About the Review Group
In July 1994, the Board of Trustees of Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) commissioned a Five Person Review Group to contact landowners and members of local communities with experience or representative human-wildlife conflicts and openly solicit their views on these problems. Members of the Review Group included individuals from a cross-section of communities with a stake in Kenya's Wildlife, among them individual and group ranches, tourism, conservation NGO's, women and environmentalists. With resource support from KWS, the group was charged with soliciting grassroots solutions, especially to problems of wildlife control, compensation, economic utilization and relationship between KWS, landowners and the tourism industry, and making and independent report on its findings.
KWS Mandate and Mission:
As a state corporation charged with conserving and managing Kenya's wildlife resources, KWS is custodian of Kenya's twenty-six National Parks and thirty National Reserves. KWS also looks after wildlife on private and trust lands, where more than 70 per cent of Kenya's wild animals live, outside the protected areas. In all these areas, KWS is responsible for preserving ecosystems and biodiversity and ensuring that these resources remain in optimum condition for the multiple activities the government and local people demand of them.
KWS Objectives Outside Protected Areas
KWS believes that wildlife cannot be conserved outside protected areas simply by imposing law and order and ignoring people's needs and rights, along with the conflicts with wildlife theses often entail. In the past, KWS and its predecessors have addresses conflict by maintaining expensive control operations so as to eliminate problem animals as the need arises. KWS now prefers a strategy that encourages integration of wildlife management objectives with those landowners. It aims to establish sustainable wildlife utilization as a viable land-use option in areas outside national parks and reserves. Toward this end, KWS has established a pilot extension service, the Community Wildlife Service (CWS), which encourages landowners in selected districts to accept wildlife on their land, along with training and certain responsibilities delegated to them by KWS. In return, participants in the programme receive certain wildlife related benefits including revenue-sharing rights, to consumptive utilization of wildlife and assistance with nonconsumptive enterprises such as tourism.
Elsewhere outside protected areas, KWS encourages conservation by assisting landowners and local people living near parks in obtaining various tangible benefits from their tolerance of wildlife, including sharing of park revenue, promotion of wildlife-based economic activities, principally tourism and certain forms of wildlife utilization. In addition, KWS also seeks to minimize conflict through land use planning and by constructing animal barriers such as fences.
People's Priorities Outside Protected Areas:
On private lands in Kenya, land owners are responsible for determining how to use their land and have their final authority. Today, landowners' highest priority usually is to obtain sustainable monetary benefits from their property, most often through livestock production/pastoralism, agriculture, urban housing or, at sea, traditional fishing - activities that often dictate that land must be cleared of wild animals. This approach contrasts with that of indigenous communities, which usually coexisted with wildlife, killing certain animals only to obtain ceremonial articles or when they become nuisances as man-eaters or stock killers. With Kenya's rapid population growth, the traditional community values, perceptions, land uses, attitudes and patterns of land ownership that make possible the preservation of wildlife animals outside protected areas are changing. As a result, conflicts have intensified, and humans have grown less tolerance of wildlife.
Scope Of The Report:
The Review Group's report, summarized here, sets out its findings and recommendations. It describes the causes and extent of problems that require remedial measures; identifies and discusses policy issues; and recommends actions that should be undertaken immediately with available resources.
Reality of the Wildlife Human Conflict in Kenya
The wildlife-human conflict is acutely real in practically all districts of Kenya. Conflict is most intense when agriculture is involved, particularly where cropland borders forested national parks (e.g. Imenti, Nyeri, Trans-Mara, Kwale) and in pockets of agriculture surrounded by rangeland (e.g. Kimana, Leroghi, Taita). In the cross-section of communities the Review Group met, the dominant view is that, under current law and management, wildlife is a liability imposed upon landowners; most are desperate for relief.
The enormous losses, costs and fear wildlife causes by destroying property and killing humans are the primary sources of conflict. Loss of income from death and injury usually is devastating to families, and material losses often cause unbearable financial suffering, particularly when agriculture loans are involved. In some areas of Kwale District, farmers have abandoned good cropland because of the sheer futility of trying to raise a crop to maturity in the presence of uncontrolled elephants.
