• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

The Domain of Authority and Sphere of Influence of Wildlife Conservation and Management Policy in Kenya

Posted on: Monday, 3 October 2005, 12:00 CDT

By Were, Edmond Maloba

INTRODUCTION

This paper addresses two concrete issues arising from wildlife conservation and management policy in Kenya. First, it looks at the domain of authority of conservation policy. It provides insight into the legal and institutional framework of the conservation of wildlife in Kenya. The discussion embraces the pertinent provisions of the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act 1976, Chapter 376 of the Laws of Kenya, the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Amendment Act No. 16 of 1989, Chapter 376 of the Laws of Kenya, and the State Corporations Act Chapter 286 of the Laws of Kenya. Second, it addresses the sphere of influence of conservation policy. The sphere of influence defines the ensuing politics embracing the conservation of wildlife in Kenya. It implicitly questions the impact that conservation policy has on the development process outside the legal confines of a National Park or Reserve. The development process in this regard embraces the nature of livelihood activities pursued by the communities that inhabit the fringes of the National Park and whose survival is affected by the implementation of wildlife conservation and management policy. Every domain of authority therefore has a corresponding sphere of influence.1

Wildlife management and conservation policy in Kenya does not singly focus on the conservation of flora and fauna. It focuses on both conservation and non-conservation issues in and outside protected areas. In the non-conservation domain, in particular, it touches on the extent to which institutions and residents of the fringes of protected areas undertake their daily activities as they come into contact with protected flora and fauna in their midst. The study of an institution's domain of authority and the sphere of influence of conservation authorities, therefore, provides an interesting scenario in the analysis of the scope and impact of conservation policy on nature conservation and the promotion of development at the local level.

THE DOMAIN OF AUTHORITY OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Wildlife conservation refers to the protection, preservation, management, and study of wildlife and wildlife resources.2 The policy for conservation and management of wildlife defines the domain of authority vested in a variety of institutions that have a stake in the management of wildlife resources. It is primarily, however, a statist management tool for the attainment of wildlife conservation objectives. It provides the legal framework and identifies the arena and agenda of all wildlife management and conservation undertakings. The level of authority it confers on an organization emerges hence as the genesis of challenges with regard to the implementation of the stipulated conservation terms of reference and objectives.

Before Kenya gained independence in 1963, the philosophy behind the planning, establishment and management of protected areas in the country was basically a European-settler affair. The European settlers established National Parks and Reserves primarily to meet their personal objectives and not necessarily to enhance the overall development of the colony. The National Parks and Reserves were marketed in Europe and North America to attract a clientele that was not necessarily interested in conservation but one that had the capability to pay for the various products associated with an African adventure. These products included mainly Safari-hunting and camping, export of wild animals and game trophies, wildlife photography and other recreation-related activities, all of which transformed the protected areas into what has been referred to as "pleasure grounds of the West." What was the role of Africans in this scenario?

For Africans, wildlife was basically a livelihood resource to be utilized (i.e., hunted, picked or gathered) whenever societal need arose. For example, the single-handed killing of a lion by a Maasai moran was a ritual affair that was controlled by the Maasai society to mark the graduation of boys into warriors. Therefore, for purposes of perpetuating Maasai culture and traditions, the lions had to be conserved because they were, so to say, part and parcel of the survival of the Maasai society. This way of life can be discerned in the relationship of the Maasai with other wild animals and vegetation. In the planning and establishment of the protected areas, the Africans as principal stakeholders in conservation were unfortunately not consulted. Instead they became culprits of the protected area policies, which disrupted their livelihood practices by imposing utilization (i.e., settlement, hunting and gathering) barriers in the established protected areas.3 In essence, livelihood practices of the Africans that involved interaction with flora and fauna inside protected areas were criminalized. For example, seasonal hunting of wild animals became poaching and the poachers were to be shot on sight. In the same vein, the gathering of dry tree branches for firewood was restricted and violators were regularly and severely punished. To this day, certain conservation measures in Kenya's National Parks and Reserves comprise a militaristic element that is meant to deal with the livelihood (illegal) practices of the local people. For practical purposes, therefore, the wildlife conservation policy has been more exclusionist than inclusive.

In 1930, the Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the (British) Empire commissioned an inquiry into the state of fauna in the Kenya Protectorate.4 It was recommended then that permanent faunal sanctuaries be established to preserve the biodiversity in the colony.5 In 1938, the colonial government passed a conservation order, which stipulated the location, extent, characteristics, supervision and management of National Parks in Kenya. In 1945, the Royal National Park Order was passed and a year later, the Nairobi National Park was created. By 1950, the colonial government had established six National Parks, which were managed by a newly created Game Department. These National Parks and Reserves were created, of course, with the approval of the influential Safari hunting lobby groups. A Board of Trustees of the National Parks was also established and comprised solely of private European settlers. Emerging from this scenario is that conservation policy making and implementation, at the time, reflected private European settler interests and not those of indigenous groups, most of who depended on the wildlife for their livelihood.

