

 WILDLIFE PROTECTION AND

R E P O R T

TRAFFICKING ASSESSMENT IN KENYA
Drivers and trends of transnational wildlife crime in Kenya and
LWVUROHDVDWUDQVLWSRLQWIRUWUDIÀFNHGVSHFLHVLQ(DVW$IULFD

MAY 2016

Sam Weru

TRAFFIC REPORTTRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring
network, is the leading non-governmentalorganization working globally on trade inwild animals and plants in the context of bothbiodiversity conservation and sustainable
development. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance ofWWF and IUCN.
This publication was made possible throughthe support provided by the Office of Forestry
and Biodiversity, Bureau for Economic Growth,
Education and Environment, U.S. Agency forInternational Development, under the terms ofaward number AID-AID-EGEE-IO-13-00002.
The opinions expressed in this publication arethose of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the view of the U.S. Agency for International
Development.
The designations of geographical entities inthis publication, and the presentation of thematerial, do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC
or its supporting organizations concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, or area, orof its authorities, or concerning the delimitationof its frontiers or boundaries. The views of theauthors expressed in this publication are those of
the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of
TRAFFIC, WWF or IUCN.
Published by TRAFFIC, David AttenboroughBuilding, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ,
UK.
© TRAFFIC 2016. Copyright of material
published in this report is vested in TRAFFIC.
ISBN no: 978-1-85850-386-8
UK Registered Charity No. 1076722
Suggested citation: Weru, S. (2016). Wildlife
protection and trafficking assessment in Kenya:
Drivers and trends of transnational wildlife crimein Kenya and its role as a transit point for trafficked
species in East Africa. TRAFFIC.
Front cover photograph and credit: African
Elephant Loxodonta africana, Amboseli National
Park, Kenya. © Martin Harvey / WWF
Design:Ngoc Tram Creative
ngoctram89@gmail.com
Printed on FSC-certified paper and according
to FSC-certified processes.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION
AND TRAFFICKINGASSESSMENT IN KENYA
Drivers and trends of transnational wildlife
crime in Kenya and its role as a transit point
IRUWUDIÀFNHGVSHFLHVLQ(DVW$IULFD© Martin Harvey / WWF

Sam Weru

African Elephant Loxodonta africana, Amboseli National Park, Kenya.

ii TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgementsv

Acronymsvi

Executive Summaryviii

1: General Introduction and Background1

2: Methodology

2

3: Results

3

3.1: Biological Status of Key Species Appearing in Trade3

3.1.1: Elephants

5

3.1.2: Rhinoceroses

8

3.1.3: African Pangolins

11

3.2: Poaching and Trafficking in Kenya

12

3.3: Poaching Trends and Key Drivers of the Trade13

3.3.1 Poaching Trends

13

3.3.2: Key Drivers

16

3.4: Structure of Poaching and Trafficking Networks

19

3.5: Key Trafficking Routes and Consumer Hotspots

20

3.6: Arrests and Confiscations

23

3.7: Linkages to Organized Crime and Militant Groups

28

3.8: Kenya’s Wildlife Policy and Legal Environment

28

3.8.1: Wildlife Law Enforcement29

3.8.2: Community Wildlife Management30

3.9: Prosecution

33

3.10: Effectiveness of Kenya’s Legal Framework for Wildlife Crime

34

3.10.1: Key Strengths of Kenya’s Legal Framework for Wildlife Crime

34

3.10.2: Key Weaknesses of Kenya’s Legal Framework for Wildlife Crime

35

3.11: Regional/International Wildlife Law Enforcement Co-ordination

37

4: Conclusions

39

5: Recommendations

40

References

43

Appendices

47

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya iii

)ULW]3|ONLQJ::)iv TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was made possible through the support of various people who provided key informationand data or corroborated critical information. Particular thanks are given to the United States
Agency for International Development in Kenya for providing the resources to complete thisassessment as part of the global Wildlife Trafficking, Response, Assessment and Priority Setting(Wildlife-TRAPS) Project. The author wishes to thank the following from the group ranches aroundthe Tsavo-Amboseli ecosystem: Lolishoo Oltimbau, Haron Loosikira, Kimare Mapena, Musei
Loongonot, Joshua Pumuka, Panian Motoa and Emmanuel Sane. From the Samburu-Laikipia
landscape, the author is indebted to the following conservancy leaders: Jacob R. Lenduda, John Ole
Pere, Francis Ntaiyia, Joseph Mosiany, Timothy Mosiany, Samuel Kimongo, George K. Olemugie,
Paulo Keshine and Francis Santia. The author also immensely benefited from the knowledge andwisdom of the following conservation experts: Noah Sitati, Martin Mulama and Philip Lenaiyasa;
and finally the legal expertise of Shamini Jayanathan.
Within government, the Kenya Wildlife Service, National Museums of Kenya, and the Ministryof Water, Environment and Natural Resources provided valuable information with special thanks
to Julius Kimani, Robert Muasya, Julius Mwandai, Patrick Omondi, Edwin Wanyonyi, Shadrack
Ngene, Quentin Luke, Barnabas Malombe, Stephen Manegene and Abdi Boru of the Isiolo County
Government.
The author is greatly indebted to Tom Milliken, James Compton, Nick Ahlers, Julie Thomson,
Richard Thomas, Roland Melisch and David Newton of TRAFFIC as well as Juniper Neill and Halae
Fuller from the Environment Office, USAID Kenya and East Africa, for providing very helpful
technical and editorial comments on the initial drafts of this report.
Finally and most importantly, the author acknowledges all those who participated in the Kenya
Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking Stakeholder Workshop held in Nairobi on April 14 and 15, 2015.
In particular, special appreciations go to all those who made presentations at this workshop,
namely; Luther Bois Anakur, Regional Director for IUCN East and Southern Africa; William K.
Kiprono, Acting Director General, Kenya Wildlife Service; Robert Godec, US Ambassador to the
Republic of Kenya; Karen Freeman, Director of USAID Kenya and East Africa; Stephen Manegene,Director of Wildlife, Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (MEWNR); Nick
Ahlers, Wildlife-TRAPS Project Leader/TRAFFIC; Patrick Omondi, Deputy Director Species
Conservation & Management, KWS; Holly Dublin, Chair, IUCN SSC African Elephant Specialist
Group; Iain Douglas-Hamilton, CEO, Save the Elephants; Philip Muruthi, Senior Director,
Conservation Science, AWF; Tom Milliken, Elephant & Rhino Programme Leader, TRAFFIC;
Julian Blanc, CITES/MIKE; Samuel Tokore, Chief Security Operations Officer, KWS; Christian
Deitrich, INTERPOL; Daniel Ole Sambu, Field Programmes Coordinator, BigLife Foundation;
Ian Craig, Northern Rangelands Trust; Dickson Kaelo, Executive Director, Kenya Wildlife
Conservancies Association; Robert Ndetei, Species Manager, WWF Kenya; Didi Wamukoya, Chief
Prosecutor, KWS; Robert Muasya, Deputy Director for Security, KWS; Nzioki Makau, Judge of theHigh Court; Benson Ochieng, Institute for Legal Education and Governance; Theotimus Rwegasira,Lusaka Agreement Task Force; Juniper Neill, Director of Environment, USAID Kenya and East
Africa. Charles Oluchina of The Nature Conservancy played the critical role of technical facilitation
whereas Shanny Pelle of TRAFFIC and Susan Nzii of USAID undertook administrative duties at thisworkshop. The presentations and discussions provided valuable information to the content of thisreport. A full list of workshop participants can be found in Annex 1.

The Rufford Foundation is gratefully
acknowledged for its support to
TRAFFIC publications.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya v

ACRONYMS
AED
AGO
AfESG
AWF

African Elephant Database
Attorney General’s Office
IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group
African Wildlife Foundation

CAR
CBD
CBK-FRC
CFWK
CITES
CMS
CPC

Central African Republic
Convention on Biological Diversity
Central Bank of Kenya-Financial Reporting Centre
Care For the Wild Kenya
Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Convention on Migratory Species
Criminal Procedure Code

DCI
DPP
DRC
DRSRS

Directorate of Criminal Investigations
Director of Public Prosecutions
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Directorate of Resource Survey and Remote Sensing

EAC
EMCA
ETIS

East African Community
Environment Management and Coordination Act
Elephant Trade Information System

GDP
GNI
GoK

Gross Domestic Product
Gross National Income
Government of Kenya

HEC

Human-Elephant Conflict

ICRW
IFAW
IGO
IPZ
IUCN

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Inter-Governmental Organization
Intensive Protection Zone
International Union for Conservation of Nature

JKIA
JKUAT
JTI

Jomo Kenyatta International Airport
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
Judicial Training Institute (Kenya)

KAA
KCA
KEPSA
KES
KRA
KWCA
KWS

Kenya Airports Authority
Kenya Conservation Alliance
Kenya Private Sector Alliance
Kenya Shilling
Kenya Revenue Authority
Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association
Kenya Wildlife Service

LAPSETT
LATF
LRA

Lamu Port, Southern Sudan Ethiopia Transport Corridor
Lusaka Agreement Task Force
Lord’s Resistance Armyvi TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

LWF

Laikipia Wildlife Forum

MEA
MIKE

Multi-lateral Environmental Agreement
Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants

NEMA
NIS
NGO
NMK
NPS
NRT

National Environmental Management Authority
National Intelligence Service
Non-Governmental Organization
National Museums of Kenya
National Police Service
Northern Rangelands Trust

ODPP

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

PAC
PIKE

Problem Animal Control
Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants

STE

Save the Elephant

UNEP
UNODC
UoN
USA
USD
USAID

United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime
University of Nairobi
United States of America
United States Dollars
United States Agency for International Development

WCMA
Wildlife-TRAPS
WLFC

Wildlife Conservation and Management Act
Wildlife Trafficking Response, Assessment and Priority Setting
Wildlife and Forest Crime

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is an assessment of the status, drivers and trends of transnational wildlife crime in Kenya
and its role as a key transit point for wildlife species illegally traded from East Africa. The assessment
has been carried out under the auspices of the USAID-funded five year Wildlife Trafficking
Response, Assessment, and Priority Setting (Wildlife-TRAPS) Project implemented by TRAFFIC
and IUCN. The Wildlife-TRAPS initiative aims to increase understanding of the true characterand scale of the international response required, identify intervention points, test non-traditional
approaches, and develop and deliver a suite of ground-breaking partnerships and pioneering
approaches to tackle wildlife crime between Africa and Eastern Asia. The project therefore
strengthens the knowledge base, resolve and co-operation of governments, inter-governmentalorganizations, the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in tackling wildlife
trafficking between Africa and Eastern Asia.
This report examines wildlife crime in Kenya and its linkages to illegal wildlife trade dynamics
in the East African region. It is informed by a review of available literature, internet sources andintelligence from and interviews with knowledgeable individuals and agencies. It is also greatly
informed by discussions and outcomes of the “Kenya Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking Stakeholder
Workshop” held in Nairobi on April 14 and 15, 2015. This workshop was organized and hosted by
TRAFFIC in partnership with the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), USAID and IUCN and brought
together relevant stakeholders from UN agencies, donors, NGOs, regional wildlife enforcement
networks and the private sector to discuss a range of anti-trafficking issues, culminating in theidentification of priority actions for future high-value interventions. Discussions and presentations
at the workshop focused on key thematic areas: the biological status of key species involved in illegal
wildlife trade; poaching and trafficking in Kenya; community wildlife policing; wildlife policy andlaw enforcement; and an overview of the role of development partners in securing Kenya’s wildlife.
The main results of the Assessment Report are contained in chapter three, starting with thebiological status of key species involved in trade. This is followed by an assessment of the extent ofpoaching and trafficking in Kenya, including trends and key drivers of the trade, the structure ofpoaching syndicates, consumer hotspots, and key trafficking routes. The Assessment also documents
arrests and seizures of wildlife contraband in Kenya, and the linkages between the illegal wildlife
trade and organized crime. Kenya’s policy and legal environment on combating wildlife trafficking isanalysed, including the effectiveness of prosecution and the strengths and weaknesses of the Wildlife
Law. The Assessment also discusses regional and international co-ordination efforts in the fightagainst poaching and trafficking.
Kenya is home to some of the richest biodiversity and most iconic landscapes in Africa,
characterized by high levels of habitat and species diversity, endemism, ecological interconnectedness, and globally recognized conservation hotspots. Landscapes range from coastal/marine to freshwater and saline lakes, from tropical montane forests to savannah plains and arid andsemi-arid lands. Kenya is home to 9152 documented species of higher order wild flora and fauna,out of which 2148 are animals. Kenya’s savannah ecosystems play host to dramatic wildlife spectacles
like the world famous Wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus migration and are inhabited by iconic
species such as the African Elephant Loxodonta africana and the Critically Endangered EasternBlack Rhinoceros Diceros bicornis michaeli. The marine waters and contiguous coastal forests are
inhabited by a variety of endangered species, including the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas and the
Sokoke Pipit Anthus sokokensis, respectively.
However, this rich natural heritage is under threat: about 325 species of flora and fauna in Kenya
face various levels of vulnerability, mainly driven by anthropogenic factors. Rapid human population
growth and large-scale developments have caused major habitat loss as wild lands are converted toviii TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