Baboons and monkeys are the most frequent, agile and notorious wildlife intruders, but elephant are the worst problem animals because they are the most pervasive, voracious and powerful. From January 1989 to June 1994, wild animals in Kenya killed 230 people and injured 218, for an average of 42 deaths and 40 injuries per year. Elephants perpetrated 173 of these attacks. A common view among the entire cross-section of people consulted is that elephants, secure in their protected status, have increased in number and lost their fear of people. Instead of shying away from humans as they once did, elephants now invade homesteads and break into huts to reach for food.
People's perception is that the government loves animals (read: elephants) more than people. Surprisingly, the empirical data gives overwhelming credence to this view, In Taita District from 1989 to 1993, to cite just one example, elephants killed or injured thirty-six people. During the same period, animal control patrols killed twenty-three elephants; the local compensation committee met three times; and no one received any compensation.
Evidence the Kenyan Wildlife authorities in the past managed wildlife-human conflict by avoidance and by force is impressive. The authorities used the provisions of the law to protect animals but turned to administrative paper shuffling, inaction and time-buying tactics to avoid paying compensation for death, injury and damage. Discontent with wildlife authorities is therefore high, especially at the policy and implementation levels. Focal districts of the Community Wildlife Service (CWS) (e.g. Laikipia, Samburu, Narok and Kajiado) are no exception.
The wildlife-human conflict has never been addressed seriously in Kenya's wildlife conservation history. The issue now could bring many communities together as they work to find solutions to their mutual problems.
Categories of Conflict
Two broad categories of conflict - namely, true wildlife-human conflicts and clashes of interest more properly called interpersonal conflicts caused by direct interaction between animals and people are obvious KWS concerns. The second category includes person-to-person conflicts between stakeholders with polarized group of self interests. Often these disputes derive from competition between groups for resources and dislike of new policies that may affect the power balance or direct benefits away from or towards certain groups.
The Ban on Hunting and Wildlife Utilization Under CWS
Most individual ranchers and ranching companies want the ban on hunting lifted to allow sport hunting. Sport hunting, they say, earns landowners maximum yields from wildlife and is there fore preferable to cropping. Many group ranchers are most flexible in their views on utilization. They are ready for incremental development, starting with bird shooting and commercial cropping of plains game. Kenyan hoteliers and tour operators generally are averse to sport hunting and insist that if it is done, it must be kept cryptic.
For people participating in the CWS project, the major point of concern is the illegal nature of its pilot use-right scheme. The only provision for hunting in the law is the KWS Director's Special Authorization to hunt, which is intended for application in special and limited circumstances such as research and odes not provide for commercial operations. Bans on trade in wildlife also are still in force in Kenya. (Although such activities are not illegal, the country lacks policy provisions covering private game reserves, orphanages, game farms, domestication, etc., as well.)
Although group ranchers in Samburu and Kajiado already enjoy the benefits of use rights by bird-shooting, game cropping, game farming and ecotourism activities, individual ranchers in Laikipia and Machakos are concerned and want the ban lifted. They express uncertainty about the CWS use-rights scheme, saying they can make no major investments to benefit from such activities until the legal status of hunting and trade in wildlife products is reversed.
Problem-animal control by KWS is ineffective and inefficient. Communities criticize KWS for its lack of commitment and low priority it assigns to this responsibility. In many districts, KWS has only one old Landrover. Outposts are understaffed and underequipped, and rangers' clothing is inadequate for control work on cold areas. Communities say rangers are overworked. The previous KWS director's promise to increase the staff have not been honoured. In the field, observers say, resources allocated to animal control are clearly inadequate, while KWS headquarters seems to suffer from a superabundance of equipment.
Sharing of Wildlife Benefits
In 1991, the government of Kenya, with advice from KWS, promised local authorities neighbouring national parks 25 percent of revenues collected at park gates. Most local authorities, the Review Group found, have not received their shares. They are now demanding immediate disbursement of these payments, which in some cases are now three years in arrears. They express considerable concern and wonder why KWS is withholding payment.
