I can't say anything about Francis ole Kaparo's motives, but his move might just be a step into the right direction...



http://www.eastandard.net/national/nat23050406.htm



Carcano

And the other leading Kenyan newspaper, the "Daily Nation", just brought an editorial on 25th May, on this same subject. The public opinion now seems to sway, and Kenyan politicians have become quite aware of realities.

Article follows:
http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=24&newsid=8524

The results of an analysis of meat sold in Nairobi outlets makes for shocking reading. It clearly indicates that there is a well-organised, illicit trade in bush meat.

It also indicates that the trade is no longer the preserve of the poor looking to sell a few carcasses of game to protein-deficient Kenyans. It is now being financed by affluent people out to make real money.

But even more disturbing are the underlying causes of this thriving trade.

This is a clear manifestation of the country's flawed wildlife conservation policy. While other countries such as South Africa and Uganda have adopted the consumptive utilisation of wildlife in conservation, Kenya has continued to hang on to the non-consumptive model, one that is being increasingly discredited.

This was clearly brought out by participants at a three-day conference in Mombasa last week hosted by the Kenya Wildlife Service.

The participants were unanimous on the need to adopt the consumptive model if wildlife is to serve this country the way it is meant to. They agreed there was a need to grant wildlife user rights to communities and land-owners, especially those in non-protected areas which are currently estimated to hold 70 per cent of Kenya's wildlife.

While acknowledging the colossal amounts of money that accrue from tourism, the Government is hard put to explain who shares in this largesse. It is obvious that land-owners and communities that harbour game in their lands are not part of this privileged circle.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the conference recommended that the user-rights be vested in these communities and that they be allotted a bigger cut of the benefits.

After all, the real custodian of wildlife in this country is not the Government, nor the investors in the tourism industry, but the communities that live with this wildlife in their ranches or small farms; the people who tolerate this wildlife that competes for water and pasture with their livestock.

Their recognition as such holds the key to nipping this insidious trade in the bud.

C.

Here is another article (from the "Daily Nation") of substantial interest:

http://www.nationmedia.com/dailynation/nmgcontententry.asp?category_id=30&newsid=8605

Game hunting coming back
Story by Naftali Mungai
Publication Date: 05/27/2004

The hunting ban imposed on wildlife in Kenya may soon be lifted with landowners and communities free to exploit wild game. This was the main recommendation following a three-day consultative meeting on wildlife held in Mombasa last week.

The stormy meeting, which at times generated more heat than light, pitted supporters of consumptive utilization of wildlife versus the proponents of the status quo, those who argue that wildlife should be preserved.

The meeting, hosted by the Kenya Wildlife Service, had several objectives, but overriding was to "generate consensus on development of appropriate policy on wildlife conservation and utilization."

"We have here a conflict between the European and Western European model which accuses Africans of unethical killing, and the emerging model which justifies consumptive utilization as practical and economically viable. It is simply a question of use it or lose it," Dr Imre Loeffler, the chairman of the East African Wildlife Society had thus set the mood of the conference.

Mr Francis ole Kaparo, Speaker of the National Assembly was categorical that they be told in black and white whether they, as land owners, had any role in the management of wildlife. "If we do not have any role, then we should be told so that we can go home immediately as we would not have any business attending this meeting."

The speaker did not mince words and categorised the proponents into three groups. "There are those who have never seen animals in their natural state yet they seem to love the animals more; there are those who have lived with wildlife since time immemorial, the real custodians of wildlife; and there are those who make money from wildlife yet they do not contribute in any way to the conservation of these animals."

Mr ole Kaparo had an ominous warning for the first group: "Those who do not want wildlife to be touched have no choice but to cooperate with the communities that own the wildlife otherwise there will be nothing left to get sentimental about."

The question of who owns wildlife in non-protected areas, currently estimated at 70 per cent of the total wildlife in this country, was amended to read: Who has the user rights of wildlife in non-protected areas?

On this question, there was unanimity. "User rights outside protected areas belong to the owners of the land," the conference recommended. It also recommended that outside the protected areas, user rights should belong to a competent authority and the local authorities.

In the framing of the rights, the participants recommended that land owners, in consultation with the government, are the competent authority to manage wildlife outside the parks and reserves.

However, with rights come responsibilities and it was agreed that the responsibilities must be borne by the people with the user rights. "These responsibilities include management, security, liability and generation of scientific knowledge," the conference resolved.