agricultural, residential, or industrial use. Kenya’s wildlife is also severely threatened by poaching.
In the 1970s, Kenya was home to hundreds of thousands of elephants. Today, only slightly over
32 500 remain. The situation is the same for the Black Rhinoceros whose numbers plummetedfrom 100 000 animals in 1960 to only 2410 in all of Africa by 1995. Today, Kenya’s Black Rhino
population is just 650 individuals. Research is lacking on the impact of poaching and trade onother species of wildlife, but evidence is clear that big cats (Lion Panthera leo; Cheetah Acinonyx
jubatus; and Leopard Panthera pardus), African Wild Dog Lycaon pictus, Spotted Hyeana Crocuta
crocuta, Striped Hyaena Hyaena hyaena and Grevy’s Zebra Equus grevii have also experienced sharp
population declines. Furthermore, pangolin scales are a major part of the illegal wildlife trade andfrequently appear in seizures of wildlife contraband, but no dedicated studies or database exist in
Kenya to document this.
The Kenyan government declared a ban on game (except birds) and trophy1 hunting in 1977, but
illegal trade in wildlife continued to thrive underground, abetted by corruption within governmentand security lapses at border points, airports and Kilindini Port in Mombasa. Despite efforts by
KWS, increasingly sophisticated poaching networks akin to organized crime have emerged in recent
years, posing even greater challenges to the security of both wildlife and the personnel that manageand protect them. In 2012 and 2013 more elephants and rhinos were killed than during any otheryear in the last two decades. In 2013, Kenyan wildlife and Customs authorities seized more illegallyacquired animal parts in transit than any other year in history. This renewed surge in poaching andtrafficking of ivory and rhino horn has been attributed to surging demand for wildlife products
from consumers in East and Southeast Asia, driven by burgeoning wealth and sky rocketing prices.
In response, Asian Customs authorities have intensified enforcement efforts, especially in Singapore
and Thailand where large seizures have occurred in 2015.
Poaching and trafficking networks are usually diffuse but highly integrated. The actual poachers are
typically locals with first-hand knowledge of the terrain and affiliated with one or more middlemen.
These middlemen have linkages to a kingpin or patron, who, through corrupt means, provides or
facilitates access to financing, weapons and intelligence on ranger movements. The kingpin may also
have access to illegal wildlife products in other African countries and provides the link to markets inEast and Southeast Asia and Europe. Corrupt security agents, porous borders, and endemic conflictamong communities in northern Kenya facilitate the illicit flow of weapons that are used by local
poachers. Pastoralist communities reportedly procure arms from Somalia, South Sudan, Uganda
and Ethiopia, fuelling conflict over land, water and livestock. This deep-rooted conflict is as much ofa threat to wildlife as the potential for linkages between poaching gangs and militant groups such as
al-Shabaab.
Although the UN has published a detailed report showing how al-Shabaab terror group uses
proceeds from illegal charcoal trade to finance its operations, suspicions that al-Shabaab has alsobranched into ivory trafficking have been largely discredited. While there are reports providing
anecdotal evidence of such a link—EAL “Africa’s White Gold – Jihad and Conflict Ivory” 2011, forexample—this has yet to be accepted by the Kenyan Government and indeed more generally, despite
considerable speculation by media and politicians. Studies across Africa, however, do indicate morestrongly that other militia groups, such as Janjaweed operating in Sudan, Chad and Niger and the
Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), may be benefiting from illegal ivory transiting through Kenya.
Kenya has emerged as a key transit country in Africa for wildlife contraband. The main sourcesof wildlife products trafficked through Kenya are: Tanzania (mainly ivory), Mozambique (ivory
and rhino horn), Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (mainly ivory), Uganda (ivory, pangolinscales, timber), Zambia (ivory) and South Sudan (ivory) in addition to illegal wildlife products
originating in Kenya itself (elephant ivory, rhino horn, big cat skins and pangolin scales). The transit
1

Under Kenyan law (WCMA 2013), “trophy” means any wild species alive or dead, and any bone, claw, egg, feather, hair, hoof, skin, tooth, tusk or otherdurable portion whatsoever of that animal whether processed, added to or changed by the work of man or not, which is recognizable as such

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya ix

of these illegal goods is facilitated by Kenya’s relatively well-developed transportation infrastructure.
Kilindini Port in Mombasa and Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) in Nairobi are theleading exit points for wildlife contraband leaving Kenya. Since 2009, more ivory has exited throughMombasa than any other trade route out of Africa, primarily destined for China and Hong Kong
S.A.R. (Hong Kong), with transit points in Malaysia, Viet Nam, Thailand and Singapore. Nairobi’s
JKIA has also recorded high numbers of seizures of contraband destined for China and Viet Nam.
Other entry and exit points in Kenya commonly used for smuggling wildlife specimens are Busia
and Malaba, border crossings which are on record for having been used to smuggle ivory into
Kenya from DRC, South Sudan and Uganda. Arrests have also been recorded at Isebania, Namanga,
Tarakea (Oloitokitok), Taveta, Lunga Lunga, Liboi and Moyale. Kenya Airways operates direct flightsfrom Nairobi to eastern Asia and has been reported to carry passengers with wildlife contrabandin their baggage, especially those in transit from Mozambique. Kenya also plays a key role inconnecting trade and commerce from Bujumbura (Burundi), Kigali (Rwanda), Kisangani (DRC),
Juba (South Sudan), Kampala (Uganda) and Addis Ababa to the rest of the world through the“northern transport corridor.”
Kenya has taken significant steps toward codifying conservation and wildlife protection into awildlife policy and legal framework since the promulgation of the new constitution in 2010. The
Wildlife Conservation and Management Act 2013 provides very high minimum penalties of KES20
million (USD206 028 as at June 11, 2015) and/or life imprisonment for the killing of threatenedor endangered species. Community conservancies, in which local communities take the lead inprotecting and conserving wildlife, have also been recognized by the Government of Kenya as ahighly successful model for protecting Kenya’s natural resources outside of formal protected areas.
There are now over 150 conservancies in Kenya, representing about 4% of the country’s landmass,
which have transformed wild spaces and livelihoods in the Maasai Mara, Amboseli/Tsavo, and theSamburu/Laikipia ecosystems.
Nonetheless, the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (WCMA) still lacks the subsidiary
regulations necessary to put it into action. Important issues still need to be addressed, suchas clarification of incentives for landowners to keep wildlife on their land and procedures forcompensation claims following human-wildlife conflict. Other weaknesses in Kenya’s wildlifespecific legal framework include those shown in the bulleted points below.
ttSection 92 of the WCMA dealing with endangered species has been drafted in a way thathas caused ambiguity in charging decisions and conflicting High Court decisions upon
appeal. It requires amendment. Furthermore, the WCMA does not provide for the outright
killing of an endangered, threatened or near threatened species. In the context of humanwildlife conflict where communities may take matters into their own hands without any
desire to take or profit from trophies, this is a lacunae in the law that needs addressing. In
a number of poisoning cases in recent months, this has caused challenges in choosing thecorrect charge. An offence of simple ‘killing of a wildlife species without a permit or otherauthorisation’ is required. Defences (e.g. in self defence) can be built into the drafting ofsuch a provision.
The inclusion of high minimum penalties within the new Act has resulted in an increasein ‘not guilty’ pleas and a consequent increase in the number of trials. In a system that
already suffers a serious backlog of cases, this further contributes to delay. Furthermore,with no incentive to plead guilty, the opportunities for plea bargaining and using evidence
of defendants against co-conspirators further up the criminal chain are extremely limited.
High minimum penalties that leave little room to distinguish between an offender that isin possession of an ivory bangle and an offender in possession of a warehouse full of tusks,
may result in unfairness and furthermore, may act as a catalyst for further corruption
within the system.

x TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

t

t

Kenya is party to several Multilateral Environmental Agreements which automatically
become part of Kenya law; however their provisions and requirements are rarely
considered in wildlife enforcement and prosecution.
Although DNA and forensic evidence is admissible under the law, there is a lack ofunderstanding as to how best to present such evidence before a court.

Kenya has achieved tremendous improvements in prosecuting wildlife crime with limited resources.
Prosecutions of wildlife poaching and trafficking have improved significantly over recent years.
However, prosecutors and judges are hampered by several outstanding issues, as outlined in thebulleted points below.
tPreviously, the Evidence Act did not expressly cater for digital evidence, making
admissibility at trial a challenge for prosecutors and defendants alike. However, theSecurity Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014 has introduced a new section into the evidence
Act (Sec 78A) which allows the admissibility of electronic messages and digital material,
including photographs. However, not all officers in the police force, KWS, prosecution
and judiciary are aware of the changes in the law and so these provisions are not appliedconsistently across the country. Accordingly, whilst the “best evidence rule” requires thatthe trophy, live animal or carcass, be produced in court, the option of using photographs to
exhibit the same is not always applied, leading to considerable logistical difficulties in theprosecution of such crimes.

t

Corruption remains a significant issue and manifests itself in various forms, including
lost court room files and missing exhibits. The prosecution of Feisal Mohamed at
Mombasa Law Courts, for example, saw the magistrate suspended in 2015 over corruption
allegations in the prosecution of an ‘ivory kingpin’.

t

There are very few forensic experts in the country able to provide expert evidence as tothe origin or nature of a trophy. Further, the geographical spread of courts in which suchcases are heard means that, logistically, securing attendance of these experts is highly
problematic. With an increase in not-guilty pleas brought about by the high minimum
penalties, the increase in trials adds to the pressure on the few experts in the country interms of production of reports and attendance at trial.

t

The lack of sentencing guidelines for wildlife crime has resulted in inconsistency insentencing nationwide despite high minimum penalties. This creates uncertainty for boththe prosecution and the defence in entering into any meaningful discussions on plea andalternative charges. It also undermines public confidence and sends conflicting messages
to the community as to how wildlife crime is viewed by the judiciary. That the option ofa fine (albeit significant) is available under the WCMA means that those at a higher levelin an organized crime chain are perhaps more likely to be able to pay and resume theiractivities whereas the ‘low hanging fruit’ in the form of the poacher caught on the ground,
who might be viewed as replaceable by the organized criminal groups involved, may findthe fine unaffordable and will consequently remain in prison.

t

KWS does not apply the same charging standard as the ODPP when it comes to thedecision to charge an offence. Whilst KWS, under recent protocols adopted by theagencies, should not be charging ivory and rhino-related cases without the ODPP’s
involvement, they may still undertake a wide range of criminal prosecutions under the
WCMA. Without a consistent approach to the decision to charge across those agencies
with prosecutorial powers, inconsistency and poor charging decisions will remain aobstacle to successful prosecutions

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya xit

There is a lack of understanding amongst agencies as to the legislative framework thatnow governs prosecutions and powers of investigation that has led to ‘turf wars’ between
agencies regarding investigations and prosecutions.

t

There are insufficient numbers of gazetted scenes-of-crime officers within KWS: it is arequirement under the law to have evidence from officers first at the scene. This presents asignificant challenge when it comes to trial.

t

Suspects arrested are not routinely fingerprinted, making the creation of a database of
offenders difficult. Police standing orders are required to ensure that this occurs. The
technical means to take prints, store and disseminate them is still lacking in some areas.

Wildlife crime is a transnational problem with links to international criminal syndicates, creating
a long and diffuse supply chain that cannot be stopped by one country or agency alone. Regional
and international co-ordination and collaboration on wildlife law enforcement is therefore critical.
Kenya is a key participant in Operation COBRA, a global wildlife law enforcement operation coordinated by the Lusaka Agreement Task Force that creates opportunities for collaboration andintelligence-sharing among countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the USA to step up arrests andseizures. Operation COBRA III, carried out in May 2015, led to the arrest of over 400 suspects,
including several kingpins, and resulted in over 600 seizures of assorted wildlife contrabandglobally. Such activities are extremely important for building the capacity of Kenya’s Customs,
revenue and port police units to detect and track wildlife contraband. Furthermore, most current
law enforcement operations in Kenya target lower-level players in the illegal wildlife trade. Largescale international co-operation activities, such as Operation COBRA, can help to refocus effortson middlemen and kingpins of large-scale ivory trafficking, which require greater emphasis on
intelligence-gathering.
It is evident that Kenya’s natural heritage faces grave threats from poaching and trafficking. It
is also clear that Kenya is both a source and transit country for illegal wildlife products boundfor end-user markets in East and Southeast Asia. This illegal trade thrives because of loopholes
in law enforcement all along the trade chain, corruption, weak capacity, and high demand in
Asian markets. This Assessment Report identifies a number of interventions, summarized in thetable below, which can reverse these troubling trends at both national and international levels.
The priorities specific to Kenya include: generating more effective co-ordination between KWS
and other law enforcement agencies with particular focus on the ports and borders, including
the adoption of high-tech surveillance equipment at airports and seaports; increasing judicial
awareness about the changes in the legislation that govern wildlife crime and admissability ofevidence; strengthening prosecution capacity, equipping and deploying more rangers on the ground,and increasing incentives for community involvement in wildlife management and security. At
the international level, the interventions include ramping up diplomatic pressure on consumer
countries to curb illegal wildlife trade, scaling up awareness campaigns that target consumers inEast and Southeast Asia, reviewing the way in which such crimes are prosecuted within their own
countries to ensure a consistency in approach worldwide, fostering greater collaboration among law
enforcement agencies and increasing surveillance of international passenger and freight carriers.

xii TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR COMBATING WILDLIFE POACHING AND
TRAFFICKINGNo.