On the one hand, the government and KWS say they want to share the benefits of wildlife with local people, but for various reasons, sometimes including local power struggles, the payoff often never comes. Overall, the policy seems to invite bitter and inevitable clashes of interest.
for people killed and property destroyed by wildlife is the issue that most upsets people. Respondents consistently say that compensation of Ksh 30,000 for loss of human life is insufficient to help bereaved families recover from loss of a breadwinner. Most people want compensation for human life increased to Ksh 1 million and additional provisions to cover hospital expenses for individuals injured by wildlife. Rural people feel the lack of compensation for crop damage is also unfair, and they want to be reimbursed for damage to structures as well.
People complain that payment of compensation is slow and the process cumbersome. They want to receive payment within six months of submitting claim and suggest that both processing of claims and payment should be carried out at a district level. Most people are unaware that compensation is paid by the treasury, not by KWS, and thus are unable to voice their complaints about the system effectively.
The Policy Vaccum and Liberalization of Wildlife Management
Kenya's current protectionist wildlife policies evolved as the government, at various times, intervened to halt cases of rampant abuse of the system and solve crises in previous management regimes. In the past, wildlife authorities have grudgingly conceded that local authorities and landowners have the right to share wildlife, knowledge, technical skills, benefits and ownership. Ranchers have extended the same monopolistic attitude to small-scale farming communities. The monopoly and irrational stratification of the wildlife industry continue to be the cause of intense conflict between local authorities and KWS.
These policies and attitudes are no longer compatible with many of KWS's objectives, particularly its desire to conserve wildlife ecosystems by offering landowners, however continue to prefer conventional land uses that produce income and contribute to their livelihood in tangible ways. Many poor people, especially in agricultural communities, also would be happy to obtain a sustainable supply of cheap meat from wildlife. For those who are not part of the (legally dubious) CWS pilot project, wildlife is not a land-use option.
The law's elimination of socially relevant uses of wildlife in effect preempts the chances of sustainable conservation outside protected areas. Sweeping policy changes are needed if KWS's new organizational objectives are to bear fruit. In addition to the policy gap regarding diversification of wildlife enterprises, benefit sharing and conflict mitigation need immediate attention (see sharing of Wildlife Benefits, page 5; Compensation page 6; Hierarchical Conflict-mitigation Strategy, page 10; Revision of Benefit sharing Policy, page 10; and Zoning and MOUs as Management Tools, page 11)
Just as important however, resources must be channelled into local capacity building, so that communities and the government can work together as partners in wildlife conservation. The gap between policy and KWS objectives may not be the most obvious source of wildlife-human conflicts in Kenya, but it is fundamental.
KWS Management and Image
Internally, KWS needs to address several pressing issues. Currently, KWS classifies the country's land as either 1) part of a protected area or 2) outside protected areas. The space outside protected areas, however, is far from homogenous, and this dual classification greatly oversimplifies and obscures the issues. From the viewpoint of wildlife-utilization potential and human-wildlife conflicts outside parks, not one but two abroad geographical land-use regions are discernible.
One of these unofficial zones is the rangeland or pastoral region, which includes ranches owned by groups or individuals, trusts or the state. Pastoral landowners potentially can absorb the impact of human-wildlife conflict through wildlife utilization benefits if they are granted hunting and cropping rights. The second is the intensive-agriculture region occupied by both small and large-scale farmers. Farmers in such areas feel they are in danger of being eaten out of business by all wild animals, whether mice or elephants. Their activities are incompatible with wildlife, and they require protective fences and compensation for crop damage. In agricultural areas, the issue of human conflict with wildlife has been sidestepped and passed over, partly because of their inherent confusion in official policy.
Once the problem of land classification has been solved, KWS needs to restructure its management from the deputy director level to reflect the distinct complementary functions of conservation in protected areas and utilization and conflict mitigation in the two types of areas outside parks. The current lack of congruity between structure and function contributes to community misconceptions about KWS's duties and functions.
As for CWS, the project presents a stimulating model of community mobilization and awareness, but critics say that CWS is working alone with little, if any, collaboration with other relevant sections of KWS, local NGOs, local authorities or established farmers' organizations with common interests. CWS projects have been characterized by too-liberal cash handouts, and determination of the true degree of skills transfer will require full evaluation.