The creation of more National Parks and Reserves was continued after independence, ostensibly now, in the interest of national development. National Parks-based tourism emerged as a leading sector in national development. The content of the tourism package, however, did not change since it still relied heavily on the bequeathed colonial conservation and management policy. The implication of this policy outside protected areas became a moot and emotive subject, this time, in a political dispensation that was controlled by the African. However, the needs of the pleasure seeking foreign tourist who would contribute to the foreign exchange earnings of the state reigned supreme in the evolution of tourism policy. To the bureaucrats, the rationale and philosophy of wildlife conservation was hinged on its capacity to generate revenue for the state. The more effective it became in this regard the stronger the exclusionist case remained. The local people living in the fringes of the National Parks remained essentially spectators in the tourism sector, derived no direct benefits from the wildlife in their midst as wild animals, in particular, reigned havoc on the adjoining farms and livestock ranches. To the locals, the protected animals were now pests and belonged to the state. It was therefore, the responsibility of the state to tame its wild animals and stop them from interfering with the lives of the locals.

Today, Kenya has over 50 National Parks and Reserves comprising 7 percent of the land.6 This means that, over 45 protected areas were established after independence.7 What concerns regional planners, today, therefore, is the methodology used in the establishment of these institutions. Without addressing the planning fall-outs of the past, the incoming independence government continued with the colonial conservation philosophies and approaches. The activities of the local people outside National Parks, which had a direct impact on the wild animals, were outlawed and remain so today. This could be attributed to the general relationship Africans are presumed to have had and still have towards wildlife. To most Africans, wild animals are hunted for food and/or ceremonial rituals. This, however, occurred only seasonally. The use of wildlife for spectacular pleasure like the Europeans did was, therefore, a new phenomenon. The activities of the Africans, to latter day bureaucrats, were hence non-developmental and non-economical but basically consumptive.

After independence, the African was still denied the inherently natural stake or interest in the development of wildlife conservation for national development. National Parks and Reserves were therefore developed to serve the dominant devel\opment paradigm that promoted economic growth and export-oriented strategic industries. Today, these resources contribute the largest component of foreign exchange to the national treasury.

The responsibility for the conservation of all wildlife in Kenya is today vested in the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) under section 3 of The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) (Amendment) Act No. 16 of 1989. The Act charts a domain of authority, which empowers the KWS to fulfill its broad mandate. The trailblazer to the Kenya Wildlife Service was the Department of Wildlife Conservation and Management (WCM), which had been created under the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act of 1976. Under this initial legal instrument the WCM was to:

Ensure that wildlife is managed and conserved so as to yield to the nation in general and to individual areas in particular, optimum returns in terms of cultural, aesthetic and scientific gains as well as such economic gains as are incidental to proper wildlife management and conservation and which may be secured without prejudice to such proper management and conservation.8

This objective was clear but fell short of stipulating the specific activities that the WCM would perform to benefit "individual areas." These areas are presumed to be those areas where the National Parks and Reserves are located and whose inhabitants are expected to play beneficial roles associated with wildlife conservation. The objective was to be attained by taking account of "the varied forms of land use and the interrelationship between wildlife conservation and management and other forms of land use."9

The economic gains of wildlife conservation to the nation were overwhelming overtime. This occurred not only at the expense of the local people but also at that of wild animals. Sport-hunting became a core activity of the tourism sector and fuelled poaching in and outside the National Parks and Reserves. There developed, as a direct consequence, a brisk trade in animal products such as skins, elephant tusks, and rhino horns. The extinction of certain animal species could not be ruled out. These developments forced the revision of the legal framework in 1977. The Legislative Supplement No. 26 (Legal Notice No. 120) entitled "The Wildlife Conservation and Management Prohibition on Hunting of Wild Game" banned hunting of wild animals in or outside protected areas. A year later, additional prohibitions were passed. The Parliamentary Act No. 5 (1978) and The Legal Order No. 181 of 1979 were pronounced, banning trade in wildlife products.10

The implementation of these policies between 1976 and 1989 was, however, beset with a host of problems. During this period, there was an increase in poaching of the most coveted species of wildlife. These included rhinoceros, lions, and elephants, whose products were highly demanded on the international market, particularly in the Far East, contrary to the provisions of the International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The contributory factors to the failure of attaining the conservation objectives included:11

* There was lack of adequate and modern equipment like weapons, research aircraft and vehicles to counter the impact of the poachers on the protected areas, check on the impact of neighboring communities on the use of land for conservation and monitor the impact of the wild animals on the livelihood of neighboring communities.

* There was lack of adequate remuneration for the employees of the department who in certain instances abetted poaching activities.

* The state was unable to procure adequate financial and technical assistance from abroad to address the problem afflicting the conservation of wildlife in Kenya.