PRIORITY ACTION

KEY PARTNERS

Thematic Area 1: Biological Status of Key Species Appearing in Trade1

Identify geographic locations and carry out surveys to provide and/
KWS, DRSRS, KWCA,
or update data on the biological status of key species with specialNGOsemphasis on elephants, pangolins and big cats.

2

Complete an assessment of the bushmeat trade in Kenya.

KWS, NGOs, CFWK

3

Develop and scale up a national forensic research programme for
species identification.

NMK, KWS, UoN,
JKUAT

4

Implement critical recommendations contained in the report of
the “Mapping Corridors and Connectivity for Conservation Task
Force”, with special focus on the Mara Ecosystem.

KWS, KWCA, NGOs,
Conservancies

5

Carry out a national land-use survey with the emphasis on
examining the trends in loss of conservation space.

GoK, NGOs

Thematic Area 2: Law Enforcement
1

2

3

4

5

6

Carry out assessments to provide missing poaching and trade data
for trafficked species, particularly elephants, pangolins, big cats,
reptiles, birds and marine species.
Operationalize the KWS forensic laboratory in Nairobi andestablish formal linkages to other international forensic
institutions.
Wide dissemination of the guidance on expert and digital
evidence (contained in the 2015 guide on wildlife crime--‘Points
to Prove’ guidance and Standard Operating Procedures developedwith UK and rolled out nationally by the ODPP in 2015); andregular updates on the changes in the law to investigators,
prosecutors and judges
Strengthen the capacity of wildlife crime investigative andenforcement officers based on training needs identified throughassessments. In particular, train and gazette more scenes-of-crime
officers and sensitize to the changes in the law and evidential
requirements for charge.
Develop a KWS institutional anti-corruption strategy and address
the urgent issue of stockpile management by speeding up necessaryreforms and improvements.
Create secure mechanisms for intelligence gathering andinformation sharing by relevant actors in the wildlife poaching andtrafficking sector.

KWS, NGOs

KWS, NMK

JTI, ODPP, KWS, NPS

GoK (Treasury), KWS,NPSCITES, KWS, GK,
NGOs
NIS, KWCA, KCA,
KWS, CBK-FRC,
INTERPOL, UNODC

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya xiii

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1

2

3

4

5

Support the expansion of the KWS prosecutorial team in adopting
the same charging standard as applied by the ODPP (evidential
and public interest test) with a system of written reviews andaccountability on charging decisions. Awareness of the standard
should be developed amongst investigators as well.
Enhance the use of technology in wildlife management andenforcement (e.g. mapping corridors, tracking animal movements,
providing a poaching early-warning system, supporting forensic
investigations, and enabling detection in ports and airports).
Clarify and implement mechanisms for cross-border collaborationand linkages with relevant regional and global initiatives forcombating the illegal wildlife trade. In particular, support the AGO
in building capacity to address issues of mutual legal assistance(cross-border evidence exchange and prosecution of international
wildlife trafficking).
Develop capacity within the ports and border authority,
KRA and the airports authority regarding detection of suchcrimes. In particular, to assess the current regulatory
processes for import and export of goods at ports andborders with a view to developing measures to tighten
those controls and make prosecution of agents and ‘middle
men’ viable.
Create a register of wildlife offenders to be shared among national
agencies as well as with regional partners.

KWS, ODPP, NPS

KWS, DRSRS, andNGOS

EAC, KWS, Ministryof Foreign Affairs &Trade, LATF, AGO,
Treasury

Donors, KRA, KWS,
KAA, NGOs

Judiciary, KWS,
NGOs, NPSWork with financial, communications and transportation
KWS, CID, ODPP,
companies in the private sector to target the operations of largeKWS, KEPSA, AGO,
scale syndicates.
NGOs
WCMA applies to Kenya’s territorial waters. However, capacity
for investigations regarding crimes committed against marine
GoK, Kenya Maritime
species remains limited. Support to Kenya Fisheries Department
Authority, Fisheries
and Maritime Authority to harmonise their laws in line with the
Department
WCMA.
Thematic Area 3: Public Awarenessand Community-Based Natural Resource Management
Finalize regulations that govern incentives for private land owners
Minst of Env., KWS,
and communities to establish conservancies, corridors and
KWCA
dispersal areas in order to secure more land for wildlife.
Finalize and issue regulations governing the operation of wildlife
conservancies.
Develop and implement conservancy management plans inpartnership with local communities, as provided for under the
WCMA.
Foster a national conservation ethic through education andawareness campaigns in order to safeguard the intrinsic andeconomic value of wildlife and reduce human-wildlife conflict.
Train and deploy additional community rangers in wildlife
enforcement based on capacity needs assessments carried out by anindependent expert.

xiv TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

Minst of Env., KWS,
KWCA
KWCA, KWS,
Conservancies, NGOs
Min of Education,
Min of Envt & W/life,
KWS, NGOs
KWS, NGOs,
Conservancies,
Treasury6

7

8

Develop and implement the regulations for benefit-sharing
mechanisms established by the WCMA.
Improve community awareness and understanding of relevantlaws, with special emphasis on the WCMA and the Environmental
Management and Coordination Act (EMCA).
Strengthen the capacity of the Kenya Wildlife Conservancies
Association (KWCA) and regional conservancy associations as
vehicles for strategic engagement with government, donors andinvestors.

Min Envt & W/life
KWS, Judiciary,NGOs, Conservancies
KWCA, NGOs, KWS,
Conservancies

9

Build KWCA’s capacity to help conservancies meet administrativeand operational standards.

NGOs, Donors

10

Carry out exchange and learning visits between and amongconservancies.

Conservancies, NGOs,
KWS

1

Operationalize and strengthen the Kenya Conservation Alliance(KCA) as a vehicle for strategic engagement with the government,
information and data sharing, co-ordination and dispute
resolution.

GoK, NGOs,
Conservancies

2

Harmonize land-use planning and development in line with the
EMCA and other relevant legislation.

GoK

3

Develop necessary infrastructure (road signs, speed bumps,
underpasses, bridges, etc.) in wildlife areas to prevent accidental
deaths of wildlife.

GoK

4

Assess the economic value of key species impacted by trade tosupport conservation, enforcement, and legal processes.

GoK, IGOs, NGOs

Participants keenly follow proceedings
at the Kenya Wildlife Poaching andTrafficking Stakeholder Workshop held in
Nairobi in April 2015

© TRAFFIC

Thematic Area 4: Cross Cutting Issues

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya xv

1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Kenya, with an area of 582 646 km2, is home to some of the richest biodiversity and most striking
landscapes in Africa, ranging from the Indian Ocean coast to the peaks of Mt. Kenya, the second
highest mountain in Africa. Regionally, Kenya plays a key political role and is a founding member
state of the East African Community (EAC). Kenya has a fast-growing population of 43 million
people and is the largest economy in the region, with a robust private sector, educated workforce,
expanding transport network and cutting-edge information and communication sector (GoK,
2014a; GoK, 2015). According to the World Bank’s 2014 Economic Update, Kenya’s economy is
the ninth largest in Africa and fifth largest in Sub-Saharan Africa (after Nigeria, South Africa,
Angola and Sudan), with an estimated GDP of USD55.2 billion. Per capita gross national income(GNI) in Kenya was USD1160 in 2013, equivalent to a lower middle income country (World Bank,2014). Agriculture is the dominant sector in the Kenyan economy, especially land and resource
intensive crops such as tea, coffee, forestry and flower farming, contributing 27.3% of Kenya’s GDP(GoK, 2015). Tourism is the second biggest contributor to GDP, accounting for 21% of the total
foreign exchange earnings and 12% of the GDP in 2013 (WTTC, 2014). However, Kenya’s growing
population and economy has significant impacts on the country’s natural resources, particularly
wildlife and wild spaces. In recognition of these challenges, Kenya’s long-term development
blueprint, Vision 2030, identifies wildlife-based tourism as one of six key sectors planned to deliver
a 10% growth rate each year (GoK, 2013a; UNEP, 2009).
Kenya’s rich and varied landscape harbours unique biodiversity and is characterized by highlevels of habitat and species diversity, endemism and ecological inter-connectedness. Landscapes
range from coastal/marine ecosystems to freshwater and saline lakes, tropical montane forests,
savannah plains and arid and semi-arid lands. The Eastern (or Gregorian) arm of the Rift Valley
runs through Kenya from north to south, creating a series of mountain ranges and saline (soda)
and freshwater lakes that are home to some of Africa’s most diverse ecosystems and biodiversity,
which in turn provides essential ecological goods and services for the country’s human and wildlife
populations alike. Kenya’s dry savannah ecosystems play host to dramatic wildlife spectacles likethe world famous Wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus migrations of East Africa and are inhabitedby flagship species such as the African Elephant Loxodonta africana and the Critically Endangered
Eastern Black Rhinoceros Diceros bicornis michaeli. Kenya also has many other rare and endemic
mammals: including the Endangered Grevy’s Zebra Equus grevyi, primates such as the Tana River
Crested Mangabey Cercocebus galeritus and the Tana River Red Colobus Procolobus rufomitratus
rufomitratus, antelopes including the Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekii, Bongo Tragelaphus eurycerus andRoan Hippotragus equinus, and a variety of large cats—African Lion Panthera leo; Cheetah Acinonyx
jubatus; and Leopard Panthera pardus, as well as the Striped Hyaena Hyaena hyaena. Kenya’s
marine waters and contiguous coastal forests are also inhabited by a variety of endangered species,
including the Green Turtle Chelonia mydas and the Sokoke Pipit Anthus sokokensis, respectively.
This high level of species richness and diversity of habitat types has led to a number of areas in
Kenya being recognized as “conservation hotspots.”
In the epoch prior to colonization, natural resources were protected and managed through a systemof cultural beliefs and myths. This changed with the advent of the twin factors of colonization andglobalization, which introduced accelerated levels of commercial trade and resource exploitation.
The colonial “Scramble for Africa” instigated enormous demand for wildlife products and trophies(such as elephant ivory for piano keys and big cat skins) and remained active up to the postindependence era. Global demand for ivory resurged in the 1970s and 1980s, decimating many
African Elephant populations and leading to a global ivory trade ban under the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1989. Despite thetremendous strides that have been made in wildlife conservation and management over the years,
poaching remains a threat today (Ratchford et al., 2013; UNEP 2014). High demand for rhino hornand elephant ivory in Southeast and East Asia has become the leading cause of illegal killing of these
iconic African species, estimated at up to 25 000 elephants and about 1290 rhinos killed Africa-wide
in 2014 (Nellemann et al., 2014).

1 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

2: METHODOLOGYThis Assessment Report was produced using a combination of desk-based research, limited
fieldwork and interviews with Government of Kenya officials, wildlife experts, and otherstakeholders. It synthesizes a variety of sources: internet, academic publications, non-governmentalorganization (NGO) and inter-governmental organization (IGO) reports, government statistics
and media reports. The author also engaged conservancy stakeholders and community leaders in
Amboseli/Tsavo, Laikipia/Samburu landscapes through semi-structured interviews. The report
was also informed by a review of available intelligence on poaching in recognition of the fact thatpoaching is antecedent to illegal wildlife trade dynamics in Kenya and the larger East African region.
In addition, this Assessment Report integrates information from presentations, discussions andrecommendations from the “Kenya Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking Stakeholder Workshop”
held in Nairobi on April 14 and 15, 2015. The workshop was organized and hosted by TRAFFIC in
partnership with the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), the U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID) and IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, and brought together relevant
U.N. agencies, donors, NGOs, regional wildlife law enforcement networks and the private sector
to discuss the state of wildlife crime in Kenya and priority actions for scaling up anti-trafficking
responses. The recommendations given at the end of this Assessment Report were developed basedon the priorities identified by participants of the stakeholder workshop.

© Martin Harvey / WWF

For the purposes of this report, “wildlife” refers to the higher order of animals in the mammalian,avian and reptilian taxa, although in real ecological terms the phrase includes all wild animals, plants
and fungi.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 2© Martin Harvey / WWF

3: RESULTS
This section discusses the results of the Wildlife-TRAPS Assessment, beginning with an analysisof the biological status of key species in Kenya: elephants, rhinos and other important trafficked
species. It goes on to examine poaching and trafficking trends: key drivers of the trade, the structureof poaching and trafficking networks, key trafficking routes and consumer hotspots, arrests andconfiscations and linkages to organized crime. Having laid this analytical foundation, the Report
goes on to discuss the current state of Kenya’s legal and policy framework for combating wildlife
trafficking, including wildlife law enforcement, community wildlife management, prosecution of
wildlife crimes, and the strengths and weaknesses of the landmark 2013 Wildlife Conservation andManagement Act (WCMA). The Results section concludes with an analysis of current regional andinternational wildlife law enforcement, and how to improve it in the future.