Kenya is currently re-writing its national; environmental policy, and lawmakers require substantial input from KWS regarding the environmental impacts of tourism on wildlife; fencing of certain national parks; and lodges in national parks. In addition, the neglected condition of Kenya's beaches upsets many people. Respondents cite these issues, as well as the negative social impact of wildlife-related tourism, as important problems that need to be addressed. They also see their problems with elephants as a type of ecological imbalance, rooted in overprotection, that calls for further research.
Finally, a very serious management issue is KWS rangers' reputation for brutality. In several districts, rangers were accused of killing innocent people with guns, beating suspects with whips and destroying houses and crops in forests covered the Memorandum of Understanding with the Forestry Department.
Issues: "Perceptions that Intensify Conflict"
People's perceptions of benefits and costs deepen the wildlife-human conflict in Kenya. Some people observe that the government needs wildlife because of the revenue it gets from tourism. These people say that this revenue, often reported in the press as amounting to "billions" of shillings, never trickles down to landowners. No one inside or outside the government has taken the trouble to explain to rural people what proportion of the tourism billions the government receives.
Rural people's perception is that the authorities ignore citizens' wildlife related losses, at the same time denying them their true values and their need and right to use wildlife resources to supplement farm incomes and food supplies. They view the apparent lapse in control of problem animals as avoidance and as part of official wildlife-protection policy, rather than as a genuine operational gap traceable to lack of resources. The chronic frustration engendered by cumbersome and ineffectual government procedures require for claiming compensation when people are killed by wildlife compounds the conflict. In particular, these people perceive the government's failure to pay compensation on grounds of management problems as a denial of the rights. These perceptions suggest that if the law remains overprotective of wildlife, and if those who benefit from wildlife are unwilling to share losses and costs, wildlife may not be sustained on private land over the long run.
Misconceptions about certain factual matters also contribute to the intensity of conflict. One of these concerns security and KWS's role; KWS has been asked, for example, to increase security in order to curb stock theft and authorize group ranchers to carry firearms for self-defence. Another misconception concerns the hot issue of compensation: Many people do not know who is responsible for paying compensation - and neither are they up to date on other matters concerning legislation. For instance, many people are unaware that the government has stopped paying compensation for crop losses. Most also do not know that the quelea is not a protected animal, and that KWS is not authorized to help control these birds and the crop damage cause.
Reshaping Conflict Management:
Some notes from the Field
Liberalization of Policy and Wildlife Utilization
As KWS establishes wildlife utilization as an integration form of land-use in areas outside the national parks and reserves and delegates authority for management to landowners, its role will become more advisory and supervisory. As landowners and local communities are encouraged to participate as partners in wildlife conservation outside protected areas, cropping and local processing of value-added products will become the main wildlife -related economic activities. These changes will require a broader and more comprehensive understanding of people's true values, needs and rights as well as a revised policy and law in governing wildlife. Policy inputs should come not only fro CWS but from the planning and monitoring sections of KWS. (The land use co-ordination and the wildlife legislation studies currently in preparation will serve this purpose well) As long as incompatible policies and laws are in force, consumptive wildlife utilization cannot progress.
Prospects for successful delegation of responsibility for wildlife utilization to communities are good, provided the state retains the prerogatives of ownership and intervention if such matters as poaching, abuse of wildlife regulations and fraudulent compensation claims demand. Local conservation-oriented landowner groups formed with the help of CWS seem to be viable institutions with potential for coordinating wildlife utilization, facilitating dialogue between communities and KWS, and promoting awareness. Ultimately, KWS's role outside protected areas would be to provide 1) advice and supervision of technical and legal aspects of wildlife utilization and 2) mitigation of wildlife-human conflicts.
Hierarchical Conflict Mitigation Strategy and Animal Control
The country's wildlife management policy lacks an explicit and complete conflict-mitigation strategy. In CWS operations, the main solutions to conflict are fencing and utilization, but these do not go far enough. What seems to be required is a framework that combines prevention, control and compensation as part of a comprehensive strategy that includes impact assessment and evaluation.
Within such a hierarchical strategy, fences would first reduce the need to eliminate animals by control- shooting. At the second level, control-shooting functions as a backup measure for dealing with problem animals that break fences. Effective use of these first two control methods would reduce crop destruction and other types of losses that require compensation. This hierarchical structure takes into account that no control strategy is likely to be perfect and provides for compensation when animals do cause damage.