The ensuing result was that the management authority of National Parks and Reserves became toothless. It lacked adequate resources to perform the essential conservation chores. Poachers literally roamed at will in the protected areas. The wild animals were henceforth seriously exposed to the vagaries of human activities. It was reported, for example, that during this period almost 85 percent of elephants and 97 percent of rhinoceros were slaughtered.12

The inadequacies expressed by the WCM were subsequently reviewed in the late 1980s. In 1989, the state amended the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act of 1976. The amendments were contained in a legal instrument titled "The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) (Amendment) Act" No. 16 of 1989. The amended Act improved on the specific functions that are core to the mandate of the newly created Kenya Wildlife Service. These are contained in Section 3A and are summarized below (Note that these functions also have direct relevance to regional land use planning,13 a necessary tool in the formulation of a master land use plan for every National Park or Reserve):

* Formulation of policies for wildlife conservation, management and utilization

* Advise government on establishment of protected areas

* Management of National Parks and Reserves for tourism, extension services and public awareness

* Sustenance of wildlife to meet conservation, research and management goals

* Advise government, local authorities and landowners on wildlife conservation and management

* Render services to farmers to enhance protection of crops and domestic animals against wildlife

The functions listed above touch on certain pertinent conservation issues outside protected areas that have characterized the sour relationships between the conservation authority and the local populations that inhabit the fringes of the National Parks. The KWS today is mandated to render service to farmers and to enhance protection of farms and domestic animals against wildlife attacks. In addition, it has identified the arena of conservation to comprise key stakeholders such as local authorities and landowners with whom it can work to fulfill its conservation mandate. These roles were previously not well defined in the principal Act and were not regarded as important in the execution of the wildlife conservation agenda. The adoption of the principle of rendering service to farmers arose out of the belated realization that conservation and local development are essentially complementary undertakings.

The driving force behind the change of direction from adherence to the biocentric principles of deep ecology to the inclusion of participatory approaches in conservation was the resurgence of hostility between communities and protected areas.14 Wild animals were and today still remain, to a large extent, a liability to the livelihood of the people living adjacent to protected areas. Yet, for a long time, the wildlife authority did not adequately address the plight of the residents who suffered from injuries, death and destruction of property arising from marauding elephants, hippos, crocodiles, monkeys, snakes, and other animals. The Five-Person Review Group that looked into the wildlife-human conflicts in Kenya in 1994 presented the magnitude of the problems caused by wild animals as shown in Table 1.15

The information provided in Table 1 indicates that most districts in Kenya experience problems associated with rogue wild animals.16 The most problematic animals are elephants, baboons and monkeys, buffaloes, lions, hyenas and cheetahs. Human-wildlife conflicts occur amidst frequent incidences of non-compensation from the state. Although the law states that the injured parties would be compensated by the KWS, it takes many years before the assessment and eventual payment are done. The compensation amount has also been a bone of contention between the state and the local people. The maximum amount payable for wildlife-inflicted death of a person is 30,000 Kenya shillings (which in 2004 was approximately U.S. $325.00). This amount has been criticized as inadequate, thus aggravating the population's hostility towards wild animals.

The domain of authority of the KWS is, however, exercised subject to the provisions of the State Corporation Act No. 11 of 1986. This legal instrument provides the ways and means for the establishment, supervision and management of all state corporations in Kenya. It stipulates that all state corporations must be under the supervision of the chief executive of a parent Ministry in matters of administration of senior personnel and finances even though they enjoy certain limited privileges thereto. Section 5(2) of this Act states, for instance, that:

Table 1 : Problem Wild Animals by District

the power of a state corporation to borrow money in Kenya or elsewhere shall be exercised only with the consent of the Minister and subject to such limitations and conditions as may be imposed by the Treasury with respect to state corporations generally or specifically with respect to a particular state corporation.17

However, in Section 7(1) of the Act, the state President enjoys the prerogative of varying the above strict requirement, and can generally empower a corporation to act outside the legal requirements. It states that "[t]he president may give directions of a general or specific nature to a Board with regard to the better exercise and performance of the functions of the state corporation and the Board shall give effect to those directives."18

This provision of the law (Section 7(1)) prompted the president to exempt the KWS from certain legal restrictions such as section 5(2) above. The Kenya Wildlife Service was, as a result, empowered to:

* Seek and secure finances for daily and long-term operations of the new organization both domestically and overseas;

* Promote integrity and morale of the organization's personnel;

* Restore the image of the wildlife organization as a professionally inclined institution;

* Reduce or halt the poaching of endangered wild animals; and

* Resist political intervention that hampered the smooth running of wildlife conservation programs.

The liberalizati\on of the bureaucratic requirements with regard to the KWS had wide ranging impacts on the operations of the KWS. The KWS promoted wildlife conservation in the short run and improved security for both animals and tourists in the protected confines of the National Parks. According to The Economist this implied:

the introduction of a shoot to kill policy to deal with poachers... Such harsh measures (backed admittedly by an international ban on all trade in ivory) appear to have worked. After decades of decline, the elephant population in Kenya has stabilized and even begun to creep up again.19

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND CONSERVATION POLITICS

The most problematic areas in conservation and management of wildlife are the protected area fringes. These are areas outside National Parks and Reserves where wild animals interact with local inhabitants. According to the KWS, only 30 percent of all wildlife species are found in the protected areas.20 This means that 70 percent of the species live with people outside protected areas.21 In these areas, therefore, the legal limitations dealing with the utilization of wildlife inside National Parks and Reserves also apply there even though the wildlife resides on private land. In these areas, a myriad of activities or interactions occurs.

