What Ails Kenya's Policy on Wildlife

1.1 Background

Natural resources underpin cash and subsistence economies in Kenya, yet their contribution to wealth creation and poverty reduction remains undervalued. These natural resources and especially wildlife were being rapidly degraded, with concomitant negative impacts on rural incomes and resultant intolerance of wildlife. Critics attributed these problems to inept policies, reduced incentive to conserve wildlife, continued inability of government agencies to integrate, harmonize and enforce land use policies and legislation intended to conserve wildlife and other natural resources and insufficient funding to implementing agencies- which made them unable to carry out their mandates'. This paper will examine various issues relating to the adequacy of the 1975 policy paper on wildlife management in relation to current best practice policy formulation and articulation practices.

2 Policy Analysis
Policy/Mission Statement
" The government holds in trust for present and future generations nationally and globally the biological diversity represented by Kenya-s extraordinary variety of animals, plants and ecosystems ranging from coral reefs to alpine moorlands and from deserts to forests. Special emphasis is placed on conserving Kenya's assemblage of large mammals found few other places on earth"

In 1975 the Kenya Government through a Sessional Paper No. 3 of 1975 gave the above statement on the future of Wildlife Management policy in Kenya (the 1975 Policy Paper). This policy paper was a radical departure from the preservationist policies preceding it that were unilateral in approach.

It spelt out a new policy of integrated wildlife conservation and management based on local and wide spread participation. The policy recognized the inherent qualities of horizontal and vertical linkages and their importance in defining effectiveness (Para 3.). Furthermore it recognized the extraordinary value of Kenya's wildlife both within and outside protected areas (almost 80% of Wildlife is outside protected areas, Western, d. 1993) and the need for space to be set aside outside parks as well as inside if this natural resource was to flourish without intensive management or ecological impoverishment. The policy envisioned that the government would work with private landowners willing to accommodate wildlife to secure additional space.

The primary aims of the Policy were the maximization of returns from wildlife as a natural resource (para 1 1975, Wildlife Policy White paper), integrated conservation and management of biodiversity as a national and global resource, proper land planning and zoning, conflict mitigation i.e. 'people vs. wildlife'. The policy described benefits from wildlife and broadly defined them to include aesthetic, cultural, scientific and economic gains. Economic gains were specified as deriving from both tourism and consumptive uses of wildlife (para.2). It also noted that wildlife is but one use of land, and emphasized the need for cooperation in Land planning and management with other sectors if long-term returns from wildlife use were to be secured. The notion of "people versus wildlife" was considered inappropriate since it failed to recognize that the conflict is essentially between people who wish to conserve wildlife and those opposing it. The solution to the conflict was considered to be an integrated approach to land that would maximize returns from all resources, including wildlife (para.3). This policy thus encouraged the best long-term combination of land uses and fair distribution of benefits accruing from these uses. Farmers were to be encouraged to incorporate wildlife with other forms of land use and reap the benefits through tourism, hunting, cropping and live animal capture for restocking or export, private tourism enterprises were assured of effective management of the base resource while resource sustainability was guaranteed to the conservationist through research and good management.

All this would was to be achieved through a regulated framework of legislation backed by a range of economic, and financial instruments based on positive net benefits from wildlife. The enactment of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 1976 established the legal provisions for the new policies. The Act specified regulations that were to be enforced through the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Wildlife. The policy emphasized the use of command and control mechanisms to enforce compliance. Other instruments specified included; institutional and economic mechanism. The regulatory mechanisms prohibited the consumptive use of wildlife or wildlife products unless through licenses and established national parks and national reserves both which restricted access and resource use respectively. Licenses and quotas were to be granted and allocated to individual and private landowners annually based on existing animal populations. This scheme encouraged benefits sharing and acted as an incentive tool however the scheme was open to abuse as licenses were granted along discretionary paths by the organization.

The Policy stresses the need for a single national agency, the Wildlife Service, to implement the proposed policies. This organization would work closely with other related stakeholders and ministries such as Ministry of lands, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Water Development, The Kenya Tourism Board, private enterprises that had interest in conservation and tourism, district and rural development committees and NGO's and international organizations thus creating horizontal relationships and networks. It's mai6 responsibilities included; the promotion, protection and regulation of uses of wildlife and wildlife products in the interest of making net contribution to Kenya's economic and social development (para. 65-66). In addition, it had the general responsibility of assisting with problem animal control in instances of wildlife impinging adversely on human life and property, within the limits of available resources (para. 77) and provision of security both the natural resource base and tourists.

It also recommended on the establishment of community wildlife group ranches and wildlife conservancy areas and provided technical advice, These have since been used to encourage effective conservation of rare and ranging species of wildlife in vast areas. Communities were encouraged to establish and develop conservation entities that they manage on their own with expertise from the wildlife service. The ranches would derive benefits for the communities through tourism and cropping.

The policy therefore prescribed a plurality of means and reasons for conserving wildlife in as many areas as possible as the best guarantee for securing the future of wildlife. An analysis of the issues and above policy denotes that in retrospect the policies proved ahead of their time, presaging by two decades the integrated approach to conservation and development exemplified by the 1994 Convention on Conservation of Biodiversity (OBD) and the community participation approaches to conservation now springing up around the world. Although the policy prescribed not benefit to landowners from wildlife operations, it was not adequate in guarantying economic incentives to conserve the resource as significant externalities are associated with wildlife. They add greatly to production costs of livestock and agriculture (Lusigi, 1981), and secondly the opportunity costs (in terms of foregone benefits to development) of leaving land undeveloped for conservation are gradually increasing in response to growing populations (Western D. 1993, Waithaka, J. 1993, Archiron, M. 1988, Grove R. et al 1987).

Conclusion

Although the 1975 policy document was futuristic and well drawn and emphasized the need for an integrated approach to wildlife management, contrary to expectation the policy paper failed to stem the conflict between people and wildlife, even after its adoption by Parliament. The failure was due in part to the fact the Wildlife Act of 1976 did not adequately reflect the intent of the 1975 policy paper or provide strong enforcement provisions. Furthermore the current penalties have been surpassed by time and the enforcement agency was inadequately funded (Although international funding was certain) while it's autonomy and independence was restricted as its Director was a presidential appointee. This resulted to a myriad of problems despite having achieved some success.

The policy failures included an over-reliance on Command and control (prohibition on consumptive use of wildlife, prohibition on use of resources within Protected Areas) without the ability to enforce compliance, institutionalization of conservation values that take no account of local attitudes or problems, subsidies to agricultural and livestock production which, by reducing marginal production costs to below social opportunity costs, has caused the over-conversion of rangelands to livestock and agricultural production at the expense of conservation objectives and values, the lack of property rights and use rights of landowners over wildlife. This policy currently is the subject of intense criticism and needs urgent review.