Kenya’s Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife has published a new Bill that legalises the killing of “excess” wildlife — besides allowing individuals to sell animals on their ranches.

The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Bill, 2009, set to be tabled before the cabinet soon, splits the role of managing the country’s wildlife between the Kenya Wildlife Service, a Wildlife Department and the Kenya Wildlife Authority.

It also provides for the establishment of two funds — a Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund and a Kenya Wildlife Service Endowment Fund — to cater for the maintenance of national parks and to finance security operations as well as funding KWS.

The Bill proposes that the Wildlife Authority be similar to the Wildlife Division of Tanzania, which is said to subsist on revenues earned from issuing permits for different forms of wildlife use.

To raise its own income, the Wildlife Division of Tanzania has been increasing hunting quotas arbitrarily and sometimes in disregard of the state of wildlife population in the country.

Although it retains the ban on sport hunting, the Bill provides for culling and “cropping” or killing of excess wildlife for their products and trophies.

“Subject to the rules and regulations made under this section, the Minister may grant cropping to be undertaken in game farming and ranching operations,” it states.

It assigns the Wildlife Authority the role of keeping records of trophies obtained from cropping and culling operations and gives the relevant minister powers to “authorise local processing and sale of wildlife trophies from the cropping activities.”

It also allows individuals to sell wild animals, which they host in their farms.

“The Minister may, on recommendation of the Authority, grant sale of live animals… in game farming operations which shall be done under the supervision of the Kenya Wildlife Service and in consultation with the respective regional wildlife conservation committee.”

The Bill also establishes an air wing within KWS to be managed by a board, that can be authorised by the KWS director to operate commercial services.

And in a departure from past laws, the Bill provides for bioprospecting or research and exploration of wild biological resources for commercial purposes.

It prevents individuals and companies (both local and foreign) from exporting such material from the country or from engaging in bioprospecting schemes without due permits from the Wildlife Authority.

“No person may, without a permit from the Authority, engage in bioprospecting involving any wildlife resources; or export from Kenya any wildlife resources for the purpose of bioprospecting or any other kind of research, valuable genetic and biochemical resources.”

This is designed to stem the plunder of Kenya’s natural resources that has been going on without any action being taken by the relevant authorities.

The most glaring example is the spiriting away from lakes in the Rift Valley of tiny organisms called extremophiles in the early 1990s by giant biotechnology companies — among them US-based Procter and Gamble and Genenco — that ended up creating immeasurable fortunes for them.

It would also be comforting for communities living amidst such natural wealth because the Bill recognises their rights to share a portion of what could be generated from them.

“The Authority may issue a permit only if the applicant and the community have entered into a benefit-sharing agreement that provides for sharing by the community in any future benefits that may be derived from the relevant bioprospecting,” says the Bill.

However, the Bill has come under attack by groups that accuse Wildlife and Forestry Minister Noah Wekesa of overlooking a similar Bill drafted in 2007.

Wildlife welfare groups say the earlier Bill was drafted after Kenyans from across the country gave their input.

“In 2006, the wildlife policy underwent a national consultative review process spearheaded by the then Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife” said Elizabeth Wamba, head of communication at the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Ms Wamba said that before the 2007 Bill was drafted, the ministry had constituted a national Steering Committee, which held sessions across the country before submitting its report to a Technical Committee that then drafted not just the Bill but also a wildlife policy.

Now, IFAW is taking issue with the fact that a “caucus” of big wildlife bodies and top ranchers have attempted to overturn the entire process.

“Any attempts at changing these documents can only be construed as hijacking the process from the people of Kenya,” said Ms Wamba.

It is only fair that any new proposals undergo a similar all inclusive consultative process before they are adopted in the draft policy and Bill,” she said.

“Furthermore,” she added, “some of the members of the technical caucus and its partners made presentations directly to the Steering Committee both in writing and verbally during the two national symposia that were held when the review process was being conducted.”

The same sentiments were expressed by a group of 20 community groups and NGOs, which have formed the Kenya Coalition for Wildlife Conservation and Management.

The group had written to Mr Wekesa on January 21, complaining of the changes.

“The coalition deems it curious and out of order for the group calling itself the Technical Caucus of Conservation Organisations in Kenya, the Kenya Tourism Federation and the Kenya Private Sector Alliance to go behind the back of the majority stakeholders and lobby the ministry to review the Bill,” says the letter.

But if the 2007 Bill was a negotiated one, why did the ministry come up with a new one?

The EastAfrican has learnt that organisations like the World Conservation Union, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the African Conservation Centre, the Africa Wildlife Foundation, the East African Wildlife Society as well as the Laikipia Wildlife Forum happy with some of the provisions of the earlier Bill, and had formed the Technical Caucus of Conservation Organisations in Kenya to lobby for its review.

“These organisations lobbied Mr Wekesa to allow a partial review of the Wildlife Bill, 2007,” said Josphat Ngonyo, director of the Africa Network for Animal Welfare.

He said the lobbyists were unhappy that the consultations had unequivocally ruled out sport hunting and had gone to the minister in the hope that hunting, or something similar could be included in the Bill.

The EastAfrican has also learnt that Mr Wekesa formed a technical committee, which was led by an environmental lawyer, George Wamukoya, to come up with the Wildlife Bill 2009.
The “technical caucus” then wrote a memorandum last November that has been seen by The EastAfrican.

They totally rejected the 2007 Bill, saying it not only provided “disincentives to conserve wildlife” but that it had numerous technical and scientific errors, ambiguities and inconsistencies.

“It is recommended that redrafting be done with technical input from the mainstream conservation sector,” they said.

It appears that Mr Wekesa had agreed to this call. But now, the Kenya Coalition has lobbied him to consider tabling the 2007 Bill before Cabinet and parliament instead of the new Bill.

“We request you to forward the draft document received by Hon (Morris) Dzoro to the Cabinet and Parliament,” said the coalition.

The Coalition argues that any changes or amendments to the 2007 Bill to be made in parliament.

“In case you consider that there is need to review the draft (2007) Bill at the ministry level, we further request that you provide for an all inclusive and consultative national process,” it said.