Kenya: Only Homegrown Policies Can Prevent Human-Wildlife Conflict

The Nation (Nairobi)
13 June 2007
Anderson G Mwaloma
Nairobi

THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERence between a colonial or dictatorial regime and a democratically elected one is that whereas the former rules by decree, the latter bases its decisions on the wishes of the citizens because they have the power to determine who governs them and how.

Thus the colonial government in Kenya pursued wildlife conservation policies without any consideration to the needs of citizens then referred to as "primitive" natives.

This is why land occupied by white settlers was recognised as bona fide farming area, while that which was traditional home to the locals was regarded as the natural habitat for wildlife. When the locals complained, they were told they had no business residing in what were wildlife migratory corridors.

Unfortunately not much has changed in that regard since 1963 because the post-Uhuru governments continued to accommodate the views of the non-indigenous "experts", their collaborators in the tourism sector, and external donors in determining the policy direction regarding wildlife conservation and management programmes.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH untenable policies based on the alien philosophy of wildlife protection at all costs are the main causes of the never-ending human-wildlife conflict.

People cannot understand why they should protect wild animals which destroy their lives, farm produce and infrastructure while all they can expect is derisory levels of compensation, if at all.

In the circumstances, engagement in unregulated hunting (or poaching, according to the Kenya Wildlife Service Act) is the only means of subsistence.

This is why recent reports on the proposed people-driven wildlife policy on which the Draft Wildlife (Conservation Management) Bill 2007 is supposed to be based, is seen by the victims of the present wildlife management practices, as a sign of good riddance.

People's welfare is paramount. A way must be found to keep the numbers of any given species within manageable levels, while boundaries of wildlife sanctuaries must take full cognisance of human settlements.

Furthermore, as the human population grows, parts of national parks known for their agricultural potential have to be hived off for human settlement

It is, indeed, a great shame to seek food aid for food to starving Kenyans when we can multiply food production ten-fold in some areas reserved exclusively for wildlife since the turn of the last century.

Why should a growing Nairobi encroach on the dwindling Karura forest in the wake of global warming when there is abundant land presently gazetted as a national park next to the city whose animal population can be moved to Amboseli or parts of Tsavo?

Let us be sober and place our people's interests above those of wildlife since, after all, countries like the Seychelles receive 100 per cent more tourists than Kenya, yet it does not have any wildlife except birds and sea turtles.

With a systematic decentralisation of a wildlife conservation policy which must be responsive to the unique needs of the local communities, it will be a win-win situation when people can farm their land in peace and planned numbers of animals continue to graze or eat each other in the parks.

Licences should be given to those who wish to farm any of the species provided there are conditions governing such enterprises and controls on how to dispose of the surplus numbers.

In considering people's views on the future of wildlife, one must take full consideration of the diversity of Kenya's culture. This is because the views of the white settler in Laikipia, for example, will more often than not, be incompatible with those of the pastoralist Maasai next-door. Indeed, those of the small farmer near Tsavo will not reflect either because of his unique circumstances.

CONSEQUENTLY, ANY ATTEMPT at consolidating community views and generalise them as a prelude to universal policy measures will fail, which is why there must be a paradigm shift towards decentralisation.

Likewise, institutionalising the specific academic qualifying criteria for the appointment of the KWS director is being myopic, to say the least.

Any qualified and competent business manager can run the organisation just as well, provided he or she has a passion for excellence, is morally upright, and embraces good governance practices.

Mr Mwaloma is a conservation consultant

Mr Mwaloma is a conservation consultant

There you go......writes one article that is 90% rubbish and then gives himself the title of "conservationist". Self appointed no doubt!

Only Homegrown Policies Can Prevent Human-Wildlife Conflict

Something else seems to be "homegrown" as well

Not only does he call himself a conservationist but on top of it a consultant -> He goes and advices others with his homegrown ideas

I cannot believe this article and am quite embarrassed to note that it is written by a Kenyan.
However, thanks to Jan for posting it as it highlights a key conflict in Kenya which has yet to be settled.
The human-wildlife conflict in one that has gone on for many years - long before tourism and conservation came about. The article is clear in showing key human traits that prevent this conflict from being resolved - ignorance and selfish personal desires. Yes, in part, the fact that the European settlers have been able to secure much of the fertile lands for farming and for creating their own conservation ranches is no excuse for allowing our cities/towns/villages to grow and expand without any proper planning guidance. This uncontroled growth is what is partly endangering this wildlife population that we hold so dear to us and which sustains our tourism industry. If the relevant authorities were to act responibly and control the various development constructions that are going on just within Nairobi, the Nairobi National Park would not be threaten the way it is today. Moreover, the idea of relocating the animals is absurd, to say the least. What does the writer suggest we do with the land once we relocate the wildlife - allow uncontroled groth of the capital with poor construction that often endagers the lives of the occupants to continue as it is presently? I think not!!! The attraction for Kenya is the wildlife, the beach, the flora & fauna, the culture, the people! The decline in the tourist numbers is in part due to the lack of infrastucture within the country, the lack of co-operation between industry partners, and the lack of concern by many to the welfare of the wildlife. As long as these factors are not taken into consideration and proper government policies put in place, the Kenyan tourism industry will continue to suffer. And worst of all, as long as there is such ignorance amongst the educated society in Kenya, the human wildlife conflict will continue. So if Seychelles has 100% more toursits than Kenya, I suggest the Kenyan tourism industry take this small island archipaelago nation as an example and implement some of their policies on infrastucture, growth and education to ensure the protection and survival of their national heritage

AMEN!!! Beautifully said Taz.

The problem as I see it is how does one get government, wildlife authorities and the people together to get any concensus of the correct thing to do? Instead of making policy, the government sits on its butts and does nothing which only encourages the people to do things that will hurt the country in the long run (snaring, sport hunting, poaching). For instance, not too many months ago Minister Dzoro was hinting at opening sport hunting, and then in the article I just posted he threatens anyone who thinks about it after having gotten their hopes up.

Among your group of friends and acquaintances, what are the collective ideas they come up with? Would be interested to hear what young Kenyans think.