It all started with the ‘7th Wonder of the World’, the Maasai Mara.
Both the Narok and the Trans Mara County Councils are considered blue-chip civic authorities who can only be marched by the country’s metropolis’ notably Nairobi, and the municipalities of Nakuru, Kisumu, Eldoret and Mombasa.
Now it’s the Amboseli.
And the Ol Kejuado County Council has began to count the windfall of the yearly gate takings that come from the Amboseli which is only second to Nakuru National Park in terms of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) run parks’ gate collections annually. Though there is a court order barring the government from ceding the Amboseli to the county council, this cannot stop the minds of politicians from calculating the profits. The degazettement of Amboseli into a game reserve has opened a Pandora’s Box. Everyone now wants a piece of any national park near to his or her vicinity. Could this be a politically motivated fever and is it the time for all to jump the wagon and claim a slice of the national park system?
The national park system is made up of 59 parks and reserves. As compared to other state parastatals, the 16-year old Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) is richly endowed with massive real estate assets not to mention the floral and faunal wealth therein. Listen to Kenya Biodiversity giving a sneak preview of KWS’ resources:
“Kenya has designated 7.5% of the country as protected areas. These consist of 59 parks and reserves. Tsavo National Park, the largest of them all, covers 47% of the total protected area system. Over 80% of biodiversity exists outside protected areas, many of which are becoming ecological islands surrounded by human settlements. Parks and reserves do not necessarily cover all the biodiversity-rich areas; in fact over 97% of aquatic biodiversity and a large portion of terrestrial ecosystems lie outside them. They are therefore, inadequate safeguards as they are too small to meet species habitat needs or sustain important ecological processes.” The report authored by the African Conservation Centre (ACC) states.
The report goes on to add:
“There are about 80 legal statutes relating to conservation and management of biodiversity resources in the country. Most of them concentrate on biodiversity conservation for economic, social, scientific and cultural purposes, but fail to reconcile and integrate conservation goals with human needs. Farms, forests, grazing areas, fisheries, protected areas, and villages have been treated in isolation to the detriment of all. Sectoral policies, conflicts, lack of political support, poverty and inadequate budgetary allocations all contribute to the decline in biological resources.” Notes the report.
It doesn’t stop there.
“The interests of stakeholders are often ignored, and the available human capacity is not effectively used. Policies which recognize the full value of biodiversity are hampered by poor governance, political patronage and widespread corruption.”
The report further reckons that due to water pollution; unchecked and unplanned horticultural and floricultural developments; forests excisions; widespread water abstraction some species have disappeared while others are on the verge of extinction. These include, a handful of Sitatunga antelopes; less than ten Lammergeyers; a dozen dugongs; continual decline of Hunter’s antelope from 12,000 to 350; 30 roan antelopes; and 150 sable antelopes.
Way back in 1999, John Watkins a noted conservationist, under the umbrella of the ACC conducted “Regional Workshop Series on Conservation” with several conservation CBOs across East Africa. From the first workshop held in Nyeri, Kenya and which brought participants from the three East African Community (EAC) countries in 1998, it was commonly identified that:
“Communities cited the fact that the death of a wild animal – from whatever cause – attracts instant attention from government agents, but death of human being caused by a wild animal does not merit the same level of concern. In all the countries in the region, it comes across that the loss of life and property on account of wild animals is common yet commensurate compensation is never given. Similarly, revenue and other benefit sharing schemes are implemented by government agencies in a halfhearted manner and there is a lack of transparency. The current ethics of conservation seems to mainstream wildlife and marginalize human beings. And despite the fact that many community conservation projects exist, their impact on conservation is still minimal. This situation will be compounded as the mushrooming human population will cause severe land scarcity and ultimately threaten the very existence of protected areas [PA]. This situation needs to be balanced for people and wildlife to continue to exist together.”
Does this ring a bell? Yes it does! Nairobi National Park is a case in point. Through these series of workshops astonishing findings came to the fore.
“Poverty was felt to be the root cause of unsustainable practices in natural resource management, However should communities be given the responsibility to manage their resources, together with the necessary support and training then the local benefits of the resource can be increased, which may lead to poverty alleviation.”
