I turned one of my reflection papers for Institutional Strengthening into a blog post. I hope it isn't too dry! I included pictures from our boat ride on Lake Naivasha to spice it up.
The World Wildlife Fund recently released the statistic that the Earth has lost more than half of its wildlife in the past 40 years. I’ve always found the use of the verb “lost” irresponsible when referring to the death of animals or flora. Lost is synonymous with “misplaced” and suggests a temporary stint of bad memory. We did not “misplace” millions of animals off this planet nor did we sit idly as they “disappeared.” It is not like we all woke up one morning in our eco-homes to realize that the Great Wildebeest Migration no longer looked like the “Circle of Life” scene in “The Lion King.” And its not like the human population is suffering from collective dementia about animals. On the contrary to losing wildlife, we killed them. Through transitory and direct actions, humans are responsible for the deaths of thousands of species. But at least in the English language, we don’t talk about it that way.
While reading Metheka’s research “Decolonisation and Wildlife Conservation in Kenya, 1958-68”, it was fascinating to weave step by step through Kenya’s political history in the context of wildlife conservation policy. It became apparent that just like Kenyan citizens, animals were colonized, decolonized, and often subject to uncoordinated government. In addition, ethnic conflict, natural resource allocation, and land distribution are inevitably connected to the survival of hundreds of species. Before and after Uhuru (freedom), the politics regarding those issues have prohibited or taken preference over passing conservation policy. In an attempt to adequately explore the issue, this paper will examine the effects of colonial land policy and its effects on wildlife conservation, post-Independence through the political ideologies of harambee and majimboism, then conclude with recommendations for steps toward assuring Kenya does not forget where it placed all the animals.
While reading Metheka’s research “Decolonisation and Wildlife Conservation in Kenya, 1958-68”, it was fascinating to weave step by step through Kenya’s political history in the context of wildlife conservation policy. It became apparent that just like Kenyan citizens, animals were colonized, decolonized, and often subject to uncoordinated government. In addition, ethnic conflict, natural resource allocation, and land distribution are inevitably connected to the survival of hundreds of species. Before and after Uhuru (freedom), the politics regarding those issues have prohibited or taken preference over passing conservation policy. In an attempt to adequately explore the issue, this paper will examine the effects of colonial land policy and its effects on wildlife conservation, post-Independence through the political ideologies of harambee and majimboism, then conclude with recommendations for steps toward assuring Kenya does not forget where it placed all the animals.
Despite creating game reserves in the early days of European settlement in Kenya, the British did not promote a culture of preservation. The modernization of Kenya began with a railroad who some say “built the country”, versus in most places where countries build railroads. The railway was constructed in the south through some of Kenya’s most fertile land. So white settlers could live on prime realty, the indigenous communities along the railroad were displaced under the Crown Land Ordinances (CLOs) into “native reserves.” The colonial land policies were not well thought out and created large uninhabited areas around the reserves. These bulks of land evolved into unofficial wildlife sanctuaries, naturally creating endless problems for plots nearby. The animals raided crops, spread disease, and ultimately, were a barrier to the development of indigenous production systems. This is one of many examples of how the unnatural relocating of communities led to negative attitudes towards wildlife that still exist today. |
In the 1940s, the National Parks Ordinance established Nairobi, Tsavo, Mount Kenya, and Aberdares national parks. For animals, this was a huge success, but for Africans, these parks were designed on their lands. The colonists assumed pastoralists could share the land with wildlife, but it did not work that way. Then came the Soldier Settlement Schemes post World War I and World War II. As an ironic follow up to the late 1940s conservation programs, the imperials decided to clear the White Highlands of wildlife so more land could be rewarded to veteran soldiers. 996 rhino, 81 elephant, and 29 buffalo were slaughtered over two years. The East African Royal Commission observed that “preservation of game must not be allowed to stand in the way of the urgent need for proper land usage.” Thus, the protection efforts of the 1940s were nullified.
Only three years before independence, the colonial administration accepted that Kenya would have an African-dominated government within the decade and wildlife conservation could not be ignored in future policies. At the first Lancaster House conference, they attempted to set a better example and made a plan to intensify their efforts to sensitize Kenyan communities to conserving animals. This initiative was followed immediately by the formation of two political parties, Kenya African National Union (KANU) and Kenyan African Democratic Union (KADU). Independent Kenya would begin with a KANU government, led by the first president, Jomo Kenyatta.
I have “Ubuntu” tattooed on my wrist. It is a South African philosophy, has Zulu roots, and in short, means “humanity” or “I am because we are.” Nelson Mandela utilized the term to bring together the people of South Africa in the country’s post-apartheid infancy. The philosophy was the staple of his government and has been argued to have culturally contributed to the success of South Africa. When I came across the word “harambee” in our readings, I initially associated it with ubuntu. Coined by Kenyan Nationalists, including Jomo Kenyatta, harambee means “let’s pull together.” After some investigation, it became clear that unlike ubuntu, harambee has a darker, political edge to it. Kenyatta grasped onto the term incorrectly, using it to promote his obsession with KANU rule and distinguishing the opposition party, KADU. It morphed into meaning that Kenya needed one single thinking for success. And KANU ideology meant heavy centralization of power and thus, “had to warn that Kenya’s wildlife belonged to the state and not to the communities on whose land it subsisted.”
