IV

weekendSTAR

October 26/27 2013

Lessons from Namibia where wildlife policy actually works

Calvin Cottar operates a tented camp in the Olderkesi Conservancy adjacent to the Maasai Mara. Wycliffe Muga is the Weekend Star editor.
It is notoriously difcult to get precise numbers on the populations of Kenyas remaining wildlife. We emphasise remaining because, while the numbers may be disputed, the general trend of rapid decline is universally acknowledged. But the rate of that decline is not easy to measure, in part because we are dealing with populations living in wilderness areas, and still in large enough numbers to make it impossible to count each and every one: statistical models for arriving at scientic estimates have to be used. The most widely accepted estimates however, are as follows for some of the key species: -In the 1960s, Kenya had about 20,000 rhinos, but now has just about 1,000 of them left. - Kenya had about 150,000 elephants in the 1970s, and now has about 30,000 elephants. This in itself being an improvement, as the elephant populations had at one point fallen to less than 20,000 in the 1980s. - There were more than 20,000 lions in Kenya back in the 1970s, but there are only about 2,000 of them left now. We should also note here that despite these numbers reecting a seemingly irreversible decline in animal populations being very bad news indeed for the country, at least we have some kind of baseline to conduct our assessments. Greater wildlife populations Two neighbouring countries, which in all probability have even greater wildlife populations within their borders are South Sudan and DRC Congo. A good number of those tusks which are shipped out in containers from the Mombasa port and sometimes detected in time, and thus conscated are the result of elephant massacres in the DRC. And South Sudan has a large population of wild animals in its Sud Wetlands and in game parks close to its border with DRC Congo and Ethiopia, and even has a migration of some 1.3 million antelopes within its borders which is every bit as dramatic as the annual wildebeest migration of the Mara-Serengeti plains. But given that South Sudan has only recently started to recover from decades of civil war; and DRC Congo with its endemic violence is yet very far from starting on the path to a lasting peace, these are not the countries which we should seek to compare Kenya with, when trying to assess loss of wildlife populations, and what can be done to reverse this decline. A better comparison would be with Namibia, a country which is largely desert and semi-desert, much like most of Kenyas land where most of our remaining wildlife lives. What is Namibia doing right? From the early 1980s to the present time, Namibias elephant population has risen from about 5,000 to more than 10,000. Its rhino population has risen from 750 in 2002, to more than 1,500 at the present time, and the total wildlife population is now estimated to be 3.5 million heads. While Kenyas wildlife populations are in steep decline, those in Namibia are growing exponentially, despite both nations facing much the same challenges in terms of the huge demand for rhino horn and elephant tusks in China and elsewhere in the Far East, which has made these trophies innitely more valuable than they were a decade ago. The question we then have to consider is, what is Namibia doing right? And is there any aspect of Namibias wildlife policies, which we would do well to adopt here in Kenya? Admittedly, Namibia is a far richer country than Kenya, and is a middle-income nation, with its per capita GDP standing at $5,668 compared to Kenyas $800. But then, you have to consider that both Namibia and Kenya have roughly 50 per cent of their populations living in poverty. So although Namibia only has a population of about 2.2 million people, there are plenty of poor people there, who would face much the same temptations that Kenyan villagers face, once they realise just how much money they can make if they turn their hands to assisting the gangs of professional poachers. So where does the difference lie, that makes Namibias wildlife populations increase while Kenya continues to lose wildlife at an insupportable rate? Biggest reason for wildlife deaths Well, you may already be aware that Kenya has a wildlife policy that does not allow any form of consumptive utilisation or trade in wildlife products. Indeed, It seems to be the right thing to do considering the massive loss of wildlife in Kenya over the last few decades. While the architects of the current policy would have you believe that, by making wildlife valueless and criminalised, this will, in and of itself, stop poor rural people across the country from killing wildDECLiNiNG NUMBERs: Kenya had about 150,000 elephants in the 1970s, and now has about 30,000 elephants. This in itself being an improvement, as the elephant populations had at one point fallen to less than 20,000 in the 1980s.