Some wild animals reside there or migrate through them on the way to their seasonal grazing and reproduction zones. Whenever they do this, they remain under the domain of authority of the protected area from where they migrated. At the same time, however, the animals will fall under the conservation and management jurisdiction of the new conservation authority responsible for the area to where they migrate. For example, when wildebeests and zebras migrate from the Nairobi National Park in Kenya to the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania and back, they pass through a migration corridor that has now been subdivided and settled by farmers. In the migration corridor, the animals have the right of way, which in the process causes injuries and destruction to private property. The right of way of "public-owned" wildlife on private-owned lands is a problem that has not been resolved as yet.

Wild animals that reside outside protected areas are legally under the domain of authority of the conservation authority that manages that particular region. The paradox emerges then from the complexities of land-use rights in those regions. The wild animals are state (public) property, whereas the land on which they reside outside protected areas is private property. In these areas, hence, novel conservation methods must be searched for and meticulously applied to ensure the existence of harmony between private and public interests. The amendment of the wildlife conservation law in Kenya meant that the KWS would take an increasing interest in the activities that occur outside protected areas, so that the requirements of socio-economic development of the population would be harmonized with the wildlife conservation objectives.

As pointed out earlier, the domain of authority does not end within the physical perimeters of the protected areas. Its impact is experienced by the inhabitants of the periphery of the protected areas. Even though it has been acknowledged that 30 percent of wildlife species reside in the protected areas, most of the wild animals that are found in the National Parks at any one time are also migratory. That means that more conservation efforts must be put in the search for solutions to conservation problems in protected area fringes (rural areas) where human beings also pursue their livelihood chores.

However, the move towards planned conservation in the periphery of protected areas did not occur without hitches. In the 1993/1994 period, there emerged a heated debate on the role of protected areas in the lives of the average Kenyan. This was an emotion-filled debate, which to some people touched on matters of life and death, particularly those of the Maasai and other pastoral ethnic communities. To some other group of people, the debate touched on their economic and professional survival. Yet, to others, it was simply politics at its best with the aim of getting rid of some bureaucrats who continued to resit local participation in the conservation and management of wildlife. Nevertheless, this debate paved the way for public awareness of conservation and management of wildlife in general and the enlargement of the conservation arena. The debate covered fourmajorthemes. These are dealt with as follows:

Theme 1: Exercise of Power and Responsibility

Between 1989 and 1993, the management of the KWS was not expected or duty-bound to consult the parent ministry on all its activities. This was, as pointed out earlier, due to exemption from certain provisions of the State Corporations Act, which enabled the director22 of the KWS to mould an own "empire" within the institution's bureaucracy. Besides the management of the KWS, the director emerged as an independent actor and in this instance an important stakeholder in the wildlife conservation agenda and arena in Kenya. The emergence of an independent director who could make decisions without the approval of the institution's management led to questions about the exercise of power and responsibilities in the KWS. It emerged that the director had overgrown his mandate, a situation that made him look like a threat to the political establishment.

As the conservation arena reshaped itself, the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife and the senior ministers from Narok, Kajiado and Taita Taveta districts (the districts with a majority and high earning National Parks and Reserves) formed an opposing faction to the management style of the KWS.23 The political opposition, the Kenya Association of Tour Operators (KATO) and the Kenya Association of Hotels and Caterers (KAHC), however, formed the crux of the supporters of the KWS management. The Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife accused the KWS of having acted against the provisions of the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) (Amendment) Act of 1989. The minister accused the director in particular of being dictatorial and turning the KWS into personal property. He was also accused of having ignored the opinions of and suggestions from the County Councils24 and local politicians from the regions where National Parks and Reserves were located. The director was also accused by the local politicians of practicing racism by favoring foreign and local Europeans in the organization. In particular, he was accused of having paid European employees their salaries in dollars while Africans were paid in Kenya shillings and had lower salaries even though they did similar or even tougher jobs. The KWS, in general, was accused of having practiced tribalism in the employment of staff. This was practiced at the expense of the local people whose views and interests in conservation of wildlife had been ignored for a long time.

Although the management of the KWS was empowered to act independently, the ministry accused it of having single-handedly decided, without the approval of the Board of Trustees of the KWS, to incinerate eight tons of ivory and rhino horns that had been captured from poachers. The director defended himself, however, point by point.25 He argued that his accusers had a hidden agenda. He stated that he was being accused because of his resistance against the wishes of the local politicians to grab and use KWS property. He had resisted attempts by local politicians to grab land belonging to the protected areas. He turned down, on sound environmental grounds, the wishes of the government to build the Mombasa-Eldoret oil-pipeline through the Nairobi National Park. He resisted further the attempts by local politicians to alienate land belonging to the Tsavo and Ndeere Island National Parks for settlement. These, he argued, were enough reasons to turn him into a politician's punching bag.

