Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 358168,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/358168/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 101,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "really know that the work there is helping in curbing the number of elephants being poached in Marsabit County. Hon. Deputy Speaker, having said that, I would not like to repeat what my other colleagues have said. But when we deal with issues of poaching, we are dealing with the symptoms of a deeper problem that has global and national connotations. On the global front, the Seconder of this Motion has mentioned the countries that are providing the markets for ivory and hence perpetuating the illegal poaching of elephants. Those countries are Vietnam, China and Thailand. It is the role of the Government to engage with the countries that have the market so that we are able to reduce the amount of demand in those countries. So, at the global level, we need to have our country engage with those countries that are engaged in that trade. In the past, Kenya was very active in the global conservation movement. It ensured that the status of ivory and all the other illegal poaching of wildlife were placed in the right indices in cities but, of late, we have been a bit lax. We have not been very active in the global conservation sector. That is a challenge that our new Cabinet Secretary for Environment should take up. He should ensure that we are back to the areas where we were active. Hon. Deputy Speaker, nationally, it begs the question: Why is the ivory that has been poached in Kenya impounded in Thailand? It then shows us that there is a problem with our exit sites. I am informed reliably that the scanners in our airport and in our ports are conveniently switched off when illegal ivory is being exported out of the country. I am reliably informed that members of Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) are not giving sufficient support to the Lusaka Agreement. That agreement has established a regional body that works at ensuring that our exit points do not allow ivory from getting out. There is a problem with the intelligence service at KWS and KWS as an institution in terms of protecting our ivory. As the new Chair of the Departmental Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, I will spearhead and work with my Committee to ensure that we do something about the structural organisation of KWS as an institution. There is a structural problem at KWS that need to be addressed. Hon. Deputy Speaker, having said that, I would like to talk about the problem between the Lusaka Agreement and KWS. For those who do not know, the Lusaka Agreement involves countries in the range states of Eastern Africa and Southern Africa. Range states are states that have a sizeable number of elephants and rhinos. The Lusaka Agreement established an institution that then works with those countries to ensure that exportation of wildlife and trade in wildlife trophies are curbed - especially ivory. Having talked about the issue of structural problems at KWS and the linkages with the problems with the Lusaka Agreement, we need to deal with a more fundamental problem. The problem is that in the 1960s, when Kenya became independent, Kenya and East Africa in general had more elephants and rhinos than the Southern Africa range states. The problem is the philosophy behind conservation and preservation of wildlife in Kenya. The philosophy in Kenya is one that requires preservation of wildlife. It does not give any ownership to the communities that live with wildlife. Whereas our friends in Southern Africa let their communities have ownership to their wildlife and hence be more proactive in dealing with poachers and reporting poachers, we have made the preservation and the issues of conservation of wildlife a Kenyan cowboy thing. It is mainly something that is left to white Kenyans who mainly own private conservancies."
}