%LRORJLFDO6WDWXVRI.H\6SHFLHV$SSHDULQJLQ7UDGH
There are 9152 documented species of higher order wild animals and plants in Kenya, out of which
2148 are animals (see Table 1). Rapid human population growth and development has caused
major anthropogenic pressures on the populations of these animals and their habitats, increasing
the threats to wildlife to such an extent that approximately 325 species of flora and fauna are nowclassified as threatened (see Table 2).
Class

Total Known

Mammals

407

Birds

1103

Reptiles261

Amphibians

63

Fish

314

Higher plants

7004

TOTAL

9152

Table 1. Number of recognized species of flora and fauna in Kenya
Source: P. Omondi, Kenya Wildlife Service in litt. to the author 2015; Q. Luke,
National Museums of Kenya in litt. to the author, 2015

3 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

SUMMARY OF THREATENED (IUCN RED LIST) SPECIESOF WILD FLORA AND FAUNA IN KENYA
34

93

198

CriticallyEndangered

Endangered

Vulnerable

TOTAL: 325

4

30 12

14

BIRDS
4
17

18

33 11

228 62149,OOXVWUDWLRQVE\/XNDVYRQ+RKQKRUVWPLANTS

MAMMALS
2

2

7

8
4

REPTILES

15

26

4

FISH

Table 2. Summary of threatened (IUCN Red List) species of wild flora and fauna in Kenya
Source: (Q. Luke, National Museums of Kenya in litt. to the author, 2015; Kenya Wildlife Service database, 2015)

Of these endangered and vulnerable species, this Assessment Report is primarily concerned withanalysing the biological status of species affected by the illegal wildlife trade. It focuses mainly on
two flagship species: elephants and rhinos.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 4(OHSKDQWV
The 2011–2020 Strategy for Conservation and Management of the Elephant in Kenya states thatelephant numbers have reduced dramatically over the last 100 years, mainly as a consequence ofthe trade in ivory. Elephant populations declined from a crude estimate of 167 000 in 1973 to just
20 000 animals in 1990, although it is difficult to compare the quality of data and survey techniques
across decades (KWS 2012). The most recent elephant census in 2014 estimates Kenya’s elephantpopulation to be 32 520, with a marginal decline over the last three years (Figure 1).

.HQ\D·V(OHSKDQWV
Population (2014): 32 520
Number illegally killed in 2014: 164
Elephant Habitat: Savannah and forests© Martin Harvey / WWF

In 2012, Kenya developed and launched a 10-year conservation and management strategy forelephants, with the vision to secure a future for elephants and their habitats, based on peaceful andbeneficial co-existence with people now and for generations yet to come.
A National Elephant Conference in 2015, that brought together local and regional elephantconservation experts, recognized the need to update status data for elephants in forest
habitats, fighting poaching, securing more range and mitigating human-elephant conflicts aspriority actions.

5 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

Although the elephant is one of the most studied wildlife species in Kenya, most recent elephantsurveys in Kenya have focused on savannah and semi-arid populations and have not assessed thestatus of elephants living in forest habitats. Some elephant populations in the Mau Forest Complex,
Aberdares and northern coast of Kenya have not been surveyed for 8–20 years (Table 3). Of the
32 recognized elephant populations in Kenya, 62.5% have not been surveyed for over five years (P.
Omondi, pers. comm, at Kenya Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking Stakeholder Workshop, April 15,2015).

























































































































   

Figure 1. Trends in Kenya’s elephant population from 1973 to 2014
Source: http://www.africanelephantdatabase.org/ Viewed November 12, 2015

Location
Mau Forest Complex
Aberdares (including the Salient & Kipipiri
Forests)
Tana River Primate Reserve
Kerio Valley
Tana River Delta
Boni/Dodori National Reserves
Leroghi (Kirisia) Forest
Mt. Elgon National Reserve
North Kitui National Reserve

Year of Last Estimate

Type of Survey

1995
2005

Dung Count
Informed Guess

2005
2002
2005
2007
1997
2002
2002

Informed Guess
Informed Guess
Informed Guess
Dung Count
Dung Count
Informed Guess
Aerial Count

Table 3. Sample areas where Kenya’s elephant population status needs updating Source: P. Omondi, Kenya
Wildlife Service in litt. to the author, 2015; http://www.elephantdatabase.org/, accessed November 12 2015

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 6

In addition to poaching, changes in elephant ranges have been the most significant driverof falling elephant populations in Kenya. Over the past 25 years, KWS and other elephantresearchers have documented changing elephant ranges in Kenya as a result of illegal
killing, loss of habitat from drought and loss of dispersal areas and migratory corridors as
a result of growing human settlements and livestock. However, progress has been made inrecent years: the African Elephant Database (AED) has documented that although there has
been a major reduction in elephant ranges in Kenya from a 1995 baseline, ranges remained
relatively stable between 1998 and 2013 (Table 4). Nonetheless, a study commissioned by
the Government of Kenya in 2014 to map wildlife dispersal areas and corridors identifies
several ongoing threats to elephant ranges: habitat fragmentation due to land subdivision,
agricultural expansion, high-density human settlement, infrastructure development,
fencing, mining and quarrying, woodland clearing, deforestation, draining of wetlands, andincreasing livestock density (Ojwang’ et al., 2014).

ELEPHANT RANGES IN KENYA OVER TIME
Year
Elephant range in km2

1995
135 0961998
112 988

1995:

2002
109 0712007
107 1132007:

135096107113

1998:

1129882013:111423,OOXVWUDWLRQVE\/XNDVYRQ+RKQKRUVW

2002:

109071

Table 4. Elephant ranges in Kenya over time
Source: (http://www.elephantdatabase.org/ viewed July 10, 2015)

7 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

2013
111 423© Martin Harvey / WWF-Canon.

5KLQRFHURVHVThe Black Rhino, which numbered as many as 100 000 animals in Africa in 1960, has been
decimated by unregulated legal hunting as well as rampant poaching. As a result, population
numbers plummeted to just 2410 in 1995 (Emslie et al., 2007) and the species was annihilated
from at least 18 range States (Leader-Williams, 2003). However, concerted action under CITES
and improved conservation efforts in key countries allowed Africa’s total Black Rhino population
to increase to 5081 animals in 2013. The gains have been substantial, but today 96% of Africa’s
remaining Black Rhinos are restricted to just four countries: South Africa, Namibia, Kenya andZimbabwe (Knight, 2013). This makes Kenya a critical global actor in terms of safeguarding thesurvival of this iconic species.
The Kenya rhino story mirrors the general situation that unfolded elsewhere on the African
continent. In 1970 Kenya had a robust population of some 20 000 rhinos but subsequently
experienced catastrophic losses to poaching in the 1970s and 1980s. This prompted the Kenyan
authorities to establish the first government-managed Rhino Sanctuary at Lake Nakuru National
Park in 1987. This and other conservation efforts led the population of the Eastern Black Rhino
subspecies D. b. michaeli to increase from 381 in 1987 to 648 in 2014, a 70% increase over 27
years. Similarly, the introduction of White Rhinos Ceratotherium simum simum from South Africa
increased the overall Kenyan population from 74 in 1992 to 399 in 2014. Today, Kenya has thethird largest population of both Black and White Rhinos in the world, totalling 1047 in 2014.
Rhinos are held and managed in 16 government and private sanctuaries, one Intensive Protection
Zone (IPZ) at Tsavo West National Park and three free ranging populations whose dispersal areas
include community lands (P. Omondi pers comm. Powerpoint presentation at the Kenya Wildlife
Poaching and Trafficking Workshop, April 14-15, 2015). Kenya’s Rhino Strategic Plan 2012–2016
aims to achieve 5% national population growth rate but has been hampered by a resurgence ofincreasingly sophisticated poaching between 2009 and 2014 which threatens to wipe out population
gains made since 1987 (Figure 3). Kenya’s rhino poaching rate is currently standing at close to
6% per annum, which is higher than the population growth rate, raising serious concerns about
population decline (Milliken, 2014).

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 8

.HQ\D·V5KLQRV
Population (2014): 1047
Number illegally killed in 2014: 35
The goal of the Conservation and Management Strategy for the Black Rhino in Kenya(2012–2016) is “to conserve at least 750 Black Rhinos by the end of 2016, achieving at least 5%
national growth rate and less than 1% man-induced and disease-related deaths.” The strategy
establishes Kenya’s ultimate vision of conserving at least 2000 Black Rhinos in the wild. This
goal is to be achieved through six strategic objectives:tt

$OOSKRWRVWKLVSDJH0DUWLQ+DUYH\::)

t

t
t
Black Rhino, top, and Southern
White Rhino, bottom.

t

Reduce illegal killing of rhinos to less than 1% perannum and significantly reduce illegal trade in rhino
horn and derivatives;
Maintain a standardized monitoring and reporting
protocol to provide information for efficient protection,
meta-population management and programme
implementation;
Achieve and maintain a 6% per annum growth rate inwell-established sanctuaries and a minimum of 5% perannum at national level to attain 750 Black Rhinos by
2016;
Secure new areas and make policy interventions forrhino population expansion;
Raise awareness on the plight of the rhino to gain publicand corporate support globally; andEstablish a co-ordination framework and enhancecapacity for effective implementation of the strategy.

0DLQSKRWR%ODFN5KLQR

9 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

The Northern White Rhino C. s. cottoni is now believed to be extinct in the wild, disappearing fromthe sub-species’s last remaining wild habitat in Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republicof Congo around 2006. Since then, four Northern White Rhinos from the Dvur Kralove Zoo in the
Czech Republic have been moved to a private game ranch in Kenya under a plan to re-establish a
viable population of the same sub-species and possibly allow their eventual re-introduction into
former ranges if successful (P. Omondi, Deputy Director for species management, KWS in litt to theauthor 2015; Milliken et al., 2009). However, one of the four rhinos has since died of natural causes
and so far no births have been recorded although there are plans to resort to biotechnology (M.
Mulama WWF-Kenya, pers comm 2015).

Figure 2. Combined Kenya rhinoceros populations from 1987 to 2014
Source: KWS

In 2014, Black rhino births exceeded total deaths, whereas White Rhino deaths slightly exceededbirths, resulting in a marginal total rhino population increase (Table 5).

Total
DeathsStatus51

Total Killed
through
Poaching
21

35

Increased

396

27

14

26

Declined*

3

0

0

1

Declined

1047

78

35

62

Marginal
Increase

Rhino
Species/Race

Total
Population

Total Births

Black
Southern
White
Northern
White

648

TOTALS

Table 5. Kenya’s rhino population status for the year 2014
Source: (O. Omondi, Kenya Wildlife Service in litt to the author, 2015)* Although births exceeded deaths by one in 2014, between 2013 and 2014, the population fell from 406 to 396.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 10

The ranges of Black and White Rhinos have declined markedly over time. Whereas rhinos were once
found as far north as Chad and the Sudan, today rhino ranges have shrunk to a few countries ineastern and southern Africa (Figure 3). End-use markets for rhino horn in Southeast Asia and the
Middle East have also changed considerably. From the 1970s to the mid-1990s, Yemen, Japan, South
Korea, Taiwan and mainland China accounted for most of the demand for rhino horn. Rhino horn
was highly prized as an ingredient in traditional medicine in East Asia, and for traditional dagger
handles in Yemen. In the mid-2000s there was an unexpected resurgence in demand driven by new
interest in rhino horn as a symbol of status particularly in Viet Nam (Milliken and Shaw, 2012), in
addition to its continued use in traditional medicine.

1970 - 1990s

2005 - Present

Yemen, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China

China, Viet Nam

African rhino range States

Rhino horn end-user markets

Figure 3. Shift in African rhino range States and rhino horn end-user markets from 1970 to the present.
Source: T. Milliken, TRAFFIC, powerpoint presentation at the Kenya Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking
Stakeholder Workshop April 2015$IULFDQ3DQJROLQV
Kenya is home to three out of four species of African pangolin: the Cape or Temminck’s Ground
Pangolin Smutsia temminckii, the Giant Ground Pangolin Smutsia gigantea and the African Whitebellied Pangolin Phataginus tricuspis (Challender et al., 2014; http://www.pangolinsg.org, viewed
May 20, 2015). All three are classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group.
Pangolins are scale-covered mammals that are predominantly solitary and nocturnal, feeding on
ants and termites. Although there is no known survey of pangolins in Kenya, live specimens, scales
and claws have all been recorded in the illegal wildlife trade and all species of pangolins have ahistory of commercial exploitation (Challender and Hywood, 2012). The African Pangolin Working
Group is currently involved in an initiative to determine the past and current distribution of all four
African pangolin species.
2

The African Pangolin Working Group (APWG), a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation and awareness of all four species of African
pangolin, was launched on February 19, 2015. It is the official African representative of the IUCN Species Survival Commission Pangolin Specialist Group
and, as such, undertakes trade monitoring, research, rehabilitation.

