Running Head: Environmental Policy

Anti-Poaching Policy in Kenya to Protect Elephants

Student Name

Student affiliations

Supervisor

Date
Running Head: Environmental Policy

Introduction

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) was launched in

1989 as a framework of wildlife conservation in the world, and specifically in Africa. This

depicts the efforts that the world is taking in unison to ensure that the endangered wildlife is

protected from poachers. As elaborated by Hauenstein et al., (2019), different countries have

diversified wildlife conservation efforts and have applied policies that they believe are effective

in enhancing conservancy even in the wake of challenges such as corruption and poverty in the

respective countries). Kenya is the focus of this case study and its wildlife conservancy

interventions are based on the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act. However, despite

the motives being positive and the legal base being drafted effectively, the Act remains

theoretical as it has not managed to fully deal with ivory poaching in the country. The

implication is that ivory poaching is likely to continue taking place as loopholes in the current

anti-poaching policies are being exploited. To fix this, the case study evaluates these loopholes

and offers options regarding the policies under implementation in other countries that share

geopolitics with Kenya. The primary focus is to adopt some of the international policies as case

examples for ineffective policies while also using others as case examples for effective policies.

Finally, several recommendations for policy transfer from other countries' policies are believed

to help Kenya address the ivory poaching menace and ensure that elephants continue

contributing to the sustainability of green environment in Kenya.

Factors contributing to poaching in Kenya

The Asian economic growth and affluence have intensified the demand for natural

resources from Africa specifically wildlife products. The high price of ivory as presented on the

1
Running Head: Environmental Policy

black market enhanced with centuries-old- traditions of the high value of the products as status

symbols has perpetuated the demand for the ivory (Hauenstein et al., 2019). CITES decision to

advocate for two one-off sales of ivory at the onset of the 1989 ivory ban led to the resuscitation

of the ivory trade (Lemieux & Clarke 2009).. This is a dire decision that has been haunting

Kenya’s elephants up to date. There are other potential contributing factors to wildlife crime

evolution in Kenya which include the proliferation of small arms as well as light weapons from

bordering countries such as Somalia. The presence of these arms is utilized in sophisticated

organized gangs possessing sophisticated firepower that organizes crossing the border into

Kenya thus taking refuge in the protected places along the border that is reserved for wildlife

(Weru, 2016). Most of the militants such as Al-Shabab forced out of their territories by Kenya

Defense Forces (KDF) have actively engaged in poaching while they readjust to the battlefield.

Conversely, regional and global conflicts, as well as insecurity, are bolstered by trafficking and

poaching.

The proliferation of arms across the region has contributes to the possession of weapons

in the residents residing along the border with an intense population of wildlife intensifying

potential threats to wildlife security. Most of the weapons are used for poaching as well as

engaging in other serious crimes. Since 2008, the rate of poaching has been on an upwards trend

reducing the elephant population in Kenya (Niskanen et al., 2018). The poachers have

dynamically adopted diverse strategies of poaching as well as transporting the wildlife products

such as ivory. The sole aim of using sophisticated strategies is to circumvent the region’s law

enforcement system. The community conservancies and ranches face challenges in curbing

wildlife insecurity due to the prevalence of poaching gangs in possession of light arms (King et

2
Running Head: Environmental Policy

al.,2015). Therefore, the ranches and conservancies have become a hotbed for poaching in

Kenya.

Combating poaching in Kenya

The Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS) is the main body that is mandated to enforce the

wildlife laws and regulations in Kenya. The primary objective of KWS is to end the poaching of

wildlife in reserved areas as well as mitigating wildlife crime to its bare minimum

(KWSA,2016). Therefore, KWS has formulated security strategies that address wildlife crime.

The agency works collaboratively with the law enforcement units from a local, regional and

international level. The incorporation of local communities, government institutions, law

enforcement agencies, border control and immigration authorities, customs, ranches as well as

conservation stakeholders has advocated for the implementation of strategies against wildlife

crime (Niskanen et al., 2018). Working dimensionally with the judicial system of the land has

also been of immense influence to the enforcement of wildlife law. Regionally, Kenya has

engaged with neighboring countries specifically Tanzania and Uganda to foster and strengthen

cross-border collaboration focusing on transboundary wildlife crimes in combating poaching

along shared borders.