CALVIN COTTAR & WYCLIFFE MUGA

FEWER AND FEWER: There were more than 20,000 lions in Kenya back in the 1970s, but there are only about 2,000 of them left now. life on their land. The problem with this idea is that it assumes that wildlife is only being killed for a product (horn, ivory, etc) when in fact by far the biggest reason for it to be killed is to clear it away for land use change as well as retribution for wildlife damage on alternative land uses...any bush meat that results from this is by catch and is consumed locally - if it is not commercially transacted it falls into the legal grey area of what exactly constitutes a trophy. It is for example quite normal for the KWS to allow local people to take home meat from animals shot on problem animal control. In a protein-poor country such as Kenya, is it really reasonable to deny that bush meat is a staple of millions of peoples diet? It may be a surprise to learn that the cost of having wildlife (to the landowners) can be as high as 60 per cent in lost productivity from agriculture and domestic livestock because of direct competition, disease and damage by wildlife - leave alone human injury and death. Since the law of the land makes sure that wildlife and its products cannot be owned and commercially traded, landowners have no choice but to remove it to

weekendSTAR

October 26/27 2013

From frying pan of hunger into gmos

Not many years back, a young boy in Kitui county, suffering from extreme hunger pains, fed on a dead dog. He died. In Kenya, dogs are not food. We dont eat dogs. It is unheard of. I suppose the boy just wanted something in his stomach. I recognise that there are parts of the world that dogs are consumed, but anyone doing that from Kitui and I presume anywhere in Kenya would be dealt with as a diabolical person. So the Kenyan government has its work cut out for it and needs to reassess its priorities. Kenya has been independent from Britain for 50 years and still cannot feed all of its people. How many years of selfgovernment does a country need to be able to feed its people? Every year some Kenyan ofcials come up with ingenious statements to comfort the people. Every so often we are treated with statements such as the government is to declare a national emergency over the food crisis that has made at least 10 million Kenyans food insecure. Nonetheless reports of hundreds of families turning into scavengers in dumping sites as hunger bites continue; stories of Kenyans crushing old bones and boiling them for a meal; families eating chicken feed because food is dear. But since these statements dont seem to provide the food security, Kenya is setting itself into a new frontier in farming. Now and then you read Kenya edges closer to GM foods. So the route to food security is through GM crops. The plan is to do this in 2014? What are GM crops? We know a seed is a plant folded up. Within that seed is the coded instructions of how the plant is to unfold with its unique characteristics. This predetermining code that gives a plant its uniqueness is what is called the plants DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). All organisms have a DNA which contains the information to build and maintain an organisms cells and pass genetic traits to offsprings; in the DNA cells are the genes which in humans determines our genetic traits like hair colour, number of ngers, blood type etc. All organisms have many genes corresponding their many traits. Through the science of genetic engineering scientists produce genetically modied organisms. Genetic engineering changes the inherited characteristics of an organism in a predetermined way by altering its genetic material. In the mid 1970s, scientists discovered that they could transfer genes from the DNA of one species to another. Plants, animals and other organisms could now be equipped with genes they could never acquire naturally and exhibit traits not previously found in their species or even in their kingdom. For example, a sh can mate with a sh and a tomato with a tomato. But there is no way a sh can mate with a tomato. Using genetic engineering, however, sh genes can be inserted into a tomato and vice versa. Taking the example further, think of the sh, ounder; this sh has characteristics that enable it to survive at the bottom of