The conclusions of Workshop II held in Uganda and which covered three areas notably; resource use; economic benefits and cultural aspects noted candidly:
“Communities have stated clearly that poverty is the root cause of environmental degradation. Yet for community conservation to be a success there has to be greater incorporation of communities in the implementation of natural resource management policies and these policies should respect local situations, cultures and livelihoods.”
Writing in UNEP’s flagship magazine Our Planet, President Mwai Kibaki notes:
“The current number and distribution of protected areas cannot guarantee effective and sustainable conservation of natural resources. We must therefore urgently establish additional ones so as to ensure the long-term conservation of biological diversity. It is particularly necessary to conserve representative ecosystems that are rich in biodiversity. Special attention should be given to endemic rare and threatened species or those species and habitats with critical scientific and aesthetic values.”
Chief Emeka Anyaoku and Claude Martin of World Wildlife Fund for Nature in their treatise “Parks and Participation” argue:
“Protected areas now cover more of the earth’s surface than the giant countries of India and china combined. Their numbers are still growing, as are those of the elite World heritage Sites designated for ‘outstanding natural value’. But the challenge is not just to increase their area – it is also to ensure that they are viable. And that will only happen if those who live in and around them benefit from them and particularly, if they help to reduce poverty.”
But scholar Norton Griffith sees it from a different perspective. He sees the country’s wildlife policy as the bane of its survival. He explains:
“Despite massive conservation efforts backed by significant international support, Kenya has lost some 44% of its large mammal fauna over the last 17 years. This catastrophic example of resource degradation stems from a mixture of policy, institutional and market failures. Policy failures include an over-reliance on Command and Control (prohibition on consumptive use of wildlife, prohibition on use of resources within protected areas) without the ability to enforce compliance; subsidies to agricultural and livestock production which, by reducing marginal production costs to below social opportunity costs, has caused the over conversion of rangelands to livestock and agricultural production at the expense of conservation objectives and values; and the establishment of tourism cartels which divert wildlife generated benefits away from landowners.”
Way back in 1998, at the height of controversy pitting the then director, Dr David Western, and the political rigmarole that forever surrounds KWS, Dr Western said:
“Most wildlife exists outside national parks. We have to make sure that wildlife has value to the people who must live with it.” He said this in an interview with International Wildlife.
In his highly acclaimed book, “Wildlife Wars: My Battle to save Kenya’s Elephants” KWS’ founding director, Dr. Richard Leakey writes:
“We wanted good relations with those villagers who lived closest to our parks. At the time conservationists worldwide were grappling with the same issues that we were, as many of the regions containing the most abundant and diverse plants and animals are also found in some of the world’s poorest countries. These conservationists realized that the people who lived in the forests, deserts and savannahs – whether it was the Amboseli or the Serengeti – would use the natural resources surrounding them. If a timber company was willing to pay a high price for teak, for instance, villagers would understandably cut down as many hardwood trees as possible. If there were buyers of antelope or monkey meat, people without any other means of making a living could easily be enticed into hunting these animals. Many conservationists came to the conclusion that parks only exacerbated the problem of finding a way for humans and wildlife to coexist. In some places such as Kenya, parks had been developed by a colonial government. Local people had been forced off their land and then denied access to the natural materials in the parks. It was understandable that they would resent the parks and those who administered them. And as human populations continued to grow, the pressure to develop these parks would also grow.
“This was a very bleak scenario. To counter it, some conservationists proposed that local communities be given funds raised from the parks through tourism, an idea called ‘community based conservation’ or CBC…Our initial plan was to set aside 25% of parks entry fees for financing small scale development projects in such places. But even as we began drafting the plan it became clear that it was going to be highly political. All sorts of people from local leaders to members of parliament, wanted part of the action- that is a share of the promised revenue. And it became equally clear that we were going to have trouble convincing the villagers that this money had been generated by the wildlife in the parks – a fundamental and important connection if any community project was to work – and not by some political figure trawling for votes.”
From the foregoing it is clear, how to make wildlife conservation viable and even profitable to communities surrounding protected areas remains KWS’ major challenge. The murky combination of science, poverty and politics are the tightrope that KWS must walk. Will it live to its billing?

ENDS