I have “Ubuntu” tattooed on my wrist. It is a South African philosophy, has Zulu roots, and in short, means “humanity” or “I am because we are.” Nelson Mandela utilized the term to bring together the people of South Africa in the country’s post-apartheid infancy. The philosophy was the staple of his government and has been argued to have culturally contributed to the success of South Africa. When I came across the word “harambee” in our readings, I initially associated it with ubuntu. Coined by Kenyan Nationalists, including Jomo Kenyatta, harambee means “let’s pull together.” After some investigation, it became clear that unlike ubuntu, harambee has a darker, political edge to it. Kenyatta grasped onto the term incorrectly, using it to promote his obsession with KANU rule and distinguishing the opposition party, KADU. It morphed into meaning that Kenya needed one single thinking for success. And KANU ideology meant heavy centralization of power and thus, “had to warn that Kenya’s wildlife belonged to the state and not to the communities on whose land it subsisted.”
KADU’s majimboism promoted regionalism and brought together smaller ethnic groups. These groups feared that the larger groups were assert their political dominance to grab land. Unfortunately for KADU, Kenya quickly became a single-party KANU state and in 1966, “government had abandoned the late-colonial diversification of wildlife conservation in favour of centralisation.” Thus, smaller ethnic groups were not a part of the creation of conservation politics although they were more likely to be the people living in close quarters with the animals. To have passed legislation that was relevant to the groups effected, majimboism would have been a more efficient system. |
Another result is that negative attitudes continued to fester. This negativity would contribute to the popularity of poaching and lead to the deaths of thousands of animals. Metheka writes that, “Political patronage was also responsible for increased poaching. In 1964, President Kenyatta authorised former Mau Mau fighters to collect and sell ivory they had allegedly hidden away during the rebellion.” The animals had no political allies. The Mau Mau sold what they had and made a lot of money. So they continued to poach and sell what they had allegedly killed “during the rebellion.” Kenyatta allowed this and used it as political gain because his supporters were making easy wealth.
Today, Metheka points out, “Local communities pay the opportunity costs of conservation on land that they cannot use, or turn to higher value uses, as well as paying considerable costs as neighbours to parks.’ No wonder that, during the post-election violence in Kenya in early 2008, the local community set the Ruma National Park on fire.” Because of pre-Independence and post-Independence policies, animal conservation is not a group effort. Instead, it is often seen as political tool to disadvantage certain communities.
Today, Metheka points out, “Local communities pay the opportunity costs of conservation on land that they cannot use, or turn to higher value uses, as well as paying considerable costs as neighbours to parks.’ No wonder that, during the post-election violence in Kenya in early 2008, the local community set the Ruma National Park on fire.” Because of pre-Independence and post-Independence policies, animal conservation is not a group effort. Instead, it is often seen as political tool to disadvantage certain communities.
To provide some recommendations, the Kenyan government must find a way to insight a culture of conservation. As outlined above, it is not in the country’s roots and will take years of educating younger generations on the importance of animals for this outlook to manifest. In addition, I have to once again punch the point that we should stop talking about the extinction of species as if we have alzheimers. Just as in 2010 when South Africa made the radical decision to stop ignoring the terrifying rates of HIV/AIDs deaths and took ownership by saying, “We are responsible”, the Kenyan government should have the same discourse about protecting its wildlife. They need to shout it from the rooftops. Humans have proved to themselves over and over again that it is absolutely our job to insure the survival of fauna. It is also a person’s job to take care of their child. We do not just say we lost our kid and throw in the towel.
Kenya must reframe its priorities and I fear, that because of the discovery of oil in the north and on the coast, Members of Parliament will view wildlife conservation as an obstacle to economic development. When in reality, the numbers prove otherwise. After various conservation projects came into fruition in the 1960s, Kenya’s earnings from tourism soared from £9.0 million to £17.3 million. Yes, it is not as black and white as protecting fauna directly correlates to a better economy, when more often, oil discovery does directly correlate to a healthier economy. It is an unfortunate reality for policy makers that there are not many positive short term effects of conserving wildlife.
In the big picture, there are endless long term rewards for promoting animal conservation. It almost seems appropriate here to conclude this with a bang and write out the lyrics of the “Circle of Life.” To refrain from an overabundance of cheesiness and maintain some sort of academic tone, I’ll condense this thought into a blunt statement about self interest: Our survival requires their survival. We need them because we are all active, necessary members of this ecosystem. We cannot afford to misplace them, unless we are also prepared to lose ourselves.
Kenya must reframe its priorities and I fear, that because of the discovery of oil in the north and on the coast, Members of Parliament will view wildlife conservation as an obstacle to economic development. When in reality, the numbers prove otherwise. After various conservation projects came into fruition in the 1960s, Kenya’s earnings from tourism soared from £9.0 million to £17.3 million. Yes, it is not as black and white as protecting fauna directly correlates to a better economy, when more often, oil discovery does directly correlate to a healthier economy. It is an unfortunate reality for policy makers that there are not many positive short term effects of conserving wildlife.
In the big picture, there are endless long term rewards for promoting animal conservation. It almost seems appropriate here to conclude this with a bang and write out the lyrics of the “Circle of Life.” To refrain from an overabundance of cheesiness and maintain some sort of academic tone, I’ll condense this thought into a blunt statement about self interest: Our survival requires their survival. We need them because we are all active, necessary members of this ecosystem. We cannot afford to misplace them, unless we are also prepared to lose ourselves.