Internationally, Kenya has been supported by international bodies such as the Lusaka

Agreement Task Force and International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) which has

been of tremendous help in providing support with matters of transnational crime (Weru, 2016).

Generally, the global effort in addressing poaching has evolved, thus more effort is directed to

mitigation of both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products. This incorporates both

fostering the protection of wildlife on the ground as well as creating public awareness through

3
Running Head: Environmental Policy

conservancy education and campaigns in the consumer market to reduce the supply and demand

of illegal wildlife contrabands respectively (Mukwazvure & Magadza,2012)

Policies and legislation on elephant conservation

Environmental policy

Kenya boasts of a wide range of environmental policy elements based on various

segments of environmental management. The environmental management and coordination Act

1999 provides for the formulation and enactment of viable legal and institutional frameworks on

the verge of effective coordination and management of the environment (Litoroh et al., 2012).

The act recognizes that the environment incorporates the foundation of social, cultural, spiritual,

and economic enhancement thus strives to uphold the legal and administrative organization of a

wide range of sectorial initiatives with the main aim of enhancing the national capacity to

manage and conserve the environment. This act is supported by the Sessional paper No 6 on

environment and Development, 1999 which the main goal is to harmonize both environmental

and developmental goals for long-term sustainability. It further incorporates comprehensive

strategies and guidelines for the governments concerning environmental development (Litoroh et

al., 2012). Based on wildlife, the paper elaborates the wildlife policy goals in various areas

including; the incorporation of local communities and other beneficiaries in wildlife conservation

and management. It has formulated mechanisms that grant the community an opportunity to

benefit from wildlife earnings. Thirdly it has enhanced various wildlife conservation and

development strategies in protected areas. The establishment of zones that allows multiple

utilization of management of wildlife thus assessing the status of critical wildlife habitat in

4
Running Head: Environmental Policy

Kenya. And most importantly it has prepared management plans for environmental conservation

and management.

The national biodiversity strategy, 2000

The general objective of (NBSAP) is to foster national and international actions

embodied in article 6 of the convention on biological diversity (CBD) (Litoroh et al., 2012). This

is a national framework of an action plan aimed at the implementation of the convention with the

main objective of achieving and reversing the loss of biodiversity as well as maintaining the

current level of biological resources at sustainable posterity levels. Generally, the main goal of

the strategy is to conserve Kenya’s biodiversity to effectively utilize its elements and equitably

have mutual proceeds from the use of biodiversity resources among the stakeholders (Litoroh et

al., 2012). This strategy promotes scientific and technical cooperation both at national and

international levels through brainstorming information in fostering biological conservation.

Wildlife policy and legislation

Since 1970, the wildlife policy sessional paper no 3 of 1975 has been the pioneer of

governing and sustaining Kenya’s wildlife management. The main goal of this strategy is to

optimize the benefits of wildlife resources taking into consideration the revenues from other

forms of land utilization. This policy recognizes; first the main goal of wildlife conservation as

the utilization of proceeds from the wildlife incorporating cultural, aesthetic, economic, and

scientific impacts while incapacitating proceeds from other land use (Litoroh et al., 2012). It

advocates the need to locate and formulate compatible land utilization and mutual devolution of

returns accrued from wildlife taking into account consumptive and non-consumptives utilization

5
Running Head: Environmental Policy

of wildlife. Significantly, it also considers the integration strategy to wildlife conservation in

mitigating human-wildlife conflict.

In support of wildlife conservation and management, the Kenyan government has put in

place the legal and institutional framework in formulating and upholding the 1975 wildlife policy

(Litoroh et al., 2012). To protect, conserve and manage sustainable wildlife in Kenya, the

government has invested in establishing and managing national parks and national reserves. This

strategy bred positive results in uniting two significant agencies for conservation; the Game

department and the management department. At the onset of merging the two agencies brought

in positive impacts on enhancing wildlife conservation. However, at the outset, corruption

concerns were witnessed affecting the inefficient prospects from the government Game

departments affecting the effectiveness of Kenya national parks from managing the operations

effectively.