11 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

-RKQ(1HZE\::)3RDFKLQJDQG7UDIÀFNLQJLQ.HQ\D
Wildlife and the natural habitats in which they live form the backbone of Kenya’s tourism sector,
which accounted for 12% of the country’s GDP in 2013 (WTTC, 2014). But these resources are under
threat from persistent and increasing levels of poaching and trafficking. Conservationists, experts
and wildlife management scholars widely acknowledge that in spite of Kenya’s ban on hunting andofficial policy of non-consumptive utilization of wildlife, wildlife crime has been the most significant
contributing factor to the loss of staggering numbers of Kenyan wildlife from the 1970s to thepresent3. Table 6 shows which species or parts thereof are involved in illicit trade in Kenya.

Group/Species
Elephant
Rhino
Cat family (Lion, Cheetah, Leopard)
Reptiles (chameleon, lizards, snakes andtortoises)
Pangolin
Sandalwood
Aloe

Part/Form
Destination
Ivory (raw & worked) East Asia
Horns
Southeast Asia
Skins/live pets
Middle East, Europe,
USA
Live pets, venom
Europe, America,
Asia
Live specimens, scales East and Southeast
Asia
Wood
Gum

East Asia
Europe, Asia

Table 6. Overview of traded wild flora and fauna in Kenya
Source: (R. Muasya, Kenya Wildlife Service in litt. to the author, 2015)

3

See Ian Douglas-Hamilton’s testimony on Ivory and Insecurity: The Global Implications of Poaching in Africa, before the Committee on Foreign
Relations U.S. Senate May 24, 2012; and Calvin Cottar’s video presentation to the European Parliament, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdaKt_
IqYY4&feature=youtu.be

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 12© Martin Harvey / WWF

3.3 POACHING TRENDS

AND KEY DRIVERS OF THE TRADE
Like any other trade, wildlife trafficking is driven by demand from consumers. The subsections
below elucidate the trends of poaching and drivers of the trade in illegally acquired wildlife parts,
and also examines the trafficking network.

3RDFKLQJ7UHQGV
Kenya revoked all private elephant hunting permits in 1973, but loopholes remained in legislationthat allowed unscrupulous government officials to sell ivory in Mombasa ivory auction rooms, thus
creating opportunities that were exploited by ivory traffickers (Wilson and Ayerst, 1976). In 1977
the Kenyan government declared a total ban on wildlife hunting in response to rapidly increasing
demand driven by growing prosperity in East Asia, mainly from Japan (testimony of Iain DouglasHamilton before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate on May 24, 2012). Between
1970 and 1988, several high ranking government officials were implicated in the illegal sale ofelephant ivory: large transfers of ivory from government stockpiles to private dealers and individuals
occurred in spite of the ban. Between 1979 and 1988 over 130 tonnes of elephant ivory entered theglobal ivory trade from Kenya (Parker, 1979; Luxmoore et al., 1989).
The Government of Kenya restructured its administration of wildlife management and conservationin 1989, resulting in the formation of KWS as the State’s corporate body in charge of overseeing themanagement of wildlife, with the world-famous paleontologist and conservationist Richard Leakey
as its first director. Under Leakey’s direction, KWS initiated a strong paramilitary campaign against
poaching and burnt government stockpiles of wildlife trophies (including ivory worth USD3 million)
to send a clear message to the world that Kenya would not tolerate poaching. This strategy had
immediate positive impact on elephant and rhino populations, particularly when it was coupled withan aggressive resource mobilization campaign, recruitment of game rangers and careful cultivationof political goodwill.
The re-emergence of increasingly sophisticated poaching in the 21st century threatens to reduceprevious gains in wildlife conservation (Figure 4). The latest resurgence of poaching and trafficking
networks correlates closely with local-level poverty, national-level corruption, and increasing
international demand for ivory and rhino horn in China and Viet Nam as both countries experience
economic booms and the growth of more affluent middle classes. Illegal killing of wildlife in Kenya
has also been abetted by weak wildlife legislation with low penalties for poaching and trafficking,limited prosecution capacity and poor co-ordination among law enforcement and Customs agencies.

13 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

Figure 4. National elephant poaching trends, 2005 to 2014
Source: KWS database

Kenya has several significant elephant range sites, including the Tsavo, Maasai Mara and SamburuLaikipia ecosystems. Established in 1948, Tsavo hosted a population of some 45 000 elephants
in 1970, but this number was reduced to about 7000 by 1988 primarily as a result of large-scalepoaching and drought (Douglas-Hamilton, 2009). Overall, the proportion of illegally killed
elephants in all three ecosystems has risen steadily since 2008, spiking in 2010 and 2012 for Tsavoand Samburu-Laikipia respectively (Figures 5 and 6), which Douglas-Hamilton (2012) attributes toincreased global prices of elephant ivory. However, the proportion of illegally killed elephants has
shown a steady drop since 2012. This is primarily because of successful conservation efforts such as
growing community involvement in wildlife conservancies.

Samburu-Laikipia

Tsavo

1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 5. Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants (PIKE) in two key sites in Kenya for the period 2002–2014
Source: Julian Blanc, CITES MIKE Programme

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 14

Figure 6. Number of elephant carcasses and PIKE values in the Mara ecosystem(Sources: Poole and Granli, 2015; KWS)

Rhinos have also experienced a recent resurgence in levels of illegal killing: there was a sharp rise in2013 when 59 rhinos were killed in government protected areas (Nakuru, Nairobi and Tsavo West
National Parks) and private sanctuaries and conservancies (Solio, Oserian, Lewa, Ol Pejeta, Mugie,
Ol Jogi) (Figure 7).
   










   



































 
Figure 7. Rhino poaching in Kenya from 2005 to 2014
Source: KWS Database, 2015

Although there has been no assessment of the biological or trade status of pangolin species in
Kenya, Customs seizures of pangolin skins and scales are widely reported, especially in Hong Kong.
Hong Kong Customs authorities seized 320 kg of pangolin scales in October 2014 originatingfrom an unknown African country, and on February 17, 2015 a second consignment of more than
one tonne of pangolin scales was discovered in a shipping container which arrived from Kenya(Cota-Larson, 2014). There are also documented cases of live Temminck’s Ground Pangolins being
confiscated from traffickers in Kenya (Challender, 2012). The main driver of this trade is demand forpangolin meat and scales in China and Viet Nam, especially since populations of the Asian species
have either been decimated or placed under heavy protection. There is also demand for pangolins
in Africa, where they are sought after in the bushmeat trade and used in traditional medicine (www.
pangolinsg.org).

15 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

3.3.2: Key Drivers
The scale and magnitude of the wildlife trade has grown tremendously such that income fromillegal wildlife trade now ranks among the top global sources of illegal wealth (Table 7). It isextremely difficult to estimate the total amount of wildlife traded illegally at a global scale due to theclandestine nature of the trade, but a number of studies have tried to establish the exact values.

Drug
Counterfeiting Total
HumansOil
Wildlife
TimberFish
Waste Dumping
Art and Culture Property
Small arms and Light weapons

Global Financial
Integrity 2009 (USD)$320 billion$250 billion$31.6 billion$10.8 billion$7.8 to 10 billion$7 billion$4.2 to 9.5 billion
No data$3.4 to $6.3 billion$0.3 to $1 billion

Havoscope 2012
(USD)
$323 billion$450 billion$32 billion$53.64 billion (gas & oil)$19 billion$30 billion (illegal logging)$23.5 billion (illegal fishing)$11 billion$10 billion$1 billion

Table 7. Scale of illegal wildlife trade as compared to other sources of illegal cash
Source: http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=95, viewed June 2, 2015

*HQHUDOO\WKHNH\GULYHUVDQGHQDEOHUVRIUKLQRDQG
HOHSKDQWSRDFKLQJLQ.HQ\DDUH
t
t
t
t
t
t

Corruption among government officials and the private sector, especially in thetransportation industry;Rising illegal market prices for rhino horn and elephant ivory driven by demand inSoutheast Asia and East Asia;
The proliferation of weapons across borders and in insecure areas of northern Kenya;
The ease of movement of poachers and wildlife products across Kenya’s porous borders;
Expanding human settlements around key rhino and elephant habitats; andInadequate prosecution capacity of wildlife crimes to serve as a deterrent.

Corruption among government and private sector officials is a key enabling factor of the illegal
wildlife trade. The fact that wildlife contraband, especially rhino horn and elephant ivory, hasbeen exported from Kenya only to be seized in transit or in destination countries means thatwildlife traffickers are able to exploit security loopholes in the country’s law enforcement network.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports corruption as the mostimportant enabling factor behind illegal wildlife and timber trade. Often the paperwork needed
to move illegal products “is not forged but rather bought from corrupt officials in timber source
countries” (UNODC, 2012; Nelleman et al., 2014). A Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) official anda transporter were also recently jointly charged in a Kenyan court in connection with 511 pieces ofivory seized in Thailand on April 27, 2015 originating from Mombasa (Anon., 2015b).

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 16

(OHSKDQW,YRU\
The growing number of large-scale seizures of elephant ivory (defined by CITES as any consignment
weighing more than 500 kg) in Africa and Southeast Asia points to several worrying characteristics
which clearly indicate the presence of transnational criminal syndicates, including:t Sophisticated planning, organization and intelligence;t Greater levels of finance;t Investment in facilities and equipment for storage and shipping purposes;t Development of trading links between Africa and Asian end-use markets; andt Corruption and collusion between the private sector and government regulatory
agencies.

The global trend in ivory trafficking shows a general increasein the amount of large-scale ivory seizures, with 2013
representing the highest levels to date (Figure 8). Since
2009, approximately 67% of all large-scale seizures of ivory
occurred in East and Southeast Asia, either in transit or during
importation, whereas Africa accounted for approximately 33%.
East Africa accounted for 80% of the seizures that occurred in
Africa (Milliken, 2014). Out of these seizures, Tanzania leadsin terms of total number, followed by Kenya. Ivory originatingfrom or exported from ports of exit in these two countries
accounts for the greatest percentage of ivory seized anywhere(Figure 9). Unsurprisingly, in June 2015 the Government of
Tanzania announced that the country’s elephant population
had collapsed from just under 110 000 in 2009 to 43 330 in2015, a decline of more than 60% in five years. This makes
Tanzania the largest source of seized ivory on the African
continent (Phillip, 2015).

17 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya© WAM

Figure 8. The number and weight of large-scale (>500 kg) ivory seizures (SZ) 2009-2014
Source: TRAFFIC/ETIS

22%
39%
7%
5%
27%

Note: KE – Kenya; UG – Uganda; TZ - Tanzania

0LFKHO*XQWKHU::)Figure 9. Proportions of large-scale ivory seizures made within or
involving Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, 2009–2014
Source: TRAFFIC/ETIS

5KLQR+RUQ
Asian countries such as China and Viet Nam have long histories of using rhino horn in traditional
medicine. Rhino horn has also historically been used for daggers in Yemen and the Arabian
Peninsula, although demand has diminished since 1990. In the 21st century, demand for rhino
horn resurged in East and Southeast Asia, driven by mainly young and middle-aged professionals
in search of a symbol for their growing wealth and social status (Milliken and Shaw, 2012). Recent
upward trends in rhino horn trade have been correlated with the newly acquired purchasing powerof consumer nations like Viet Nam and China. Rhino horn is believed to be a cure for hangovers,
and some traditional Vietnamese and Chinese medical practitioners prescribe it in the mistaken
belief that it can treat terminal diseases like cancer (Milliken and Shaw, 2012; WWF/Dalberg, 2012).
In response, the Government of Viet Nam has made incremental progress in recent years to increase
punishments for wildlife crime offences and engage bilaterally with key source or transit countries,
such as South Africa and Mozambique in an effort to curb the trade (TRAFFIC, 2012; STE 2015).
Conservation NGOs are also in the forefront of a resurgent China-Africa dialogue on curbing tradein elephant ivory.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 186WUXFWXUHRI3RDFKLQJDQG7UDIÀFNLQJ1HWZRUNVPoaching and trafficking networks are diffuse, spread over numerous individuals linked by often
extremely sophisticated financial, intelligence sharing, and transportation networks. Poachers in
Kenya are predominantly locals with knowledge of the behaviour of animals and the wild terrain,
but in some cases they come from neighbouring countries, usually Somalia or Tanzania. They are
typically linked to an individual affiliated with one or more middlemen or patrons who, throughcorrupt means, provide or facilitate access to operational logistics, namely weapons, intelligenceon ranger movements, supplies and financing. The relatively high price offered by the patron acts
as an incentive to the actual poacher and trafficker, who are often poor people, thus making price a
significant driver of poaching (Vira and Ewing, 2014).
The widespread proliferation of firearms has increased poaching threats to wildlife. Kenya’s
pastoralist communities traditionally carry weapons to deter cattle raiding. There is an abundance oflight weaponry, mainly G-3 and AK-47 rifles, among the Tana River, Samburu, Turkana and Pokot
communities, where they are at times used against government enforcement agencies (Vira andEwing, 2014). These firearms usually filter into Kenya from the neighbouring countries of Ethiopia,
South Sudan, Somalia and Uganda where armed conflicts have been experienced for prolonged
periods. At times, bullet casings collected at wildlife crime scenes have been linked to British
manufactured munitions, suggesting that they were obtained from British military training bases in
Kenya and/or local security forces, thus contributing to the poaching of wildlife and killing of police
officers (Wepundi et al., 2012; Vira and Ewing, 2014). The security risk to people and wildlife posedby the proliferation of weapons in communities is masked by the attention given to cross-bordermilitia like the Somali al-Shabaab and Oromo insurgents from Ethiopia.