The supporters of the KWS read corruption in the accusations against the director and the KWS. They appealed to the government to give more autonomy to the KWS to enable it to implement its conservation programs. The KAHC appealed to the government to maintain the mandate given to the KWS and provide support to ensure KWS was empowered and fully enabled to continue its work.26 The KATO was of the opinion that "it is the speed and efficiency of the KWS that have so far impressed us and the wide coverage of projects in just five years, which have saved wildlife."27

Theme 2: Finance

Within the finance theme, the state and local politicians comprised the opposing camp, and the World Bank and the opposition politicians the supporting camp. The partial autonomy of the KWS had enabled it to procure financial and technical aid from overseas for the conservation of wildlife. Within five years the KWS had obtained pledges of U.S. $96 million and for the next eight to ten years the KWS had received pledges of up to $300 million for wildlife conservation.28 This enabled the KWS to implement its mandate effectively within the first five years. The Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, however, accused the KWS of being irresponsible with public money. This accusation came at a time when the national economy was in doldrums. Major bilateral and international donors had blacklisted the state's economic management policies and economic aid froze.

As a result, there emerged calls for the channeling of part of this revenue into non-conservation projects, particularly in the neighborhood of the protected areas. This was argued to be a better way of harmonizing conservation and development goals. The state directed that 25 percent of all KWS revenues would be channeled into neighboring county councils and communities. It was argued that this was merely a reiteration of the standing policy of revenue sharing, a policy that the KWS had failed to implement. In general, the KWS wasaccused of being insensitive to the wishes of the people living in the periphery of protected areas and who bear the brunt of wild animals when they roam on their farms and in their homesteads.

The international aid donors, however, supported the KWS. They argued that the real reason behind the accusations against the KWS was that "corrupt leaders are hoping to lay their hands on about Sterling 53 million in annual revenues that flow into Kenya's National Parks."29 The World Bank in particular, was in total agreement with the KWS arguing that it was quite "satisfied with the work done by the KWS management."30

Theme 3: Wildlife Conservation outside Protected Areas

The opposing camp to the KWS consisted of County Councils and the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. They reminded the KWS that for centuries the local people have cohabited with wild animals and could, therefore, contribute more effectively towards rational conservation of wild animals than if they were excluded from participation. It was argued that, although the KWS had adequate knowledge about the problems of land use in the protected area peripheries, it merely ignored them. This was due to the shortsighted nature of conservation philosophies borrowed from developed countries, which tend to borrow a lot from deep ecology principles. These principles have been summarized by Pimbert and Pretty as follows:31

* Human activities generally endanger and degrade wildlife and their habitat.

* The conservation of wildlife is firmly dependent on policies and programs, which exclude wildlife use by humans.

* Biodiversity conservation is dependent on the abolition of trade in wildlife and their products.

* Conservation of wildlife in the Third World can still be successful without necessarily compensating the landowners.

The KWS and the National Parks, in the eyes of the local inhabitants, were regarded as isolated islands due to failure to cultivate useful mutual relationships with neighboring communities. In addition, the general view of the KWS was that the problems emerging in the protected area peripheries and which to a large extent were related to the activities and mandate of the National parks were seen as falling outside the domain of the authority of conservation. To this day, the KWS still grapples with the problem of the relationship between wildlife and human beings. A recent case involves the resettlement of people away from the recently declared protected area in the Tana River Valley. The valley is home to two rare species of monkeys, the red colobus and the Tana River mangabey. People have lived there for hundreds of years before the area was declared a protected area, but the population of the monkeys has expanded considerably in recent years. According to the director of the KWS, "one or other group of primates must go. He plans that it will be the people,32 after which the conservation area will be fenced off. This policy has been termed the policy of "hard edges." It has been implemented in most of Kenya's protected areas. It involves the fencing, using electric wires, of an entire protected area to "keep the animals in and thus stop them from damaging the crops on surrounding farms. But their main purpose is to keep unwanted humans out."33

In addition, the KWS was accused of practicing discrimination in the allocation of wildlife user rights.34 The local politicians argued that the KWS indiscriminately allotted user rights to local European wildlife farmers and denied the same to aspiring African wildlife farmers. They ultimately demanded that the director of the KWS resign. However, the supporters of the KWS argued that the call for the resignation of the director would lead to the collapse of the institution through mismanagement and corruption and the exposure of the wildlife to better-armed poachers. In early 1994, the director did actually resign.35

Theme 4: Community Participation in Wildlife Conservation

The KWS was generally criticized for not investing part of its resources in social or community development. Even amongst some of its supporters, the general feeling was that the KWS had to link its mandate to the existing regional and local economic, social and environmental peculiarities. Strong opposition came mainly from politicians, whose county councils suffered from the lack of socio- economic projects such as rural roads, schools, health centers, although million-dollar earning National Parks and Reserves were located in their midst. The presence of protected areas amidst poverty was seen as incompatible. Local participation in wildlife conservation was, therefore, strongly recommended and it was suggested to comprise organizations of wildlife farmers, wildlife fora and group ranches. The influential wildlife farmers were the most vocal since they ran their farms as businesses targeting rich foreign tourists who enjoy not only wildlife photography but also shooting certain overabundant species. These farmers are basically European farmers who have settled on the rich and fertile highlands. They, therefore, have a stake in the conservation agenda and, particularly as it relates to, wildlife culling or sport-hunting. The debate on community participation led to the speedy establishment of a special community wildlife program within the KWS.