The wildlife management of Kenya has been deteriorating even after formulating

strategies that have influenced poaching evidenced to be a major crisis in Kenya. To revive this

trend the government emphasizes on the wildlife conservation and amendment that has left long-

lasting effect in mitigating wildlife poaching especially for endangered species such as rhinos

and elephants. Fostering capacity development through the establishment of Kenya wildlife

Training institute and most importantly a strong independent parastatal responsible for the

conservation of wildlife across the country (Weru, 2016). The establishment of KWS policy and

implementation strategies was to conserve Kenya’s natural environment including its fauna and

flora in sustaining the future of world heritage and generation (Niskanen et al., 2018). The

utilization of the wildlife resources to sustain economic development and benefit individuals

6
Running Head: Environmental Policy

living around wildlife reserve areas and parks Like Masai Mara National park. And most

importantly protect people and property against injury from wildlife.

Elephant conservation policy

Under the 5 year plan, the formulated policies for elephant conservation have been effective

up to the present day. The key elements encompass.

- International ivory trade which posits that Kenya will be in the forefront in advocating for

an international ban on commercial trade in ivory and will work collaboratively with

other states to make sure that African elephant reflects on CITES appendix 1.

- Poaching and illegal trade- The Kenya wildlife services will improve in their intelligence

in collaboration with neighboring countries to gather vital information on illegal

poaching and track their activities for mutual transnational benefits.

- Monitoring status and trends- the Kenya wildlife services will put in place monitoring

strategies to keep track of the elephant population as well as collaborate with significant

stakeholders and scientific sectors to enhance wildlife conservation and management.

- Compression and habitat destruction in reserved areas- the smaller areas with isolated

elephant populations will be regulated

- Crop damage prevention- barriers and control shooting will be used as methods of

reducing destruction of property and life where trained wildlife control teams will be

deployed to the affected areas.

Transnational anti-poaching policy approach

7
Running Head: Environmental Policy

The convention on International Trade in Endangered species of wild Fauna and Flora

(CITIES) are critical in fostering the management of Elephants. CITIES recognizes the

collaboration between governments with the main goal of transnational cooperation in protecting

endangered fauna and flora against overexploitation via international trade. Being a signatory to

CITIES, Kenya has gained tremendous support for wildlife conservation and management

especially for endangered species such as Elephants and Rhinos. CITIEs operates within mutual

procedural mechanisms in regulating international trade of wildlife resources as well as

conservation of endangered species. Through signatory governments, CITIES strive to protect

the endangered species and restore their habitats countering the migration obstacles as well as

mitigating risk factors that might pose a threat to their security and life (IUCN SULi et al., 2015).

The national elephant strategy has been formulated based on the CITIES guidelines which

incorporate conservation and management of elephants both at the national and international

level by which Kenya is committed to abiding by it.

The ban of ivory on international trade due to the catastrophic decrease of the elephant

population in Africa and Asia was opinionated by world environmental conservation bodies,

which coincidently occurred with the development of elephant conservation and management

policy in Kenya at that time (Lemieux & Clarke2009). Positive impacts were achieved within a

short while in terms of decline in the illegal ivory trade, redundancy in the craftsmanship

industry, plummeted prices in the ivory black markets, and reduction of poaching across many

countries Kenya being of no exception.

