WANJOHI KABUKURU, is a local journalist and a contributor to the NewAfrican, a London based monthly magazine, he has won several awards amongst them the Peter Jenkin's Wards for Environment.

The following is part one of his views on this very hot subject of wildlife policy review.

WILDLIFE POLICY: A HISTORICAL ECHO

On Thursday July 6th 2006, Kenya's tourism and wildlife minister Morris Dzoro unveiled the steering committee charged with the task of re-looking afresh at Kenya's wildlife policy.

This act by the minister was an echo in history.

Going down memory lane three startling examples stand out on the issue of wildlife policy review. These are Sessional Paper No. 7 of 1957/58, dubbed Report of the 1956 Game Policy Committee, Sessional Paper No. 3 of 1975, titled Statement on Future Wildlife Management Policy in Kenya and finally Wildlife Policy 1996, which never reached the august house for it to become a fully-fledged 'white paper'.

To fully understand and appreciate the minister's move and the policy review committee's work, a dredge in history is imperative. The treasure trove found in history is befuddling.

Way back in 1956 Kenya was still under Her Majesty's government. At that time the Game Department and the Royal National Parks were separate entities. Indeed it was at the height of the Independence struggle and this is quite telling. Just how on earth could the colonial government sit down and discuss matters pertaining to wildlife while there is a militant uprising and heightened political tension? That is a subject for another day.

"The Council of Ministers in its Eighty-Fourth recognizing that the policy of the Government should be to preserve Kenya's wild life as an asset of economic, scientific and recreational importance, advised the appointment of a committee to be known as the 1956 Game Policy Committee." Sessional Paper No 7 of 1957/58 declares in its opening statement.

The committee was made up of L.R Maconochie Welwood (as chair), Mervyn Cowie, W.H Hale, S.H Powles, J.C Likimani, A.P Hume, K.M Cowley, J.W Howard (members) and F.D Corfield as secretary.

The 1956 Game Committee's terms of reference were:
"To consider and make recommendations as to the policy to be adopted for the long-term preservation of game, having regard to the interests of human population in game areas and to the economic development of the country; in view of the urgency of a solution of the conflict in the Amboseli National Reserve between game and human interests which is rapidly reducing the value of this areas as a game reserve, to make interim recommendations for the preservation of the game interest; to consider the liaison between Parks and the Game department and to make recommendations for the strengthening of the Game department and its preservational duties if this proves necessary; to consider existing Game legislation and to recommend, if deemed necessary, a strengthening of the Game Laws."

Does this ring a bell? Read on.

Sessional Paper No. 7 of 1957/58 laid down the colony's game policy:
"Kenya still possesses a greater variety of spectacular and interesting animals than any other country in the world, often set in surroundings of great natural beauty. The peoples of Kenya have inherited this priceless asset and they owe it to mankind to preserve and hand on this asset to future generations. The Game of Kenya has a profound cultural and aesthetic value for its inhabitants, and also for a much wider public who come here to enjoy it. Because of this appeal to a worldwide public, game is of great economic importance to Kenya. The object of the Government's Game Policy is therefore to lay down the basic principles which shall govern the preservation of game as an essential feature of Kenya's culture and economy."

While to many people the term colonial government symbolizes all bad things, the contents of Sessional Paper No 7 of 1957/58 are nothing but telling statements of commitment on wildlife conservation. In Paragraph 10 on 'the need to regard game preservation as one of the factors in determining proper use of land' it asserts:

"In spite of the strong moral obligation to preserve game, the right of animals to live in this materialistic age will, in the end, be judged largely in relation to their contribution to the economy of the country. Plainly one of the most difficult tasks, which will confront the Government in any long-term action to preserve game, arises from the axiom that such action must be shown to be in the best national interest and consistent with other local human interests. The difficulty will be to assess in any given area the relative value of the game and of other human interests; to decide whether preservation is consistent with such other human interests and is justifiable in the national good." It says and goes on to pose:

"Can it be said, for example, that over-grazing by Samburu cattle in the mountain ranges of the Northern Frontier District - the Matthews, Ndotos and Mount Nyiro - which abound in game, is even in the best local interest? We think that there is a strong prima facie case for the exclusion of stock from the forested areas of these mountains and that the proper, and in fact only, land use for such areas is as vital water catchments areas. That game would continue to exist would be incidental to this preservation. The fact is that problems of this kind resolve themselves into the issue of what is the proper land use for such areas.