Electric fences are under construction in several parts of the country, and people already perceive them as an effective solution to many of their wildlife problems. With select alterations to policy, existing control measures could be finetuned into an effective, comprehensive conflict-mitigation strategy.
Revision of Benefit sharing Policy
No doubt a clear benefit - and cost-sharing policy is needed to effect wildlife conservation on private lands. However, KWS's commitment to share 25 percent of its revenue with local authorities is not the final answer, and many questions need to be answered:
- How was the figure of 25 percent determined? Is it fair to KWS, considering that 90 percent of the parastatal's revenue comes from the gate receipts? Is it feasible?
- To whom should the share portion of revenue go, and who are the rightful parties: the DDC, County councils, landowners, District warden, NGO's, other agencies? How should the 25 percent be divided among the many possible recipients?
- Will costs and losses incurred by wildlife be shared as well?
The comments various parties shared with the Review Group clearly indicate that the current revenue-sharing policy is not feasible, especially bearing in mind KWS's young age and its goal of financial self-sufficiency. This policy therefore must be lifted or amended accordingly. To reduce financial pressure on KWS, other groups that benefit from utilization of national parks (investors, hoteliers, tour operators and others) should be identified and the possibility of their contributing to a fund for local people's welfare should be explored.
In future policy governing wildlife outside protected areas, the landowners, as the prime stakeholder, should get the highest benefit share. Landowners make independent decisions about plant cover and barriers, and these affect the quality of habitat and the tenure of wildlife on their property. Landowners also suffer certain losses and opportunity costs by encouraging the presence of wildlife. Most benefits flowing from national parks therefore should be directed as closely as possible to the specific locations where wildlife flourishes and to the people who make this possible, encouraging landowners to maintain prime wildlife conditions.
A broad cross-section of people favours introduction of a comprehensive insurance programme to in sulate communities from the worst effects of their conflict with wildlife damage. The legal problem of instituting a compensation insurance scheme that would not be uniformly applied throughout the country, however, presents a considerable constraint. A scheme based on cost-sharing principles and with different risk classes according to zones od activity might effectively circumvent this difficulty.
Zoning and MOUs Management Tools
The Review Group advocates revised land-use zoning as presented in the given table,
|Protected Areas: Highest Wildlife Potential||Zone I|
|Pastoral Region: Medium Potential||Zone II|
|Agricultural Region: Zone Wildlife Potential||Zone III|
with the three recommended zones replacing KWS's current system. The introduction of a third zone is necessary because some areas outside parks have undergone fragmentation through intensive small-scale farming and no longer harbour the possibility of direct wildlife utilization. KWS should assist the government in alleviating the frustrations of these farmers through conflict mitigation.
Affirmation of the three distinct zones would have significant implications for national land use planning and environmental management. Primarily, it would increase the scope of land-use planning within KWS; it would also provide a fair basis for division and coordination of KWS management responsibilities.
In addition, KWS should make full use of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as a valuable instrument for wildlife management outside protected areas, particularly until wildlife policy and goals can be harmonized through legislation. (The pioneer case of the KWS/Forestry Department MOU is already well known). For wildlife management outside protected areas, MOU's could function as policy tools for registering contracts between KWS and game ranches, private game reserves, local sanctuaries and orphanages, partially filling a crucial policy gap. Strategic use of the MOUs also would enhance interest in microparks, encourage development of ecotourism and help stimulate the local tourism market, all of which have great potential.
Recommendation for Action
The Review Group recommends two specific sets of action: 1) additions and adjustments to operational strategies outside KWS, including new legislation on wildlife utilization and 2) adjustments to internal KWS management and strategies.
Additions and Adjustments to General Operational Strategies
New legislation for Sustainable Wildlife Utilization:
KWS should propose new legislation on sustainable wildlife utilization that supersedes the current bans on hunting and capture of wildlife in Legal Notice No. 120 of 20 May 1977 and the subsequent prohibition of trade in wildlife and wildlife products contained in Act No. 5 of 1978 and Legal Notice No. 181 of 21 August 1979. This is necessary to create a policy and law environment that will enable KWS to integrate wildlife and other landowners receive benefits from keeping wildlife on their property.