Integration of anti-poaching strategies

8
Running Head: Environmental Policy

Benjaminsen et al., (2013) argue against reconsolidation of state control over wildlife

resources in such a way that it is directly correlated with the use of state violence and neo-

liberalization of conservation. As a result, the decentralization of conservation has sidelined the

concept of community participation in wildlife conservation. The international community and

non-governmental organizations have always advocated for community participation but the

state policies in Tanzania tend to individualize the process. As a result, the community has not

met its potential in being the primary player in wildlife conservation. As a result, based on the

report done by Nelson (2010), the decentralization of natural resources has either been reversed

or not fully enforced to the desired standards. Challenging neo-liberalism and centralization of

natural resource conservation are most likely to enhance community profit-making from the

resources (Gardner, 2012). As much as Kenya may adopt decentralization in wildlife

management and conservation, it leaves a lot to be desired since its setbacks outweigh its pros in

matters anti-poaching elephant policy. However, decentralization may be efficient to some extent

if the revenue from the wildlife resources benefits the local communities within wildlife reserve

areas either directly or indirectly. This article contrasts the arguments by Masse et al. (2017)

calling for inclusive anti-poaching policies. The choice of the article was informed by its

coverage of Tanzania, Kenya’s neighbor. Furthermore, the arguments may not be intended to

give direct insights into what the Kenyan government should incorporate but as a piece of

indicative evidence that Kenya should not centralize wildlife conservation in the quest to

minimize illegal poaching of elephants. However, Masse et al 2017 contribute to decision-

making by making it easier to make proposals on the most effective policy measures that the

Kenyan government should consider including community participation. Community

9
Running Head: Environmental Policy

participation is critical with the removal of toxic beaurocracy and extreme corruption among the

local and national authorities (Niskanen et al., 2018).

Jooste & Ferreira (2019) illustrates the risks facing rhino species in Kruger National Park

due to increased poaching of their horns. They further pursue a South African case and argues

that anti-poaching initiatives such as militarization are in application to combat poaching.

militarization has attracted negative criticism from the opponents who observe that this

conservation approach by stating that ranger functions have been shifted to law enforcement and

promotion of alienation of communities who were initially involved in the conservation of

wildlife as a result of the militarization (Jooste & Ferreira, 2019, p. 50). Seconded by

Benjaminsen et al. (2013), the government's involvement in the centralization of conservation

leads to the alienation of the communities directly interacting with the wildlife. Following

successful results of the strategy, I believe that what works best in South Africa should also be

effective in Kenya. For this reason, if militarization has failed to achieve the best outcomes, then

Kenya should not attempt to apply it or moderate it and be inclusive of the community.

There are diverse anti-poaching interventions that a government can use since

militarization has attracted criticism. Inclusion of the people from the surrounding communities

as an anti-poaching strategy is one of the most desirable alternatives (Masse et al., 2017 p. 20).

In such cases, community scouts are considered in the anti-poaching policies to ensure the safety

of the portions surrounding the wildlife reserved. Again, this approach differs from militarization

where Jooste and Ferreira (2019) argue that it leads to alienation of the communities from

conservation efforts. This approach is relevant and should be considered by Kenya as it counters

the approach of militarization and supports community participation in wildlife conservation. For

this reason, if any of the policies in Kenya have been aligned to militarization, alternatives such

10
Running Head: Environmental Policy

as community participation will be suggested. If community participation is in the application,

gaps will be identified and proposals made on how to fix them. The intention is to select an

approach that leads to the best outcomes in the protection of elephants as contributors to the

green environment.

Kenya should adopt South African Kruger's approach such that for the anti- poaching

policy to succeed the wildlife revenues should benefit the locals and citizens through the creation

of employment opportunities in the parks such as scouts, development of infrastructure due to

tourism facilitation, capacity building, direct benefits from ecosystem goods and services and

most importantly effectively manage relationships by restoring the rights (Roe et., al 2016). For

instance, direct employment within the park in different departments such as law enforcement.

Adopting a green militarization approach as South African Kruger Park, Kenya will counter the

issue of poaching since attention will be switched to more productive activities shifting away

from illegal wildlife crimes (Jooste & Ferreira, 2019).