MOsT AT RisK: In the 1960s, Kenya had about 20,000 rhinos, but now has just about 1,000 of them left. allow agriculture and domestic livestock to succeed as their primary resource base. Also in these laws is a clause that makes it legal for any landowner to kill any wild animal on their land if it is a threat to human life and livelihood, as long as the KWS are informed after the fact, and as long as no commercial trade in any products occurred.... Is it possible to draft a more perfect policy to eliminate wildlife? Inevitable elimination Unless the wildlife policy makes it possible for wildlife itself to become the primary resource base for landowners, wildlife will inevitably be eliminated. Indeed, should things continue as they are, the government will be politically forced to not only order removal of wildlife populations by the army (particularly elephant, the most destructive of all the wildlife), but possibly even order de-gazetting of some of our larger protected areas to provide land for settlement and farming. Examples of population removal by governments abound throughout Africa and the world (the elephant removal in Akagera Park in Rwanda in the 1960s). Under both the current and new just approved by Cabinet wildlife policy, Kenyas wildlife prospects are exceedingly bleak. Indeed, if current trends continue, we face having virtually no wildlife remaining on private and communal land within as little as 20 years, and wildlife numbers within parks and reserves will inevitably continue to fall as well. What seems to be missing in the Kenya wildlife debate and which is the root cause of our massive wildlife loss and continued impoverishment of rural Kenyans is that there is no legal mechanism to make wildlife a primary resource base for rural people. Considering that the liberalised wildlife industry is potentially worth US $500 million to US $800 million per year, the fact that it is being denied to the poorest segment of our society living in the driest part of our country is to me the biggest policy failure in the history of the country, and possibly criminally negligent on the part of our previous governments and policy makers. Millions of our most needy people could benet from such an industry. We do, however, have hope that the new national and local governments will see the futility of continuing to bear the political costs of wildlife damage around the country, and will also see the impossibility of avoiding the negative publicity from the international community and donors for the downward spiral of wildlife loss in the country...having acknowledged this futility, they should begin the process of liberalising the ownership of wildlife so that landowners can take up more responsibility for wildlife conservation through tourism and sustainable utilisation. So how important could this liberalised wildlife industry be for Kenyan landowners? Firstly, land values would jump; land where the Big Five species exist will be far more valuable than where there are only dik dik and goats. Secondly, a liberalised industry will encourage a culture of live capture and translocation of wildlife as landowners attempt to improve value of their land, and it would provide a destination for excess animals being removed where they are not wanted. Thirdly, landowners where tourism is not viable or present (70 per cent of the country) will have far more revenue generation options for their own survival than they have presently. Fourthly, the liberalised wildlife industry relies on the fact that commercialisation of wildlife is no different in principle from the existing commercialisation of domestic cattle and goats, but capitalises on the superior physical attributes of wildlife to live in its natural African environment (for instance, antelope and gazelle are diseaseresistant and virtually never need to drink water), as well as having extremely high abstract values that are literally hundreds of times more valuable than pure meat values as compared to domestic livestock. No longer does one have to domesticate or farm animals to get their full revenue earning or biological potential wildness and wilderness being the new value. Conspicuously successful Returning to the example of Namibia, we note that the keystone of their wildlife conservation policy which has been so conspicuously successful, boils down to just three key policy initiatives: 1. Landowners have ownership of wildlife on their land. 2. Landowners can use wildlife in all possible ways to earn sustainable revenue into the future which include sustainable off-take for tourist hunting quotas, as well as for meat and hide production. 3. These activities all require markets for wildlife products, strong regulations, enforcement of rational laws, and most importantly, trust by the government that the rural people can and will protect Kenyas wildlife heritage. All these policies are well within our reach here in Kenya, provided there is political will to implement these changes.

JOHN MWANDIA comments on topical issues

the deepest ocean and live below freezing temperatures. For a tomato farmer who lives under the threat of potential winter freeze in various territories around the world, these are desirable characteristics, if only they could be found in a tomato. Thats where the scientist comes in, to insert this gene of the ounder into the tomato and produce a tomato that will endure freeze, call the product sh tomato if you will. But in the grocery store, you may never know that the tomato has been genetically altered because it will look like other tomatoes and in countries like America since they do not label genetically modied foods in their stores, you will never know what you are eating. Relevant to Kenya genetic engineering in GM foods introduces in plants genes that protect the crop by decreasing the impact of insects on the crops as well as making the plant resistant to herbicides used to control weeds. You will want to remember what an herbicide is and what an insecticide is because these are inserted into the plant genetic code; the insecticide and the anti-weed control formulation permeates each and every cell of the crop courtesy of genetic. The protection against pests and resistance to herbicide application must work to be successful in increasing yield per acre by reducing loses due to pests and weeds; when an insect bites into any part of the plant, that bite becomes the last bite in life of that insect. The corporations producing GM food say that they are safe to eat, that they produce higher yields, have consistent and reliable yields, are better than competing options and go a long way into solving world hunger. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by biotech companies to convince the world that GM crops are needed to feed the world. The campaign is targeted to create the impression that opposing the technology is morally wrong. Kenya, are we jumping from the frying pan into GMO?

There is no way a fish can mate with a tomato. Using genetic engineering, however, fish genes can be inserted into a tomato and vice versa.