A suspected poacher captured by camera trap
in Chyulu Hills National Park

19 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

%LJ/LIH)RXQGDWLRQ

There is credible evidence from KWS rangers and community ranch owners in the Tsavo/Amboseli
ecosystem that armed Somali herders drive their livestock to ranches bordering Tsavo where they
engage in actual poaching or provide firearms to locals for use in poaching (author interviews with
KWS personnel and group ranch owners in the Tsavo/Amboseli ecosystem). NGOs are also playing
an increasing role in the detection of poachers--for example, Big Life Foundation, an NGO working
to protect wildlife by supporting networks of local community scouts, has gathered photographs ofarmed poachers in Tsavo using camera traps, which they provide to KWS for use in tracking andapprehending the criminals.

Poaching networks typically follow roughly the same pattern: a middleman connects the poacher
to a local transporter (which can range from a private vehicle or truck to a hearse, ambulance, taxi,
motor-cycle or mules), who delivers the wildlife contraband to another middleman for onward
delivery to a trafficking kingpin or patron. The kingpin finances the poaching network and uses
corrupt connections in the public and private sector to move the contraband across county andcountry borders. The contraband is usually disguised as another product, such as tea, avocado orwood carvings. According to KWS wildlife law enforcement and intelligence personnel, wildlife
trafficking kingpins are a mixture of nationalities, from Kenya or other countries in West andCentral Africa, who have connections with counterparts in the Far East (see illustration below).

KingpinInternational
network of couriers,
Customs & security
agents, dealers

Middle man

LinkmannPoacher

Transporter

Illustration of the poaching and trafficking network.H\7UDIÀFNLQJ5RXWHVDQG&RQVXPHU+RWVSRWV
Kenya has emerged as a key transit country in Africa for wildlife contraband due to its relatively welldeveloped transport network. Drawing on data from the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS),
TRAFFIC’s rhino database and KWS, the main sources of wildlife products trafficked through Kenya
are:t Tanzania (mainly ivory)t Mozambique (ivory and rhino horn)t Democratic Republic of Congo (mainly ivory)t From local population (ivory, rhino horn, big cat skins and pangolin scales)t Uganda (mainly ivory, pangolin scales, timber)t Zambia (ivory)t South Sudan (ivory)

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 20

Kilindini Port in Mombasa and JKIA, Kenya’s main international airport in Nairobi, have been
identified as the leading exit points for large volumes of wildlife contraband leaving Kenya.
Since 2009, more ivory has exited through Mombasa than any other trade route out of Africa,
primarily destined for China and Hong Kong with transit points in Malaysia, Viet Nam, Thailand
and Singapore (Milliken, 2014). Nairobi’s JKIA has also recorded seizures of illegally acquired
wildlife parts destined for China and Viet Nam. Kenya’s national airline, Kenya Airways, operates
direct flights from Nairobi to eastern Asia and has been reported to carry passengers with wildlife
contraband as part of their baggage (Table 8). According to KWS sources, other leading entry andexit points commonly used for smuggling wildlife specimens are the Busia and Malaba bordercrossings. Both are on record for having been used to smuggle ivory into Kenya from the DRC,
South Sudan and Uganda for onward transit to the Far East through Kilindini Port, particularly inthe last three years. KWS has also documented increased use of other lower tier entry/exit points
along the borders with Tanzania, Somalia and Ethiopia. Arrests have been recorded in Isebania,
Namanga, Tarakea (Oloitokitok), Taveta, Lunga Lunga, Liboi and Moyale.

Date
May 15, 2015
Jan 17, 2014
Sept 17, 2013
Aug 14, 2013
Dec 25, 2010

Nationality

OriginDestination

Type of wildlife product7 pieces (10 kg), rhino horn
Vietnamese Maputo Hanoi, Viet Namrhino tail and lion teeth
Guangzhou,
Chinese
Nampula3.4 kg ivory
China
Hong Kong via
5 rhino horn
Vietnamese Maputo
Dohaweighing 20 kg.
ChineseUnknownHong Kong
6.9 kg ivory
Bangkok,Thai
Maputo19.5 kg ivory
Thailand

Table 8. Reported arrests of traffickers using Kenya Airways
Source: Author’s own compilation from media reports

East Africa’s growing road system
and increased investment in railroad
infrastructure, while crucial for thedevelopment of the region, have also
created pathways for the flow of wildlife
contraband through the region. In thistransportation network, Kenya plays animportant role in connecting trade andcommerce from neighbouring countries
to the rest of the world through the“northern corridor4” and important
exit points such as Mombasa and JKIA
(Figure 10). Cities such as Bujumbura(Burundi), Kigali (Rwanda), Kisangani(DRC), Juba (South Sudan), Kampala(Uganda), Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) andKisumu (Kenya) rely on the network ofroad infrastructure and border posts in
Kenya for the flow and transit of trade.

MoyaleIvory from DRC throughUganda to Mombasa Port
MalabaBusia
Liboi
Isebania
Namanga
Tarakea

Ivory from
Tanzania

TavetaLunga Lunga

Figure 10. Map showing planned East African railway
network as well as reported movement of illegal
wildlife products into Kenya for onward shipment(Source: KWS and media reports)

4
The northern corridor refers to the busiest and most important transport route in East and Central Africa, providing a gateway through Kenya to
the landlocked economies of Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Eastern DRC and South Sudan

21 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

Ivory shipped through Kenya from Uganda, DRC and South Sudan enters the country mainly
through the Malaba border point along the Kenya-Uganda border, whereas illegal ivory from
Tanzania generally enters through the Taveta, Tarakea and Lunga Lunga border points, or via
Uganda. The contraband is then shipped through Kenyan ports to markets in Asia (Figure 11).

Near East
MiddleEast

Far East

China
Ho
H
ongg KongK
Hong
Thailand Viet Nam
Singapore

Mombasa Port
Nairobi’s Jomo Kenyatta
International Airport

0LFKHO*XQWKHU::)Figure 11. Wildlife trade routes between Kenya and Asia
Source: Sam Weru, adapted Illustration

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 22$UUHVWVDQG&RQÀVFDWLRQVAs previously mentioned, more ivory has exited through Mombasa than any other trade route outof Africa since 2009 (Milliken, 2014). In 2013, Kenyan authorities at the port of Mombasa seized thesingle largest haul of elephant ivory in Kenya’s history at the time, weighing more than two tonnes andvalued at USD1.15 million. The ivory in the shipment was identified to be from Rwanda and Tanzania,
disguised as decorative carvings destined for Indonesia (Akwiri, 2013; Brown, 2013). On May 19, 2015
Singapore Customs and the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority seized a shipment of illegal ivory,
rhino horns and big cat teeth coming from Kenya with an estimated value of USD8 million. According
to Singapore authorities, the shipment consisted of some 3.7 tonnes of illegal ivory in two 20-footer
containers that was declared as tea leaves. The shipment was transiting through Singapore to Viet
Nam and represents the largest seizure of illegal ivory in Singapore since 2002. In addition, in April
2015 a total of 511 ivory tusks and pieces hidden among 11 tonnes of tea leaves, weighing about
three tonnes and valued at about USD6 million, was exported from Kenya but seized in Thailand
although it was destined for Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Anon., 2015c). Clearly, Mombasa
remains a major export hotspot in Africa’s illegal wildlife trade.
Further arrests have been made at other international border crossings, within national parks andat market centres where transporters or middlemen have been caught peddling or transporting
illegally acquired wildlife parts. Between 2010 and 2014, confiscations of elephant ivory and rhino
horn peaked at nearly 18 tonnes of ivory and almost 42 kg of rhino horn in 2013 (Figures 12 and13), which corresponds to the year in which the highest number of arrests (318 suspects) was madeby KWS (Figure 14).

*

Figure 12. Elephant ivory recovered in Kenya, 2010–2014 Source: KWS* includes both raw and worked ivory in cases where weights in kg were given

23 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

Figure 13. Rhino horns recovered in Kenya, 2010–2014 Source: KWS

ARRESTS RELATED TO POSSESSION OF ELEPHANT IVORY, RHINOHORNS, AND CHEETAH AND LEOPARD SKINS, 2010–2014

2010

189

2011

193

2012

189
318

2013
2014

214

Figure 14. Arrests related to possession of elephant ivory, rhino horns, and Cheetah and Leopard skins, 2010–2014(Source: R. Muasya pers comm. via Powerpoint presentation at the Kenya Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking
Workshop April 14-15, 2015)

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 24Analysis of seizure records from ETIS data indicates that illegal ivory trade within and through
Kenya peaked between 2009 and 2014, with 57 453 kg of ivory originating from or transiting
through Kenya seized globally (Figure 15), making Kenya a significant source and transit
country for elephant ivory. This massive volume of ivory represents the poaching and killing ofapproximately 6000 elephants.
14493










































































 

 



 



Figure 15. Ivory seized within Kenya (WT In, blue bars) vs ivory seizedcoming from Kenya and seized elsewhere (WT Out, red bars)
Source: TRAFFIC© Martin Harvey / WWF

Recent data on numbers of seizures of illegally acquired animal parts from big cats, such as Cheetah
and Leopard, show a general downward trend (Figures 16 and 17). This could be attributable toseveral factors: (i) law enforcement focus on seizures of rhino horn and elephant ivory during
the most recent poaching crisis, (ii) an increase in the sophistication of big cat traffickers to avoid
detection, (iii) a general decline in carnivore populations, or (iv) a reduction in trafficking of theseanimals. Fundamentally, more investigation is needed into what is behind this trend. KWS data showthat most arrests and seizures involving big cat skins occur at the local level in towns and villages,
suggesting a thriving local market and making it difficult to identify the final destination of the
products.

25 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

CHEETAH SKINS RECOVERED IN KENYA, 2010–2014
Pieces

2011

83

2010

92

2014

2012

58

2013

36

14

Figure 16. Cheetah skins recovered in Kenya, 2010–2014
Source: R. Muasya of KWS in litt. during the Kenya Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking Stakeholder Workshop April 2015

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 26

LEOPARD SKINS RECOVERED IN KENYA, 2010–2014
Pieces

2011

16

2010

11
2012

5

2013

6

2014

6

Figure 17. Leopard skins recovered in Kenya, 2010–2014
Source: R. Muasya of KWS in litt. during the Kenya Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking Stakeholder Workshop April 2015

27 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

The recent crisis in wildlife poaching
and trafficking has attracted global
attention. UNODC notes that wildlife
crime has transformed into one of
the largest transnational criminal
activities, next to drug trafficking,arms dealing and trafficking in humanbeings. Evidence shows that criminalgroups are using the same routes andtechniques for wildlife trafficking as for
smuggling other illegal commodities,
and exploiting similar gaps in nationallaw enforcement and criminal justicesystems (UNODC, 2015).
The links between the illegal wildlife
trade and transnational criminal networks are clear, but linkages with militant and terrorist groups,
while they have received wide coverage in global media, are tenuous at best. Al-Shabaab terroristgroup in Somalia has been well-documented by reports from the United Nations and media outlets
to use proceeds from illegal charcoal trade to finance their operations, earning between USD38 and
USD68 million a year from charcoal sales and taxation (Stewart, 2013; McNeish, 2014). However
there is no conclusive evidence that al-Shabaab is also involved in the illegal trafficking of ivory,
rhino horn, or other wildlife products. Indeed, a study by Schneider (2014) argues that the linkages
between ivory trafficking and terrorist groups are exaggerated and at times imaginary.
On the other hand, other known militia groups operating in central African countries and South
Sudan may be benefiting from illegal ivory transhipped through Kenya (UNODC, 2015). A study
commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and INTERPOL has linked
ivory trafficking worth USD4–12 million each year to the Janjaweed militia operating in Sudan,
Chad and Niger. The report also describes how the poaching and trafficking of forest elephants
provides income for militia groups in the DRC and Central African Republic (CAR), likely
including the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) (Nellemann et al., 2014; Schneider 2014).