Conclusion

The main objective of this case study has been to point out the elements of existing

wildlife policies and recommend viable anti-poaching approaches that are effective in protecting

elephants against illegal wildlife crimes. Key variables have been identified which impact

poaching in Kenya. The key drivers of poaching in Kenya have been identified as corruption,

demand for ivory in the international market, incompetency in governance, legislation and law,

and socio-economic variables (Weru, 2016). A wide range of loopholes has been analyzed based

on the aforementioned variables. With ineffective governance, emphasis on supporting anti-

poaching policy becomes ineffective. The adoption of effective anti-poaching approaches from

11
Running Head: Environmental Policy

other countries including, militarization, decentralization, and community-based anti-poaching

are applicable in the conservation and maintenance of wildlife. Generally, the Kenyan

government should incapacitate all the stakeholders from national, regional, and international

levels to counter the key drivers that influence poaching for successful implementation of a

viable anti-poaching policy that will bring forth positive results in protecting indigenous species

specifically elephants sustaining and green environment.

Recommendations

Based on the data presented by Litoroh et al., (2012), the increase in elephant poaching

has catastrophically increased in Kenya .it can be argued that there are alarming figures of

elephant deaths in Kenya. The logic here is not about the lost number of elephant herds but rather

the illegal killings of the elephants that Kenya endeavors to address in anti-poaching policy.

Kenya has viable legislation but presents loopholes in its implementation. The loss of the

alarming figures of elephant calls upon wildlife conservation and makes it necessary to adopt

diverse measures from other jurisdictions to curb the poaching menace.

Significantly Kenya should put into consideration a comprehensive strategy that

addresses socio-economic issues, corruption, law enforcement complacency, and

decentralization of wildlife resources through the involvement of citizens. it is high time that the

Kenyan government should work collaboratively with other states to counter poaching. The

integration of military (militarization) with uncertainty has not been successful in achieving

desired end state thus the general objective of wildlife protection specifically elephant security

has not been achieved. Corruption has been one of the key factors that contribute to poaching as

12
Running Head: Environmental Policy

evidenced from individual, organizational and ministry levels. Political instability has been also a

big contribution to wildlife management and consecration. Socio-economic variables have been a

major setback for anti-poaching campaigns in elephant poaching. A big number of individuals in

the wildlife reserves have reverted to elephant poaching as a result of social and economic use.

Based on the research and statistics, a big number of citizens in Kenya take part in the heinous

act of poaching mainly for Ivory and meat, and cultural practices (Steinhart, 1994).

The prosecution of the offenders in Kenya is relatively non-deterministic, the sentences

are light based on the severity of the offenses against poaching. The relevant authorities in Kenya

do not present wield authority, pose meager resources as well as lacks marginal emphasis in

executing their duties effectively. Conversely, the implication of the wildlife custodians, as well

as relevant officials, have underestimated the wildlife conservation efforts. Toxic beurocracy has

overwhelmed the entire management of wildlife and if left unattended strategically it intensifies

poor governance, corruption, ineffective laws, and other social ills (IUCN SULi et al., 2015).

Wildlife crime specifically elephant poaching is a transnational issue that links to

international criminal syndicates, building a strong and diffuse supply chain that makes it a

challenge in curbing it as a single state (Loebnitz et al.,2020). Therefore, regional and

international collaboration and coordination are vital in supplementing anti-poaching campaigns

against elephant poaching. Kenya being one the active signatory of Operation COBRA a global

wildlife law enforcement body coordinated by the Lusaka Agreement Task Force creates an

effective opportunity to adopt viable wildlife conservation and management strategies from other

countries in Africa, Europe, Asia, and the USA (Weru, 2016). Such acts like seizures and arrest

of suspects like in May 2015 where over 400 offenders were arrested and over 600 seizures of

assorted contraband wildlife worldwide (Weru, 2016). Contrary, most of the Kenyan laws focus

13
Running Head: Environmental Policy

on the lower level players in the illegal wildlife trade. This is where operation COBRA chips in

to mitigate the kingpins and large-scale middlemen in trafficking and this require sophisticated

intelligence gathering.

References

Benjaminsen, T, Goldman, MJ, Minwary, MY & Maganga, FP 2013, ‘Wildlife management in

Tanzania: State control, rent seeking and community resistance’, Development and

Change, vol 44, pp. 1087-1109.

