There is an orchestrated campaign in Kenya’s conservation circles aimed at creating a perception of crisis within the wildlife sub-sector’s policy framework. It has been claimed that the wildlife policy is "outdated, and no longer meets the aspirations of Kenyans". Nothing could be further from the truth.

A look at the Sessional Paper No.3 of 1975, which is the current policy statement, will clearly show that the authors of that policy were competent and foresighted. In fact, what many people are clamouring for is already provided for.

For instance, a false impression has been created in the minds of Kenyans that provisions for consumptive utilisation of wildlife are absent in the current policy.

Yet it provides, in general terms, for consumptive use such as hunting, cropping and capture. Equally, the same statement makes provisions for non-consumptive wildlife use through tourism, education, research and culture.

The Wildlife Act, commonly referred to as Cap 376, also provides detailed mechanisms for the entire scope of consumptive and non-consumptive uses of wildlife. That is why subsequent administrations of Kenya Wildlife Service KWS and its predecessor Wildlife Conservation and Management Department allow wildlife cropping (killing/hunting wildlife for meat), wildlife capture (for translocation, export) and bird shooting without breaking the law.

It is also within the same policy and legal framework that the transfer of ownership of wildlife from the Government to individuals for commercial purposes (eg ostrich and crocodile farming) has occurred without breaking the law.

If the wildlife policy framework is sound, then what ails this key sub-sector? In reality, policy and legislation are only half as good as the institutions charged with the responsibility of implementation. If the institutions are weak, then policy becomes a mere paper — which is the case now, and may be in the future.

KWS, as an institution, is failing to meet the taxpayers’ expectations and is soon becoming irrelevant. A lot of resources are wasted on administration at the cost of adapting to new challenges in its external environment and legal mandate to develop cogent and satisfactory conservation strategy, it fails the citizenry in delivering its responsibility.

What really matters to Kenyans is not how KWS organises itself internally, but the quality of service it provides for the public resources it receives. Theirs is a failure in strategy, not of policy, and it is sad that the organisation’s newly-launched strategic plan still falls short of this responsibility.

KWS has failed to adapt its conservation strategies to the changing times. This culminated into what has come to be known as the GG Bill of 2004, which according to the author, was a result of frustration from dealing with an unresponsive national institution.

The frustrations are legion: failure to address human wildlife conflicts; inadequate and untimely compensation for loss of human life and injury; lack of compensation for loss of property and crops caused by wildlife; lack of visible financial benefits from wildlife to local communities such as revenue sharing; drastic declines in wildlife due to poaching and loss of habitats, and failure to attract private sector investment into management of protected areas and other areas rich in biodiversity to reduce demand on taxpayers' money. Minor amendments to the Wildlife Act itself would suffice to accommodate such strategy. If solutions to the above were to be found, all the alleged ‘policy issues’ above would evaporate.

KWS should come up with a clear strategic and action plan to address the above issues. Such a plan should be presented as a technical guide at the stakeholder forums constituted by the minister to receive views from the public on the ongoing policy review.

The attempt to review sectoral policy at a time when the country is in the process of overhauling its constitution is misguided. A new constitution would deal, as a matter of course, with wildlife as it is a very crucial land based natural resource and a key economic factor.

Any new vision regarding this important sector which would be enshrined in the constitution would have to determine future policy.

It is, therefore, futile to clamour now for a comprehensive wildlife policy review till such a time as we have completed the Constitution review. Is it too long to wait?

The writer is a former KWS Director

(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