.HQ\D·V:LOGOLIH3ROLF\DQG/HJDO(QYLURQPHQW
Kenya’s wildlife protection polices go back to the colonial period when Nairobi National Park was
established in 1946 as the first wildlife conservation area in Kenya, making Kenya a pioneer inwildlife conservation and management. After independence, the Government of Kenya pronounced
sessional paper number 3 of 1975 as the embodiment of wildlife policy in Kenya, thus laying thefoundation for the first wildlife law, the Wildlife (Management and Conservation) Act of 1976.
This law identified the primary goal of wildlife conservation as the optimization of returns fromwildlife, defined broadly to include aesthetic, cultural, scientific and economic gains, and placed thegovernment as the sole custodian of wildlife. However, as elucidated in the sub-sections below, thisframework law had several weaknesses and failed to provide comprehensive protection of Kenya’s
wildlife.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 28

-RKQ(1HZE\::)/LQNDJHVWR2UJDQL]HG&ULPHDQG0LOLWDQW*URXSV

3.8.1: Wildlife Law Enforcement
The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act of 1976 was Kenya’s first comprehensive legal
framework for conservation and the protection of wildlife. Driven by the poaching crisis of the
1970s and 1980s, it was amended in 1989 to establish KWS. Following the adoption of the newConstitution of Kenya in 2010, the Government of Kenya reviewed the Wildlife Act and enacted
the new Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (WCMA) in 2013, which provides for stiffer
penalties in response to resurgent, increasingly sophisticated poaching threats. The WCMA of2013 upholds and strengthens the mandate of the KWS to protect, conserve for sustainable use andmanagement of wildlife in Kenya. The WCMA’s toughened stance on conservation also cuts acrossall the three pillars of Kenya’s economic blue print, Vision 2030, namely; tourism, environmentand security. Notable changes in the WCMA of 2013 include; higher recognition of the roleof community and private conservancies in managing wildlife and more stringent minimum
penalties for wildlife crimes (e.g. a fine of KES20 million / USD206 028 as at June 11, 2015, and/or life imprisonment for the killing of threatened or endangered species) (GoK, 2013b). This is asignificant improvement from previous iterations of the Wildlife Act, which treated wildlife crime
lightly, offering the option of fines as low as KES10 000 (USD103 as at June 11, 2015) for possessionof ivory.
KWS is the primary government agency responsible for the protection of wildlife on the groundand the enforcement of wildlife regulations. It maintains a highly trained wildlife security field
operations force of game rangers and wardens who are at the frontline of the fight against wildlife
trafficking. KWS’s areas of operation include (www.kws.go.ke):

t
t
t
t
t
t

Eliminating poaching in protected areas and reducing it to a bare minimum outside
formal protected areas;
Combating illegal trade in wildlife species and their products;
Safeguarding KWS property, assets and revenue against fraud, theft, misappropriation
or misuse;
Providing security to all tourists and visitors within wildlife protected areas under
KWS jurisdiction;
Training and equipping uniformed personnel;
Enhancing collaboration with national, regional and international law enforcement
agencies; and,Enhancing emergency response capacity.

Photos illustrating collaborative (interagency),
innovative and intensified wildlife law
enforcement mechanisms in Kenya.

29 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

© KWS

t

As highlighted previously in this Assessment Report, illegally traded wildlife is now one of thehighest value illegal trades globally. This connotes high levels of organization and sophistication
within and among networks of criminal syndicates. Combating the illegal trade in wildlife therefore
requires concerted interagency efforts by national police, wildlife authorities, Customs departments,
intelligence agencies and the judiciary. Recognizing this necessity, and the escalation of poaching
within the last five years, the Government of Kenya established an interagency anti-poaching unit
in 2013 comprising officers from specialized elements of KWS and specialized detachments of the
National Police Service to scale-up the fight against poaching. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for
the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources appointed an independent 15-person
Wildlife Security Task Force made up of government experts, wildlife conservation specialists andlegal professionals to examine the threats to Kenya’s wildlife and make recommendations on how todeal with them. The Task Force produced and presented to the government a report detailing 284
recommendations necessary to combat poaching and trafficking, including a radical restructuringof KWS to make it more responsive to current wildlife management challenges. Other key
recommendations of the Task Force include:a. Enhance intelligence gathering and processing;b. Recognize wildlife crime as organized crime and treat it as such in terms of law
enforcement and prosecution;c. Work with destination countries to reduce international demand for ivory and rhino
horn; and,d. Recognize and expand the role of communities in wildlife conservation andmanagement.

&RPPXQLW\:LOGOLIH0DQDJHPHQW
70% of Kenya’s wildlife lives outside formal protected areas, underscoring the important role that
community and private conservancies have in curbing poaching and wildlife trafficking. The
Constitution of Kenya, the WCMA of 2013 and Vision 2030 all highlight Kenya’s commitment
to safeguarding its natural heritage and recognize the crucial role of communities in conserving
wildlife for posterity (inter-generational equity). Community and private conservancies andsanctuaries are now widely recognized as the best method of conserving and managing wildlife
outside protected areas by promoting the principles of community participation and equitablebenefit sharing of wildlife resources.
Although wildlife management as a form of land-use was not widely recognized until the
promulgation of the new Constitution in 2010, conservancies can be traced back to 1970 when
Solio Game Ranch was established in Laikipia as a private wildlife protection area (King, 2013).
The concept gained momentum in the 1990s and today conservancies are enshrined in the WCMAof 2013, which defines wildlife conservancy as “land set aside by an individual landowner, body
corporate, group of owners or community for purposes of wildlife conservation in accordancewith the provisions of the Wildlife Act of 2013”. As a result of the pioneering efforts of community
conservancies such as the Northern Rangelands Trust, there are now more than 150 conservancies
nationwide, constituting about 4% of Kenya’s total land mass (KWCA, 2015; King, 2013).

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 30

([DPSOHV RI &RPPXQLW\OHG &RQVHUYDWLRQ ,QLWLDWLYHV LQ
1RUWKHUQ.HQ\D
Northern Kenya is characterized by large
swathes of arid and semi-arid lands where
pastoralism is the dominant land use. It is also
an area teeming with a variety of wildlife, mostof which is indigenous to the area, including
rhino, African Elephant, African Wild Dog,
Grevy’s Zebra, Cheetah and Reticulated Giraffe
Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata. Laikipia
County alone contains more large mammals
than any other landscape apart from Maasai
Mara National Reserve. Northern Kenya hashistorically contained volatile areas where
banditry, cattle raids, and incursions by armed
poachers (often from Somalia) are frequent(Pye-Smith, 2013). Local communities inthis region are better aware than most of theimportance of conserving land, water andwildlife, and the role that these resources playin driving conflict and insecurity.

Extract from “The Story of Northern
Rangelands Trust 2013”
Il Ngwesi and Namunyak were the first two
community conservancies to be establishedin northern Kenya. Before long, they weretransforming the way the land was managed andthe welfare of the pastoralists. “People began tocare about the wildlife, because they saw that
it would bring them an income,” recalls Tom
Letiwa. “They used to think all the wildlife
belonged to the government, but now they see it
as their wildlife.” Safari camps in this large andspectacular conservancy, which encompasses
much of the Mathews Range, raise around 18
million Kenyan shillings (USD210 000) a year
for the community, 60% of which is spent on
education, health and development.

Unsurprisingly, the communities of northern Kenya were among the first to embrace wildlife
conservation as an integral part of their livelihoods. The Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) wasestablished in 2004 to bring conflicting tribes together through conservation, simultaneously
preserving their wildlife heritage and creating opportunities for peace-building and economic
development. Since its inception, NRT has helped to establish over 30 community conservancies
which have helped to transform livelihoods, secure peace and conserve natural resources in theregion (Pye-Smith, 2013). NRT’s sophisticated network of community rangers works closely with
KWS and police, achieving enormous success: elephant poaching has been reduced by 43% acrossparticipating conservancies since 2012 (NRT, 2014).
Earlier, in 1992, locally-based natural resource management groups had come together to form the
Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF), a membership-driven organization working to defend property
rights and to find collaborative solutions to common land use and wildlife conservation challenges(http://www.laikipia.org/about-us). LWF’s interventions include rangeland management to preserve
resources and reduce human-wildlife conflict, river and wetlands management to prevent conflict
between upstream and downstream users, forest management and promoting conservationenterprises among communities. LWF’s education programme has introduced thousands of Kenyan
students to the values of conservation, allowing them to experience first-hand the importance ofsustainably managing wildlife resources. Similar to NRT, LWF maintains a system of highly trained
scouts and rangers drawn from local communities, thus reducing insecurity and poaching.

Excerpt from “Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Laikipia County, 2012–2030”
Laikipia County is one of East Africa’s most important areas for wildlife conservation. Firstly, it
contains higher populations of large mammals than any protected or unprotected landscape in
Kenya, outside of the Maasai Mara National Reserve. Secondly Laikipia is rich in biodiversity withover 95 species of mammals, 540 species of birds, over 700 species of plants and almost 1000 species
of invertebrates already identified. However it is perhaps Laikipia’s assemblage of large, globallythreatened mammals that makes it particularly unique from a biodiversity perspective. Laikipia

31 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

contains half of Kenya’s Black Rhinos, the country’s second largest population of elephants, Kenya’s
third largest and only stable population of Lions, the world’s sixth largest population of African Wild
Dogs, a large proportion of the world’s remaining Grevy’s Zebras, perhaps as many as two thirds of theworld’s remaining Reticulated Giraffes, and a globally significant population of Cheetahs.
The Laikipia County experience provides important lessons for delivering conservation outside offormally protected areas. The wildlife of Laikipia occurs on land that is owned and used by different
groups of people for different purposes. This has been achieved through the adoption of conservationcompatible systems of land use, encouraged by local membership-based conservation organizations(primarily the Laikipia Wildlife Forum and Northern Rangelands Trust) and made possible throughfinancial support from wildlife-based enterprises and conservation philanthropy. Among the initiatives
that have enabled the introduction of conservation-compatible land-use are several partnershiparrangements between the private sector and local community groups to establish tourism facilities andassociated income streams.

,DQ&UDLJ

The same model of community-led resource management has been adopted in the Amboseli-Tsavo
Ecosystem where the Amboseli Ecosystem Trust (AET) brings together local communities andorganizations to develop land use practices that improve livelihoods and promote the co-existenceof people and wildlife (www.amboseliecosystemtrust.org). In collaboration with Big Life Foundationand the African Wildlife Foundation, and with the support of KWS, AET maintains a system of
local scouts that provide security to wildlife through community surveillance and enforcement.

Community scouts and rangers are key to wildlife security.

In spite of the considerable gains made by community conservancies, several challenges andobstacles remain. Private game reserves and sanctuaries like Ol Pejeta and Lewa have incurredsignificant losses in revenue due to the high investments they have to make in security operations
to secure their wildlife populations, particularly rhino. Indeed, in 2012 and 2013 Mugie Ranch in
Laikipia and Oserian in Naivasha requested the KWS to translocate their rhino populations owing
to the prohibitive cost of protecting them from a high risk of poaching. Perhaps the most significant
issue among conservancies and private sanctuaries is therefore the lack of incentives provided bygovernment to help bear their costs of protecting wildlife against poaching.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 323URVHFXWLRQPrior to the enactment of the WCMA of 2013, a study of wildlife crime cases prosecuted between
2008 and 2013 at eighteen magistrate’s courts (the lowest court within the Kenya judicial systems)
revealed only 4% of those convicted of wildlife crimes went to jail and, in relation to ivory and rhino
horn cases, only 7% of offenders were incarcerated after conviction. This study attributed this to thefact that wildlife crime was widely held to be a misdemeanour, and a lack of awareness of thesentencing powers that were available (up to 10 years for Category A animals). The study further
noticed that, of the 743 registered cases, 70% of case files were missing and not one prosecution
could be found in relation to Mombasa port (Wildlife Direct: Scoping Study of the Prosecutionof Wildlife Crime in Kenya, 2013). According to the former Head of Prosecution for KWS, Didi
Wamukoya, the most prevalent wildlife crimes in Kenya are: possession of a wildlife trophy, dealing
in wildlife trophies, hunting for bushmeat and illegal entry into a wildlife protected area.
The WCMA of 2013 remains the primary law against wildlife trafficking, but the nature andorganization of the criminal networks involved necessitates consideration of other laws dealing withrelated matters beyond the realm of wildlife crime. These other laws include:t ćF1SFWFOUJPOPG0SHBOJTFE$SJNF"DUt ćF1SPDFFETPG$SJNFBOE"OUJ.POFZ-BVOEFSJOH"DUt ćF&WJEFODF"DUt ćF$SJNJOBM1SPDFEVSF$PEFt ćF'PSFTUT"DUt ćF'JTIFSJFT"DUt &OWJSPONFOUBM.BOBHFNFOUBOE$PPSEJOBUJPO"DUt ćF1FOBM$PEFt ćF&"$$VTUPNT"DUt ćF.FBU$POUSPM"DUt ćF1SFWFOUJPOPG$SVFMUZUP"OJNBMT"DU
Further, KWS is at liberty to use provisions and principles codified in international environmental
law, particularly those stemming from conventions and treaties to which Kenya has acceded,although KWS is strictly limited to prosecuting crimes under the WCMA where delegatedpower has been awarded by the DPP. They cannot, therefore, charge offences under the Proceedsof Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, for example.
However, prosecuting wildlife crime in Kenya is still greatly hampered by an inadequate numberof wildlife crime prosecutors as well as unclear laws. For example, section 92 of the WCMA of2013 provides high penalties for wildlife crimes but does not specify what constitutes an offence(for example, killing, injuring, possession, dealing, etc.5). This has led to difficulties in charging
and conflicting decisions on appeals against convictions for offences charged under this section. In
addition, the high minimum penalties in the WCMA of 2013 do not encourage plea bargaining andhave resulted in more trials where every point is contested. This has added to the burden on
investigators, prosecutors and the courts and has stretched the already thin resources in terms ofexpert and professional witnesses. In terms of case load, wildlife crime cases rank highly among
other serious crimes in Kenya. Comparative data from the Kenyan judiciary profiling the types ofoffences under consideration in the high court indicate that outcomes from wildlife-related trials are
increasingly subject to appeal (see Table 9).