The conference went further and defined what methods the wildlife utilization would take. It was agreed that this would be both non-consumptive and consumptive. "The types of consumption are capture, sport hunting, cropping, farming, processing and trophies, etc. depending on the particular area."

The group that gave the recommendations for this was chaired by Dr Loeffler, an ardent supporter of consumptive utilization. "We have recommended that consumptive utilization is an ethical tool of management provided it serves the interest of conserving the species and benefits the people."

Dr Loeffler's group recognised the need for sustainability in consumptive utilization and added that the process must be regulated and informed by sound scientific knowledge. "The science should be provided by the government, NGOs, private institutions and there must be adherence to international regulations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity," the group resolved.

They based their recommendations on the KWS Policy Paper 2003 and the Draft Wildlife Act Amendment Bill.

Another group presented its recommendations on the equitable sharing of wildlife benefits, a major source of conflict. These benefits were recognised as employment, training and technology transfer, revenue from wildlife, entrance fees, taxes, licences and levies, cropping fees, sale of game products, and others such as royalties.

They recommended that the beneficiaries should be the local community, government agencies, land owners and investors such as hoteliers. "Priority in employment opportunities should be given to the local community and they should also benefit from research findings and data collected."

The group also recommended that the revenue from entrance fees that accrues to the local community should be revised upwards from the current 19 per cent to 25 per cent. "Cropping fees should be on commercial basis and should benefit the local community," they added.

This group also recommended the establishment of a general trust fund for development of wildlife activities where local communities should be represented.

While recognising that human/wildlife conflict is inevitable, the conference agreed that the conflict can be minimised and to some degree, tolerated. "In many members of this session, there is a belief that if the costs of problems are absorbed by a responsible party, then once ownership of animals is assigned the conflicts would resolve themselves."

As expected, the question of who should pay compensation for damage, injuries or loss of life was a sticky one. The participants recommended that compensation should be borne by the state.

This requires a repeal of Section 62 of the current Act into 62 (a) and (b) where 62 (a) deals with landowners with wildlife on their land including parks, national reserves and county councils while 62 (b) deals with crops and livestock. They suggested that MPs should consider a wildlife compensation levy in the lines of the airport tax and the fuel levy.

But the conference also recommended that the people living in areas of conflict must take measures to prevent loss of life and livelihood. "In any form of compensation or insurance, there must be a "duty of care" clause that is clearly spelt out in the form of obligations of responsible parties - both the caretaker and the institution distributing aid or funds," the conference recommended. It also called for private initiatives such as insurance schemes to supplement national policy and assist in conflict resolution.

A participant from Uganda, Mr Adonia Bintoora, said that their experience had shown that wildlife trade is the most controversial class of wildlife user rights and that participation of partner agencies and other stakeholders is crucial.

While giving her closing remarks, the permanent secretary in the ministry of environment and natural resources, Ms Rachel Arunga, said that there is no doubt on the need for a revised wildlife Act. "The land owners' role in compensation should be explored further and equitable sharing should be developed and agreed upon.

She called for personal discipline among the individual land owners to avoid the abuse and misuse of the quota system that occurred when it was tried on an experimental basis in the past.

It was recognised that this is only one among many consultative efforts that will take place before a new wildlife management and conservation act is enacted by Parliament.



C.

Wow, this sounds real. Fingers crossed it won't turn into a a 2K per diem type country and that some kind of market competition emerges!

Imagine all the white haired Englishmen (not mad dogs!) dusting off the old rigby and training a new gunbearer!

I was in Kenya with the military in 92. I was lucky enough to get an invitation to a zebra and buffalo cull.

I saw plenty of wild game both in and outside the National Parks.

How were the buffalo, any gooduns? Does this mean, the locals have been organising 'culls' this whole time or was it an exception?

The good part is that they are beginning to move in the right direction. The bad part is that at 57, I won't live long enough to see it completed.

Can't say I would blame them!

So far as I am aware it has always been perfectly lawful for a Kenyan landowner to manage the wild game on his land. If he lets the hunting for commercial gain it is another story.

I stumbled accross dagga boys, leopard (by day) and lion (by night ) up in the area 100 miles north of Mt Kenya. Even had one our camels, who were carrying mortar ammo, bolt and eaten by lions during one night march.

Saw plenty of Ele in the Aderdares - chased one in a Bedford truck . Here we saw lion tracks through our bivi area, brown trout, and hail stones like golf balls all in one morning. I had wanted to see bongo in the bamboo thickets - but no such luck.