaways for operators and guides (what MCP implies you should do)

If your business is in the Mara, MCP’s body of work points to a clear operating standard:

Treat cheetahs as high-sensitivity sightings: fewer vehicles, more distance, no crowding on a hunt/kill.
Build guest education into the product: “we may see fewer minutes of cheetah, but we’re not preventing it from feeding.”
Prefer areas with strong viewing protocols (often conservancies) when guests are cheetah-focused, because disturbance drives outcomes.

Mara Cheetah Project: a comprehensive guide