I have read Wanjohi Kabukuru's contribution to this debate with great interest, foremost because he challenges the oft-touted statement that "The current wildlife policy is outdated, irrelevant and no longer meets present challenges..."

It is probable that many of the proponents urging for a review of wildlife policy have not read the current policy statement with as much detailed attention as the writer. As Mr. Kabukuru demonstrates, very ably, issues regarding wildlife utilization, migration and human-wildlife conflicts and land use management are adequately addressed within the current policy framework.

So if this be the case, what then is the problem? Are the frustrations in the conservation arena posed by either the high stakeholder's expectations in the wildlife sub-sector or are they policy related or are they administrative bottlenecks?

A look at the scenario surrounding compensation of wildlife attack victims is illuminating. The Ksh 30,000 that the government has previously paid (after a lengthy period) for loss of human life is not in any statute book. Yet that notwithstanding, Kenya's Wildlife Minister has just increased that figure to Ksh 200,000 - without being in breach of the law. The question is, why didn't previous holders of that office employ the same powers that Hon. Dzoro has just exercised to raise compensation due to victims in spite of concerted hue and cry from members of the public that Ksh 30,000 was paltry and an insult to the dignity of lost human life? Inertia!

I stand to be corrected, but I believe that if a relevant government minister today chose to declare a certain part of this country a migration corridor for wildlife, he would do so with one stroke of the pen - legally.

As we speak, the laws that govern proper land-use and national institutions do exist, coupled with the legal mandate to enforce these regulations. For instance, the destruction of forests, water catchments and uncontrolled abstraction of water - both activities that are deleterious to wildlife habitats and the survival of entire floral and faunal communities - is illegal. What is it then that prevents the relevant institutions from curtailing these acts of degradation as demanded by existing legislation and policy? Again, inertia! That, and political considerations.

I have little doubt that sectoral policies and laws governing environmental issues are in place; that they have been sufficiently thought-out and that they have the muscle to adequately address present challenges within the wildlife sub-sector. The monster lies in institutions within this sub-sector and the wider agriculture and natural resource sectors. They are in shambles; they are crippled by limited resources and capacity; or they are shackled by micro and external politics. It is this institutions that need overhaul - not the policy framework.

If the forest department sleeps on its laurels, critical water catchments and wildlife habitats outside of national parks and game reserves are lost, leading to increased human wildlife conflicts - same as when the executive arm of government doles out forest land for political expediency. Likewise, if the livestock department does not advice and support pastoralists adequately, the herdsmen have little recourse but to graze inside national parks during drought. And, if compensation for wildlife attack victims is raised as a matter of policy to Ksh 1 million, but it still takes a frustrating three years of waiting to access, it will neither assuage the pain of victims nor help to nurture community support.

But if a farmer besieged by wildlife can be assured that he will receive government help within one or two hours, and that in the event of property damage or death, that he will be compensated within two months, the resulting goodwill will be overwhelming. Such mechanisms are purely administrative and I believe they form the basis of KWS's current reform process. They do not require a shift in national wildlife policy to implement.

As I have argued in this forum in the past, the demand for new wildlife policy and legislation is not about empowerment of local communities, revenue sharing and the like. It is not even about wildlife utilization.
It is about lifting the ban on sport hunting.

(The views expressed here are for the writer and not for Kenya Wildlife Service)

For your comments to be published, send to Gichuki Kabukuru, gichukik@kws.org