Why Not Give Wildlife Bill a Chance?
The Nation (Nairobi)
OPINION
May 2, 2005
Ndung'u Njaga
Nairobi

The return to Parliament of the Wildlife Conservation and Management (Amendment) Bill, 2004 by the President ought to provide Kenyans with a fresh opportunity to exhaustive.

The Bill by Laikipia West MP G.G. Kariuki, may have had some weaknesses that needed redress, but it was a significant contribution and a major step towards review of the current wildlife laws which all genuine stakeholders admit have totally failed to conserve our rich wildlife heritage, hence the continued decline over the years.

The Bill's major credit is its attempt to bring the landowners at the centre-stage in the management of wildlife outside protected areas.

This has continuously been raised as a critical obstacle to sustainable wildlife conservation since the law has hitherto given inordinate powers to the Government while denying management flexibility and innovation to the landowners.

Yet historical evidence shows that the country is largely beholden to the landowners who have continued to conserve and protect wildlife on their land despite hostile policies and economic disincentives.

This has had two main effects: First, although the law clearly supports non consumptive and consumptive utilisation of wildlife, conservation policies and practice have expressed naked favouritism for non-consumptive utilisation.

This is not necessarily because of any major scientific or economic advantage over consumptive utilisation, but because of attitudinal bias against it by the Kenya Wildlife Service leadership and its influential sponsors.

This has effectively left the landowners short-changed and unable to make long-term investments, which would enable them reap optimally from wildlife.

The best way to illustrate the negative effects of this policy lacuna is the much-touted cropping experiment on which a moratorium was imposed recently by KWS.

It had become fashionable to accuse landowners of abusing the cropping permits to over-crop and even exploit special and endangered species. However this analysis was just one side of the coin. What was never reported is that the exercise failed to yield its desired results of boosting conservation because the policy framework was weak and time-frame too short to post any positive results.

This is because many years of ban on cropping and hunting ensured the near death of wildlife and game trophies as an industry.

Hence the landowners could only trade in raw products, which cannot fetch significant returns, therefore making the experiment very costly, inefficient and wasteful.

To the extent it was an experiment whose policy direction and future could not be predicted, cropping failed to win the confidence of landowners to invest in conservation and change their land-use in favour of wildlife.

What landowners need is not discretionary privileges over a short time but policy stability, consistency and freedom to manage wildlife on their land, if we are going to see any positive trend in wildlife patterns. This is what the Bill sought to protect by calling for "the sanctity of private property and the resources therein."

The second negative impact of this policy failure has been the unholy mistrust between the Government (through KWS) and landowners, a relationship that is not beneficial to conservation either.

This mistrust has a long history since the 1960s during the rapid conservation of what was communal land into private holdings and group ranches.

Although the then Game Department previously concentrated on State land and took little notice of private land, it started to take keener interest in private land when many private holding began hosting wildlife. To the landowners, however, this amounted to unnecessary interference, causing tension between the two parties that has continued to fester to date. The loser has been wildlife.

By insisting on excessive control of wildlife in private lands. KWS effectively undermined its viability since wildlife can only exist on private land with the approval of landowners. While the law states clearly that the competent authority with respect to private land is ". . . the owner thereof or the person for a time being entitled to the rents and profits thereof," this authority has always been usurped by KWS on behalf of the Government, in essence making landowners passive managers of their own resources.

The ultimate effect of this confusion has been systematic loss of wildlife populations outside protected areas where landowners lack express rights to manage the wildlife on their land.

A critical review of the Bill shows that it was meant to correct this anomaly by giving more powers and recognition to the role of landowners in conservation. This motive is quite noble and needs to be clarified - that it doesn't necessarily amount to sport-hunting per se.

The underlying principle ought to be that of giving an economic incentive to landowners to participate in conservation so that we can reverse the declining wildlife trends.

As long as farmers benefit from wildlife, market forces will tilt land-use forces in favour of wildlife and revival will be noticeable in a short while.

The wildlife Bill ought to be seen in this broader sense so that it can endear itself to the general public and other stakeholders who are currently suspicious that its main motive was just to license sport-hunting in private ranches. The Bill's proponents need to conduct more public education on its implications so that it can be debated more objectively in Parliament.

However, while we address specifics of this Bill, the debate ought to be opened up to subsume broader conservation gains from wildlife to Kenyans.

Wildlife is, indeed, an invaluable national asset, which has benefited many sectors. It has benefited successive governments since colonialism; it has greatly benefited tourism and investors in the industry. Over and above that, it has benefited enormously the institutions of conservation.

The next stage is for Kenyans to debate how wildlife can now benefit the ultimate custodians: the ordinary people, particularly those the Bill defines as the 'wildlife community'. This is one debate which must remain alive so that conservation ceases to be a privilege of a few and a resource for the majority.

Mr Njaga is a travel consultant, Menengai Holidays