By Macharia Kamau
The recent killing of six lions has raised questions about the Government’s commitment to tourism as one of the key pillars of the country’s economic blueprint Vision 2030.
The lifeless response by Government agencies in charge of wildlife management — including the Kenya Wildlife Service — has led many to doubt the commitment by the country to the industry whose earnings was in excess of Sh100 billion last year.
The human-wildlife conflict incident led to the killing of six lions at the Nairobi National Park in June. This effectively reduced the population of this popular big cat to just 42 at the park — a big blow to the industry whose lifeline is wildlife.
The hotspot in wildlife-human conflict is the stretch between Athi River and Isinya, which has traditionally been a wildlife corridor, but has since turned into a human settlement.
“The population of both animals and people has been growing, which means an increased degree of interaction,” Rudolf Makhanu, national chairman Kenya Forest Working Group said, adding that there is need to re-look at land use around national parks.
huge losses
“Government should restrict land use around the park, and ensure residents participate in economic activities that are in line with wildlife management to minimise huge losses such as instances of killing of domestic animals or crop damage,” he says.
Makhanu pointed out that wildlife conservancies in parts of North Eastern Kenyan have tried to engage the communities in conservation of wildlife, with a degree of success.
The recent killings are particularly chilling for the industry because lions have been at the centre of the country’s marketing campaigns in source markets.
While there have been efforts to diversify tourism products to include conference, sports, culture and agriculture, tourism authorities acknowledge that wildlife remains crucial for continued growth of the industry.
Part of the problem has been the exclusion of local communities from the benefits that accrue out of national parks.
While residents rarely are injured by wild animals, there are numerous cases of damage to tens of acres of crops, and killing of domestic animals. And there is a growing feeling that they hardly get direct benefits from wildlife.
What’s more, the Wildlife Management Act of 1975 does not allow compensation for crop damage and killing of domestic animals by wild animals, which are sometimes the only source of income for many in these areas.
And in cases of compensation for human injury and death, the amounts are but a pittance.
According to the Act, compensation for injuries is a measly Sh5,000, while a family is given Sh30,000 for the death of one of their own.
The situation is made worse by the fact that claiming for compensation is a long and tedious procedure that in some instances takes years to go through. This state of affairs has not motivated host communities to participate in conservation efforts.
East African Wildlife Societ Director , Nigel Hunter noted that communities living in areas adjacent to wildlife-populated areas should be compensated for damage of property and killing of cattle by wild animals, as well as earn an income when they are hospitable to the wildlife. This, he said, would motivate them to participate in conservation efforts.
The Kitengela massacre has also dented Kenya’s credibility as a conservation country. While the country is home to a variety of wildlife in their natural habitat – which has been a key attraction for tourists – Kenya’s conservation track record is poor, given that poaching, especially of elephants and rhinos, goes on unabated.
Conservationists are now concerned that this incident spells doom for future of the Nairobi Park. They say that similar incidences are likely to increase that the fast changing land use in areas around the parks.
At a private sector industry players meeting convened on June 23, analysts noted that KWS was not doing enough to reduce the incidents that could be costly for the growth of the industry.
Mr Paul Udoto, KWS communication manager, says the new Wildlife Bill would radically reduce and manage instances of human-wildlife conflict.
The Bill, which was denied presidential assent in 2004 due to fears it sought to legalise sport hunting has since undergone a series of streamlining. The proposed framework would replace the Wildlife Management Act of 1975, and proposes to increase in the amount of money paid in compensation for injuries and death caused by wild animals, as well as compensation for damage of crops or killing of livestock.
The Bill also proposes a new body to handle claims and compensations. Currently, the process is handled by KWS. But even this Bill answers only half the problem, and does not take care of increasing human settlement around national parks.
The proposal to restrict land use around national parks for instance has elicited more questions than answers.
danger of fencing
For example, should wildlife management authorities fence off the Nairobi National Park, keep the animals on one side of the fence and humans on the other to minimise interaction? While this sounds like the easier thing to do, the move would transform the park into a zoo, and deny Nairobi its pride of place as the only city in the world hosting a national park.
Nigel Hunter also noted that fencing the park might not be a solution as it might shut out other migratory animals that are essential to the ecosystem of the park.