COMMUNITY WILDLIFE SERVICE

The activities of the inhabitants of protected area fringes and the responsibilities of the management of protected areas usually result in land-use conflicts. This is the reason why the residents dutifully detest the wild animals. They try as much as possible to prevent the wild animals from trespassing on their fields or homesteads.36 This action by the residents does not, however, contribute to the realization of the objectives of wildlife conservation outside protected areas. In order to establish a constructive relationship and forestall negative interactions between the adjacent communities and the protected areas, the KWS established, in the early 1990s, a partnership program called Community Wildlife Service (CWS).

In the CWS, a basic working relationship between protected areas, landowners and other private and public stakeholders was to be established. It was intended to address various issues arising from both sides of the wildlife conservation divide. Prominent amongst the issues is compensation to the farmers and herdsmen in whichever form is agreeable amongst the affected parties and the agreement from the communities to allow wild animals to graze or stay on their private farms, but at a cost agreeable between them and the protected area authorities. Compensation should not necessarily be composed of financial payments but could also be in the form of community socioeconomic or eco-development projects established through partnership between communities and the wildlife authorities.37

A significant development in the community wildlife service is the issuance of user-rights to wildlife farmers who are allowed to rear and conserve certain species of wild animals on their private ranches. This is done with the approval of the KWS who supervise cropping and marketing of wildlife products emanating from such farms. So far European farmers, mostly in areas of the Rift Valley and particularly in Laikipia District, control the wildlife farms. In order to advance their interests and to promote private ranch- based tourism these farmers are organized in Wildlife Forums. These forums have become influential wildlife conservation lobby organizations, which usually issue proposals for the promotion of ranch-based tourism, cropping and hunting safaris.

It is, therefore, important that conservation be pursued hand in hand with community welfare issues. When the communities derive certain benefits from the presence of wild animals on their farms, they will tend to tolerate their presence in their environment. Issues of trade are, therefore, very important. Wildlife management must hence move out of the protected area enclosure and venture into the challenging environment of community wildlife conservation. According to Yvonne Baskin, landowners need to actively participate in conservation. She states that the post-1994 KWS management wanted to "help Kenyan pastoralists grab a direct share of the $436 million in tourism related revenues that flowed into the country. If landowners find wildlife more valuable than crops or cattle, they will start to protect it themselves."38

The allowance for wild animals to graze and reside in open tracts of private land outside their protected confines means that the ecological requirements and carrying capacity of the protected areas must be rationally addressed.39 Most protected areas in Kenya are too small ecologically speaking to withstand the needs and wants of both domestic and wild animals throughout the year. In search of water and pasture they will be forced to migrate according to the dictates of nature and seasons. Hence the territorial needs of wild animals, and especially the protected ones that reside in the National Parks and Reserve spill over into the surrounding areas. In addition, wild animals use "ghost acres" belonging to other organizations or individuals.40 This draws these actors into the sphere of influence of conservation policy. They emerge increasingly as stakeholders in the agenda of conservation in the country.

WHICH WAY FORWARD?

The dominant practice inherent in conservation policy in Kenya as well as other African countries hinges on the exclusion of people from protected areas. This practice has alienated the people from the conservation efforts that the government has invested time and financial resources in. The continued alienation of the population remains a living challenge to the survival of protected areas. Some of the protected areas have been threatened with the lack of exit points that are seasonally used by the animals to release pressure on theaffected protected areas. Nairobi National Park is a classic example of a protected area that might evolve into a large-scale zoo if the settlement in the migration corridor is not checked. The policy of hard-edges that is now being implemented in most protected areas, though preferable, is but a sure way of separating man from nature; and therefore, the hardening of the people's negative attitudes towards wildlife.

Conservation and management policy should, therefore, be formulated to address key issues that impinge on the livelihood of the inhabitants who host protected areas. Protected areas must not be managed as isolated islands in which man has no interest or role to play. The policy of integrating stakeholder interest in conservation must be comprehensively revisited so that the local hosts of protected areas directly benefit from them. This will be the surest way of sustaining the development of the local areas and appreciation by the locals of the wild animals as development resources. This means that tourism-based conservation can be developed further by integrating local needs in the tourism package.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This paper has discussed at length the dilemma found within wildlife conservation policy in Kenya. It is fortunate that the spirit of conservation still exists, as well as national and international means toward the realization of wildlife conservation objectives. However, conservation per se has come to be regarded as preservation. This is a shortsighted way in the process of biodiversity conservation.