Gardner, B (2012). Tourism and the Politics of the Global Land Grab in Tanzania: Markets,

Appropriation and Recognition’, Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 377–402.

Hauenstein, S, Kshatriya, M, Blanc, J, Dormann, CF & Beale, CM 2019, ‘African elephant

poaching rates correlate with local poverty, national corruption and global ivory

price’, Nature Communications, vol. 10, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-

09993-2

IUCN SULi et al (2015). Beyond enforcement: communities, governance, incentives and

sustainable use in combating wildlife crime. Symposium report from the Beyond

Enforcement conference, Mulders drift, South Africa, 26-28 February. Retrieved on May

19, 2021 from http://pubs. iied.org/G03903.htm

14
Running Head: Environmental Policy

Jooste, J & Ferreira, SM 2019, ‘An appraisal of green militarization to protect rhinoceroses in

Kruger National Park’, African Studies Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 49 – 60.

Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association (KWCA) State of Wildlife Conservancies in Kenya

Report ( 2016 ) https://kwcakenya.com/news/publications/

King J., Kaelo D., Buzzard B. & Warigia G. (2015) Establishing a Wildlife Conservancy in

Kenya: a guide for Private Land-owners and Communities. Kenya Wildlife

Conservancies Association.

Lemieux., A.M & Clarke., R.V, (2009). The international ban on ivory sales and its effects on

elephant poaching in Africa’, The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 49, no. pp. 451–

471, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp030

Litoroh, M., Omondi, P., Kock, R., & Amin, R. (2012). CONSERVATION AND

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ELEPHANT IN KENYA.

https://www.zsl.org/sites/default/files/media/2017-04/KES_Strat_Final_Low.pdf

Loebnitz, N, Kienou‐Traore, C, Zhou, Y, Frank, P & Grunert, KG, (2020). The impact of

marketing campaigns deterring the supply and demand of endangered wildlife in Kenya

and China’, Psychology & Marketing, vol. 37, no. 12, pp.1797-1811.

Massé, F, Gardiner, A, Lubilo, R & Themba, M (2017)Inclusive anti-poaching? Exploring the

potential and challenges of community-based anti-poaching’, South African Crime

Quarterly, vol. 60, pp. 19 - 27. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-3108/2017/v0n60a1732

15
Running Head: Environmental Policy

Mukwazvure, A & Magadza, T 2012, ‘A survey of anti-poaching strategies’, International

Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1064 – 1066.

Nelson, F. (ed.) 2010, Community Rights, Conservation & Contested Land. The Politics of

Natural Resource Governance in Africa, Earthscan, London

Niskanen, L., Roe, D., Rowe, W., DUblin, H., & Skinner, D. (2018). Strengthening Local

Community Engagement in Combatting Illegal Wildlife Trade Case studies from Kenya

IUCN Conservation Areas and Species Diversity Programme.

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/placeholder_document.pdf

Roe, D; Biggs, D; Dublin, H; Cooney, R (2016) Engaging communities to combat illegal wildlife

trade: A Theory of Change. IIED Briefing http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/17348IIED.pdf

Sekgwama, J. (2002). Recommendations For Making Anti-Poaching Programs More Effective In

The Southern African Region Through The Analysis Of Key Variables Impacting Upon

The Poaching Of Elephants In Botswana.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a562969.pdf

Skinner, D., Dublin, H., Niskanen, L., Roe, D. and Vishwanath, A. (2018) Local communities:

First Line of Defence against Illegal WildlifeTrade (FLoD): guidance for implementing

the FLoD methodology.IIED and IUCN, London and Gland.

Steinhart, E. (1994). National Parks and Anti-Poaching in Kenya, 1947-1957. The International

Journal of African Historical Studies, 27(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.2307/220970

Weru, S. (2016). Wildlife protection and trafficking assessment in Kenya: Drivers and trends of

transnational wildlife crime in Kenya and its role as a transit point for trafficked species

16
Running Head: Environmental Policy

in East Africa. Retrieved on May 19, 2021 from

http://awsassets.wwfdk.panda.org/downloads/kenya_report.pdf

17