The New Legislation Should
- Make sport hunting in its old form irrelevant in Kenya's wildlife management system;
- Make the legal bans on hunting, capture and trade obsolete;
- Allow only sustainable wildlife utilization through systematic cropping;
- Liberalize wildlife management outside protected areas by delegating to communities and landowners some rights and authority to utilize wildlife for economic benefit as well as take on certain responsibilities and costs of conservation;
- Allow development of wildlife industries that process value added wildlife products for higher incomes;
- Abolish the 25 percent revenue-sharing policy, provide for community participation and responsibility in sustainable wildlife conservation, and facilitate maximum flow of wildlife-utilization benefits directly to the communities and individuals whose land provides wildlife subsistence outside protected areas;
- Specify wildlife utilization zones that the KWS director can apply according to ecological monitoring information; accompanying schedules should include species affected; outline
- a hierarchical conflict-management strategy for each zone; specify groups and institutions that are competent to crop, handle and process wildlife products and supervise or coordinate these activities at local level; and list individuals or groups authorized to keep wild animals on private premises and in enclosure such as private game farms, orphanages, private game reserves, etc.
- Maintain the state's prerogative to own all wildlife and intervene when the situation demands;
- Provide a policy framework for systematic development of tourist facilities in protected areas with specific procedures for environmental assessment, planning, valuation, and marketing, and leasing of land in wildlife areas for development of tourist facilities such as tented camps, lodges, beach hotels, etc.
- Generalize wildlife policy by stating that in protected areas, conservation of entire ecosys tems, tourism, education and research have the highest priority, while outside protected areas, conservation of entire ecosystems, tourism, education and research have the highest priority , while outside protected areas, utilization and conflict mitigation strategies (fencing, animals control and compensation) have definite and high priority;
- Provide compensation for people killed or injured by wild animals through an insurance scheme operated by KWS that also provides indemnification for hospital expenses, cost sharing of graduated premises and prompt payment of claims at district level.
Ways of initiating wildlife indemnification scheme for hospitalization and compensation of victims should be explored with insurance experts. In principle, KWS could ask the government to pay insurance premiums with a grant from the existing compensation account. The insurance policy should be devised with the broadest possible range of categories and levels, so as to extend coverage to the largest possible number of people.
Wildlife Land-Use Planning Strategy
In order to identify new opportunities to protect wildlife, develop new uses and monitor environmental processes on land outside protected areas, KWS planners should not confine themselves to protected areas but keep a broad perspective on land-use matters. They should coordinate their activities with physical planning and land-adjudication activities outside protected wildlife areas. KWS planners should adopt a broad-based wildlife-land-use model of the whole country, with the three basic zones used to guide policy -related decisions and strategic wildlife planning.
Furthermore, KWS should make greater use of MOUs or similar instruments in land-use planning in order to secure small, valuable wildlife-conservation units by cooperating with individual and group landowners, Kenyan government departments and local government authorities.
Land and Tourism Development
To provide backup for policy specifications, KWS should prepare a discussion paper on allocation, valuation, site planning, environmental assessment, marketing, conditions of lease and other requirements for developers of lodges and tented camps in protected areas and on private land. The dual purpose would be to 1) provide conditions for keeping the highest environmental standards and economic benefits in protected areas and 2) provide a technical backup service for community projects and advice to landowners who wish to develop their land for wildlife-related tourism.
Environmental Impacts of Conflict, Protection and Tourism
The impact of fences on protected areas should be assessed at national parks including Tsavo East, Meru and Aberdares.
Case studies on the impact of wildlife-human conflicts should be made in areas scheduled for fencing including Nyeri, Aberdares, Imenti (Kithoka-Ruiri- Naari corridor), Taita and Kwale.
Finally, Kenya's environmental policy is on the drawing board at present. In order to ensure that provisions for environmental issues related to wildlife conservation, management and wildlife-related tourism are included, KWS should prepare a discussion paper on the subject.
Distribution of Wildlife Benefits
The term benefit sharing is preferable to revenue sharing. Landowners whose property supports wildlife are the principle stakeholders. Benefits of wildlife utilization should be targeted preferentially and directly to landowners. Alternatively, in a group-ownership situation, benefits should be channelled directly to people at specific wildlife loci. To avoid red tape and abuse, institutions with no mandate regarding land used by wildlife should not be involved in the transfer of benefits to landowners.