It has been implied that every institution has its environment or surroundings. This must be considered in the initial planning endeavors. The problems faced by protected areas in Kenya today can, hence, be traced to inadequate forward planning at the time of the initial establishment of National Parks and Reserves. The activities of local residents were always discounted, though they had vested interests in the National Parks or Reserves. The policy framework at the time, and this has continued for decades after independence, did not draw the people's expertise and experiences in the management of wildlife resources. In the end, the activities of the local people have been criminalized at the expense of the survival of wildlife species and their habitat.

Pertinent conservation questions still linger. To what extent should the people get involved in wildlife conservation today without jeopardizing their livelihood and the survival of wildlife species? Wildlife conservation and management policy in Kenya is still bound in the old rags of deep ecology. The people are still effectively locked out of the management of protected areas, despite the existence of a Community Wildlife Service. The principal law is still in itself contradictory. Whereas the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act 1989 allows for the involvement of the population in wildlife management, the various supplementary legal notices negate it. They are still based on prohibitive approaches such as banning hunting for subsistence and trophies. Hence the allocation of user rights to private individuals is technically illegal.

The future of wildlife conservation in Kenya, however, lies in the involvement of the population. Ways and means must be found in which the people benefit from the wildlife in their regions, districts, and locations. Today, farmers generally bear the brunt of wildlife activities. They have incurred losses on the farms and in their homesteads, yet it remains illegal to kill a rogue or problem animal.

NOTES

1. A comprehensive discussion on this subject is contained in my project work entitled Wirk- und Waltbereiche des Wildschutzes in Kenia - Wechselwir/cungen zwischen Wildschutzgebieten und ihrer Umgebung. (Institut fur Regionalwissenschaft: Universitt Karlsruhe, 1997).

2. Tyler G. Miller, Resource Conservation and Management. (Belmont: Wordsworth Publishing Company, 1989), Chapter 17.

3. John Akama, Christopher L. Lant and Wesley G. Bumet in their article "A political-ecology approach to wildlife conservation in Kenya," argue that "Kenya has one of the highest remaining concentration of tropical savannah wildlife in the world. It has been recognized by the state and the international community as a unique world heritage, which should be preserved for posterity. However, the wildlife conservation efforts of the Kenya government confront complex and often persistent social and ecological problems, including land use conflicts between the local people and wildlife, local people's suspicions and hostilities toward state policies of wildlife conservation and accelerated destruction of wildlife habitats. see also Lucy Emerton in her article, Innovations for Financing Wildife Conservation in Kenya http: // economics.iucn.org

4. Imre Loefler in the East African argues that ever since the early days of the colony and throughout postcolonial times, Kenya has professed to having a conservation policy. The details may have changed from time to time but in general, there has always been a declared interest in conserving water, soils, forests and wildlife, see the article at www.nationaudio.com/news/Eastafrican/current/ business/business_opinion. 1003200338.html

5. See Walter Lusigi, Planning Human Activities on Protected Natural Ecosystems. The Conservation Unit Approach to the Planning and Management of National Parks and Reserves in Kenya Based on the Nairobi national Park Ecosystem, (Vaduz: Cramer, 1978)., p. 54.

6. See Yvonne Baskin, "There is a new wildlife policy in Kenya: Use it or Lose it," San Diego earth Times, 1994.

7. see Edmond Were, Wirk- und Waltbereiche des Wildschutzes in Kenia - Wechselwirkungen zwischen Wildschutzgebieten und ihrer Umgebung. (Institut fur Regionalwissenschaft: Universitt Karlsruhe, 1997).

8. See The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act of 1976, Chapter 376 of the Laws of Kenya, Page 5.

9. Ibid, p. 5.

10. See Kenya Wildlife Service, Wildlife Human Conflict In Kenya. A Report of the Five Person Review Group. (Nairobi: Kenya Wildlife Service, 1994). Imre Loefler argues in the East African that "while wild animals could not be owned by anyone, their use or otherwise was controlled by the state, they were regarded as belonging to the state. Over the years, as their numbers declined, concepts of conservation changed and eventually any form of consumptive utilisation was banned while law enforcement became the principal conservation tool."

11. See Walter Lusigi, Planning Human Activities on Protected Natural Ecosystems. The Conservation Unit Approach to the Planning and Management of National Parks and Reserves in Kenya Based on the Nairobi National Park Ecosystem.

12. The Daily Nation, June 9, 1997.

13. See The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) (Amendment) Act No. 16 of 1989, Pages 1260-1262.

14. Refer to Michel Pimbert and Jules Pretty, People and Professionals: Putting Participation into Protected Area Management, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1995.

15. Kenya Wildlife Service, Wildlife Human Conflict In Kenya. A Report of the Five Person Review Group (Nairobi: Kenya Wildlife Service, 1994).