We regard it as a fundamental necessity of long-term game preservation that in future such questions as the relative economic recreational and cultural value of preserving an area for game and its value for any other purpose should be fully assessed before its long-term use is decided. If as the result of such an assessment, the government decides that the preservation of game in any particular area is in the national interest, two courses are open; where there no conflicting human rights the area can, if the government so decides, be declared a national park; where there are existing human rights which cannot be extinguished, stock may have to share the area with game, but will have to be limited and controlled if the preservation of game is to have any permanence."

That Sessional Paper No. 7 of 1957/58 was futuristic is obvious. It dealt with significant issues affecting the colony's wildlife then and surprisingly the same concerns are still pertinent today. Subjects such as research, human-wildlife conflict, public perceptions, hunting, migration, and wildlife legislation were given a thorough scrutiny. The recommendations are interesting:

"That the government retains the control of game in game reserves. In exercising this control the government should have regard to its declared policy of ensuring the maximum preservation of the fauna, consistent with other human activities; That all areas of the Colony where there is a game interest and which are not under the control of the Trustees of a game reserve or private land be declared Controlled Areas; That as the complete preservation of game can only, in the last resort, fully be assured in National Parks, existing parks be maintained and new national parks be established, where possible."

The recommendations don't stop there. Public sensitization (then it was plainly referred to as 'propaganda') and education coupled with compensation from wildlife related losses were also not left out:

"That the government and the Trustees accept as a major responsibility the importance of educating the African public to recognize that wild animals are an asset and a possession most valuable to themselves and which, once destroyed, can never be replaced; That to achieve this objective, full use be made of schools and other social institutions, and the broadcasting services and films. That in areas where it is the declared policy of government to give game varying degrees of protection and where such protection may be in conflict with other human interests, the local authorities must be given a financial interest in the economic exploitation of game adequate to quicken the local interest in such preservation and to enable them to cover compensation for damage to persons or property resulting from such protection."

Crucial matters such as research and partnership linkages were also key recommendations contained in the policy document:

"That a Fauna Research Unit be set up as a branch of the Game Department. That an ecologist be invited at an early date to undertake a general survey of the more important game areas. That a regular census of all the most important species of species of wild animals be undertaken. That close contact be maintained with the research Organizations of the East African High Commission."

The highly poignant subject of hunting and hunting communities was not sidestepped. During various discussions the report had noted:

"There is an increasing trend towards photographic safaris, but the demand for hunting will continue. It provides appreciable revenue to the colony both direct and indirect; it is also a recognized form of game management and should be encouraged. It can be integrated into the system of management of controlled areas. The control should be based on knowledge of the requirements of each area. Every encouragement, including substantial reductions in license fees, should be given to hunting parties to visit areas where control measures are necessary, particularly elephant control." Having noted thus the Sessional Paper recommended:

"That a Game management Scheme be established north of the Galana (Tana) River for the Waliangulu Tribe. That the issue of licenses to shoot game be integrated into the system of game management in the controlled areas. That encouragement be given to hunting parties to shoot in all areas where control of wildlife is required in the interests of human development."

The policy went on to make other far-reaching recommendations on establishment of new game reserves and additional areas to national parks. Among the proposals made was the creation of Amboseli, Namanga, Ngong, Mara, Western Chyulu, Marsabit, Mathews and Ndoto Mountains, Shimba Hills, Boni and Tsavo Game reserves.

Interestingly at that time there existed the Ministry of Forest Development, Game and Fisheries. Today fish, forests and wildlife are in three separate ministries.

How times change.

(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