Adjustments to Internal KWS Management and Strategies
Handling Conflict Mitigation and Clashes of Interest
KWS's highest priority should be to develop a hierarchical conflict-mitigation strategy that combines prevention by fencing, shooting of problem animals, compensation, impact assessment and evaluation.
To deal with interpersonal conflicts or clashes of interest, KWS requires a collaborative network including its parent ministry as well as other government of Kenya ministries, the tourism industry, NGOs and communities.
KWS should encourage and support institutional development in wildlife conservation. A coordinated institutional network of local and national conservation. A coordinated institutional network of local and national conservation NGOs should be maintained through regular dissemination of information and by involving such groups in problem analysis, exchange of views and decision making.
The functions of and responsibility for utilization and conflict mitigation require more emphasis and better delineation at management level from KWS headquarters. In general, the specialized Community Wildlife Service should be strongly identified at deputy director level.
KWS should evaluate the methods and impact of the Community Wildlife Service.
In order to build capacity for tourism development in community wildlife areas, KWS should have in-house technical advisors or second tourist officers to areas with tourism potential.
Information and Public Relations
Awareness and general information services require strengthening at national and local levels through appropriate public information techniques.
KWS should vary the working uniform for Community Wildlife Service staff to avoid a formal military appearance.
Research and Utilization of Scientific Data
KWS should strengthen the dynamic transfer of information between its research and CWS sections, with emphasis on improvement and use of the database to fix cropping quotas and seasonal offtake levels based on animals numbers and movement trends. Some populations of plains game species (e.g. eland, Thompson's gazelle, Impala) are likely to be affected by selective utilization because they are highly preferred for meat. KWS should encourage landowner communities to maintain a network of local databases for purposes of wildlife utilization. This could be a major means of stimulating institutional growth in community wildlife management.
Finally, KWS needs to prepare policy studies and discussion papers on:
Benefit and Cost Sharing: KWS should prepare a paper on distribution of wildlife benefits in the past, with special reference to the rightful shares of different stakeholders and recommendations for future directions.
Policy Development and Conservation Doctrine:Some predicaments with conservation organizations and donors reflect a crisis of confidence in indigenous values governing wildlife conservation and dependence on stereotypes drawn from foreign values. For the purposes of policy development, KWS should sponsor preparation of a discussion paper on policy guidelines based on indigenous wildlife-conservation values. These values should be incorporated in policy and legislation as well as transferred through education and training.
Traditional Compensation Systems:In order to enhance the application of indigenous wildlife policy, traditional compensation systems governing human deaths (e.g. forty-nine head of cattle in the Maasai community) should be evaluated and summarized.
Feasibility of Compensation Insurance: Arable farming and urban zones with no possibility of direct income from wildlife should be identified and subjected to a strict policy of animal control and appropriate compensation. KWS and stakeholders should start a transparent debate on this topic with a view toward establishing needs, realities, possibilities and limitations. A discussion paper should be written on a workable cost-sharing insurance scheme or wildlife compensation fund with a view to developing policy guidelines and identifying potential contributors to such a fund.
Game Farming: To help the country find its bearings for future development, KWS should conduct a conclusive debate on game farming and domestication to determine whether Kenya should aim to have small domestic zoos or produce meat and skins commercially from game farms. The debate should consider such aspects as goals, the legal issues and implications of tamed wild animals, economic benefits, the socio-cultural value of tamed animals , and game farming's potential contribution to wildlife management outside protected areas. Outcomes of the debate should be included in a discussion paper.
|Site Search Tool||KWS Main Page||Sign Our Guest Book|
|Table of Contents||Executive Summery||Essential Background|
|Wildlife-Human Conflicts||Conflict Management||References|
All rights reserved.
| Safari Profile | Natural Attractions | Main Urban Centres | Accommodation |
| Tour Operators | Useful Addresses | References | Kenya safaris
Copyright © 2013 : Uganda Tourist Board;
All Rights Reserved.
For comments, suggestions or further enquiries, please contact:
An independent magazine on African Cultures, Travel and the Environment. click here>>>
Join our Mailing List to receive regular updates on new products, travel-related news and much more. click Here >>
Please E-mail us your comments