16. See also John Akama et al., "Conflicting Attitudes Toward State Wildlife Conservation Programs in Kenya," Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 8 (1995), pp. 133-144.

17. See The State Corporations Act No. 11 of 1986.

8. Ibid, p. 104.

19. The Economist, June 12, 1999, p. 91.

20. Kenya Wildlife Service, Wildlife Human Conflict In Kenya. A Report of the Five Person Review Group (Nairobi: Kenya Wildlife Service, 1994).

21. Yvonne Baskin, Ibid, points out that these animals roam across rural Kenya, often trampling crops, eating grass intended for cattle, killing or maiming dozens of villagers every year and being killed themselves by angry farmers or poachers, page 1.

22. Dr. Richard Leakey, a Kenyan of European descent, was appointed to head the Kenya Wildlife Service in 1989. He energetically led it until 1994 when, due to haranguing attacks from local and national politicians, he resigned from the post of director. He joined parliamentary politics on the opposition side. In 1999, he was reappointed to head the organization. He resigned from parliament and has emerged again as a committed conservationist. The Economist argues that whether his hard edges policy will work as well as shootto-kill remains to be seen. In reference to the Tana River Conservation Area the magazine points out that the resettlement scheme is supposed to be voluntary and comes with incentives such as schools, water supplies and clinics. But there are still some locals who would rather stay. In theory they can. But they will have to put up with a series of restrictive measures designed to make life more comfortable for monkeys and less comfortable for people. Nobody for instance will be allowed to cut down trees; and human movement will be strictly controlled. The message is thus pretty clear: "please leave".

23. These are districts with very high concentrations of wildlife and hence face crucial with wildlife related problems Kenya .

24. County Councils are political institutions with elected representatives at the ward level. They are quite influential at grassroots level and the Chairmen of these Councils carry a lot of political clout, which competes with that of the Members of Parliament. In most instances they tend to seek favours at the national level, which they then use to influence decisions at the grassroots level.

25. See The Standard, 24.01.1994, p. 11.

26. See The Standard, 16.01.1994, p. 2.

27. See The Standard, 17.01.1994, P. 1.

28. See The Standard, 17.01.1994, p. 1.

29. See The Mail On Sunday in The Standard, 24.01.1994, p. 1.

30. The Standard, 08.01.1994, p. 1.

31. Pimert and Pretty, People and Professionals: Putting Participation into Protected Area Management.

32. See The Economist, June 12, 1999, pp. 91 -92.

3\1. Ibid, p. 91

34. User rights comprise permits issued by the KWS to wildlife farmers to keep certain wild animals for touristisc purposes. The farmers are allowed to crop certain animals when their numbers grow beyond the carrying capacity of the farms. The issue here is that farmers with financial capacity and in this case European farmers are the major ones who qualify to be issued with the permits. Africans generally do not qualify, though they have the experience in cohabiting with the animals.

35. The new director, David Western, argued for the continued management of human-wildlife conflicts by giving rural communities and landowners a direct stake in wildlife conservation by providing park revenues and international donor funds to help them establish wildlife-based businesses. These could include hiking, canoeing or horse back riding safaris, selling meat and hides from game farms or earning lucrative fees for trophy hunting on privately or communally owned lands - a sport banned in Kenya since the late 1970s, see Yvonne Baskins, "There is a new wildlife policy in Kenya: Use it or Lose it."

36. For a detailed discussion on this subject refer to Edmond Were: Planung der Landnutzung und Lebensfuhrung in der landlichen Umgebung des Nationalparks Nairobis. Lizentiatenarbeit. Institute fur Regionalwissenschaft (Universitat Karlsruhe, 1997).

37. Kenya Wildlife Service: Nairobi National Park Management Plan 1996-2000 Nairobi (Kenya Wildlife Service, 1996).

38. Yvonne Baskin, "There is a new wildlife policy in Kenya: Use it or Lose it," p. 1.

39. On May 20, 2004 the minister for environment, Natural resources and Wildlife stated that the "utilization of wildlife resources outside protected areas must be sensitive to long-term ecological sustainability". It was reiterated that sustainable development must be practiced outside protected areas. "While community participation through local wildlife sanctuaries is the way forward stakeholders are duty bound to ensure that the needs of future generations are protected and that intra and intergenerational equity is assured. It was also recognized that "with most of Kenya's wildlife occurring on private land outside national Parks and are beyond the direct protection of the government, there is concern among conservationists that weak policy guidelines and absence of effective monitoring and enforcement of mechanisms for consumptive utilization spells doom for wildlife outside parks", see Minister's speech, KSW 2003, www.kws.org.

40. See Mathis Wackernagel and Rees William: Our Ecological Footprint. Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia (New Society Publishers, 1996).

By Edmond Maloba Were*

* Department of Development Studies, Moi University, P.O. Box 3900, Eldotet, Kenya.

Copyright Association of Third World Studies, Inc. Fall 2005

Source: Journal of Third World Studies

More News in this Category