5Section 92 of WCMA states “Any person who commits an offence in respect of an endangered or threatened species or in respect of any trophyof that endangered or threatened species shall be liable upon conviction to a fine of not less than twenty million shillings or imprisonment forlife or to both such fine and imprisonment.”

33 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

Type of Offence

High Court
Concluded Pending

Human Trafficking

65

Terrorism

1

16

Wildlife Crimes

37

28

Money Laundering

23

16

Illicit Trade (exluding wildlife)

422

153

Total

489

218

Table 9. Comparative summary of wildlife cases subject to appeal in Kenya
Source: Adapted from Hon Justice Nziokiwa Makau’s PowerPoint presentation during the Kenya Wildlife
Poaching and Trafficking Workshop, April 14-15, 2015(IIHFWLYHQHVVRI.HQ\D·V/HJDO)UDPHZRUNIRU:LOGOLIH
Crime
According to Justice Nzioki wa Makau, the WCMA of 2013 “is one of the most robust pieces oflegislation when it comes to matters wildlife.” A case in point is when, in January 2014, a Chinese
ivory smuggler was arrested while on transit from Mozambique through Kenya with 3.4 kg of raw
ivory. He was charged, found guilty and ordered to pay the highest minimum cash fine of KES20 million(USD 206 028 as at June 11, 2015) or serve a prison sentence of seven years (http://www.reuters.
com; http://www.bornfree.org.uk/campaigns/elephants/news/article). In May 2015, a magistrate ina rural town gave a woman guilty of possessing five pieces of elephant tusks the choice of paying a
KES40 million (USD 412 056 as at June 11, 2015) fine or serving a four-year jail term (Daily Nation,
May 21, 2015). These are landmark rulings and a clear departure from Kenya’s poor sentencing
record in the past. Nevertheless, in spite of these positive signs there are challenges as well as
strengths in Kenya’s framework of laws used to protect wildlife and prosecute wildlife crimes.

.H\6WUHQJWKVRI.HQ\D·V/HJDO)UDPHZRUNIRU
Wildlife Crime
Kenya’s legal framework for prosecuting wildlife crime has several key strengths, including thoselisted below in the bulleted points.
t The high minimum penalties may result in a stronger deterrent, although, as

described above, certain other challenges are now arising as a consequence.
t *UQSPWJEFTBDMFBSFSQMBUGPSNGPSXJMEMJGFDPOTFSWBUJPOBTBGPSNPGMBOEVTF BMMPXJOH
private owners and communities to host and protect wildlife on their land, albeit for
non-consumptive economic benefits.
t *UTQFDJĕFTTUSJOHFOUQFOBMUJFTGPSPČFODFTSFMBUJOHUPUISFBUFOFEBOEFOEBOHFSFE
species (KES20 million or USD206 028 as of June 11, 2015 and/or a life sentence inprison), although amendment is required to clarify application of these provisions.
t"OFXOBUJPOBMUPPMLJU LOPXOBTUIFAQPJOUTUPQSPWFHVJEF SPMMFEPVUJO CSJOHT
together numerous laws that might be applied to wildlife-related crime together withagreed standard operating procedures regarding interagency cooperation, the decision to
charge and preparation for trial. It further offers guidance on expert and digital evidence.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 34

.H\:HDNQHVVHVRI.HQ\D·V/HJDO)UDPHZRUNIRU
Wildlife Crime
Kenya’s legal framework for combating wildlife crime, despite containing landmark legislationsuch as the WCMA of 2013, is still hampered by weak prosecution, insufficient investigations andlow awareness about wildlife crime among judicial officers (Scoping Study, Wildlife Direct, ibid.).
Wildlife conservationists, scientists and law enforcement experts gathered at the Kenya Wildlife
Poaching and Trafficking Stakeholder Workshop held in Nairobi on April 14-15, 2015 and identified
the following weaknesses in Kenya’s legal framework:t ćFSFJTJOTVďDJFOUVOEFSTUBOEJOHXJUIJOUIFBHFODJFTNBOEBUFEUPQSPUFDUXJMEMJGFJO
Kenya of their own legislative frameworks, polices and procedures. This has resulted in some‘turf wars’ between various environmental law enforcement agencies due to a misunderstandingor ignorance of developments in the law in recent years. Agreed protocols on managing theoverlap in jurisdiction and encouraging cooperation are desirable.
t "MUIPVHIBMMUIF.&"TUIBU,FOZBIBTBDDFEFEUPBSFUIFPSFUJDBMMZQBSUPG,FOZBOMBX UIFJSimportance is rarely considered at the national level. There exists, therefore, a huge disconnect
between international and local legal regimes. This is particularly true for bushmeat: CBD
Decision XI/25 calls for the sustainable use of bushmeat, but this has not yet translated into
stronger enforcement on the ground of Kenya’s thriving traditional bushmeat trade.
t "MUIPVHI%/"BOEGPSFOTJDFWJEFODFJTBENJTTJCMFVOEFSUIFMBX UIFSFJTBMBDLPG
understanding as to how best to present such evidence before a court.
t 4FDUJPOPGUIF8$."JTESBęFEJOBXBZUIBUJTVODMFBSBOEIBTCFFOTVCKFDUUP
challenge in the High Court. It requires urgent amendment. Furthermore, the WCMA does
not provide for the outright killing of an endangered, threatened or near threatened species.
In the context of human wildlife conflict where communities may take matters into their own
hands without any desire to take or profit from trophies, this is a lacunae in the law that needs
addressing. In a number of poisoning cases in recent months, this has caused challenges inchoosing the correct charge. An offence of simple ‘killing of a wildlife species without a permit
or other authorisation’ is required. Defences (e.g. in self defence) can be built into the draftingof such a provision.

Stephen Manegene, Director of Wildlife,
Kenya’s Ministry of Environment, Water
and Natural Resources,
Juniper Neill, Environment Director,
USAID Kenya and East Africa, and
Deputy Director Beatrice Wamalwa,
confer during the Kenya
Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking
Stakeholder Workshop© TRAFFICt ćF8$."PGEPFTOPUJODMVEFNPOFUBSZWBMVFTGPSTQFDJĕDTQFDJFTPGXJMEMJGFćF
East African Community Customs Management Act provides that the fine for prohibited
goods should be half the value of those goods, but there are no affixed values for illegal wildlife
products. Prosecutors often resort to the street value of the illegally acquired wildlife products,
which does not capture the intrinsic crime of killing a protected species, or the damage to thewider ecosystem.

6
The 19 detailed Revised Recommendations of the CBD Liaison Group on Bushmeat have a section each for national and international actions, see
https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=13186. The CBD bushmeat recommendations have been unanimously agreed upon at CBD CoP 11
by all Parties.

35 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

3HWHU&KDGZLFN::)t ćFSFBSFTFWFSBMQSPDFEVSBMDIBMMFOHFTBTTPDJBUFEXJUIQSPTFDVUJOHBOEKVEHJOHXJMEMJGF
crime, as set out in the bulleted points below.
t Previously, the Evidence Act did not expressly cater for the admissibility ofdigital evidence (photographs) and other means of technologically advanced
methods of evidence-gathering. However, the Security Laws (Amendment)
Act, 2014 has introduced a new section into the evidence Act (Sec 78A)
which allows the admissibility of electronic messages and digital material.
Understanding and application of this change in the law has yet to be appliedconsistently nationwide with limited awareness among some agencies as to
how to put these helpful provisions into practice;tTransport, mismanagement and sometimes theft of wildlife exhibits at court
presents a challenge that can only be met with more careful management anda robust approach involving prosecution of those found to be involved.

t

The limited number of experts in Kenya has an impact on investigation,
preparation for trial and court management of such cases following a not
guilty plea.

t

There are insufficient numbers of gazetted scenes of crime officers within
KWS. Again, this impacts the investigation, preparation and conduct of
trials.

t

The lack of sentencing guidelines for wildlife crime has resulted in aninconsistent approach to sentencing nationwide.

t "MUIPVHIUIF8$."PGQFSNJUTXJMEMJGFDPOTFSWBUJPOBTBGPSNPGMBOEVTF JUJT
still restrictive on the consumptive utilization of wildlife, thus restricting tourism as the only
incentive for keeping wildlife on private land.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 365HJLRQDO,QWHUQDWLRQDO:LOGOLIH/DZ(QIRUFHPHQWCo-ordination
The Constitution of Kenya of 2010 provides that all Multi-lateral Environment Agreements(MEA) to which Kenya has ratified and acceded become domestic law. The MEAs that have direct
linkages to wildlife and Kenya include; CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the International Convention on the Regulation of
Whaling (ICRW), and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. Kenya
has been identified by CITES as a “party of primary concern” for its increasing role as a source
and transit country for illegal ivory products. Kenya has taken steps to ramp up its response to
the illegal ivory trade by issuing a National Ivory Action Plan (NIAP) in 2013. The NIAP outlines
14 actions with specific timeframes and milestones to control elephant poaching and illegal ivory
trade, key among them including:i. Enacting ivory legislation and regulations;ii. Scaling up enforcement actions, investigations and national interagency
collaboration and co-ordination (including sensitizing the judiciary);iii. Strengthening international and regional wildlife enforcement collaboration;
iv. Engaging in outreach, public awareness and education; andv. Strengthening national reporting to the CITES Secretariat and Standing Committee
In July 2014, the CITES Scientific Committee rated six of the 14 actions as “substantially achieved”,
five “on track” for achievement, one “challenging” and two were “unclear”. In spite of this progress,
large volumes of ivory have continued to evade Customs control and successfully move out ofMombasa to international markets. Thailand and Singapore have both seized containers of ivory
exported from Kenya since the July 2014 CITES assessment. The CITES Secretariat therefore madea ruling to the effect that Kenya should:i) Review and, as necessary, revise its NIAP, including the milestones and timeframes
and, where possible, include indicators to measure the impacts;ii) Take into consideration the evaluation of the CITES Secretariat, in particular theactions where progress was rated as “challenging” or “unclear”;iii) Continue to implement the NIAP between the 65th and 66th meetings of the CITESStanding Committee; andiv) Report on further measures taken to implement the NIAP to the Secretariat by 15th
May 2015.
The Secretariat will thereafter decide whether Kenya and all the other parties of primary concern
have substantially achieved their NIAPs and make appropriate recommendations.
In spite of Kenya’s nominal adherence to a strong framework of MEAs, regional and international
co-operation on wildlife trafficking in East Africa is still lacking. This was identified as a criticalaction point by the Wildlife-TRAPS stakeholder workshop, particularly in recognition of thetransnational nature of wildlife crime and its linkages to international criminal syndicates.
INTERPOL, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Customs
Organization (WCO) are critical inter-governmental agencies with the ability to operate acrossinternational political boundaries. UNODC has developed a wildlife and forest crime analytic
toolkit for comprehensive assessments of national actions to combat wildlife and forest crime. The
process is a platform for the identification and delivery of a range of activities, with priority given
to strengthening law enforcement capacity at local, national and regional levels (UN, 2012). Other

37 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

regional organizations, such as the Lusaka Agreement Task Force (LATF), play an important rolein forging connections between national law enforcement agencies and leading forceful action
to disrupt trafficking networks. Kenya has been a key participant in Operation COBRA, a global
wildlife law enforcement operation co-ordinated by LATF which brings together countries across
Africa, Asia and the Americas to ratchet up arrests and confiscations of wildlife products. The
operation allows law enforcement agencies to exchange real time intelligence on a daily basis,targeting poachers and traffickers of endangered and threatened wildlife. Operation COBRA III,
carried out in May 2015 led to the arrest of over 400 suspects, including several kingpins, andresulted in over 600 seizures of assorted wildlife contraband (Anon., 2015a). These international andregional efforts are complimented by NGOs who support wildlife enforcement at the local level andoften provide crucial intelligence on poaching and trafficking.
Virtually all of the regional and international law enforcement agencies and support mechanisms
mentioned above have local bureaus in Kenya and collaborate closely on intelligence and operations
with KWS and other national law enforcement agencies. Kenya is also able to reach out to Customs
security agents in destination countries like China and Thailand on matters directly relating towildlife contraband. For instance, in 2014 a Chinese national was arrested in Kenya by KWS and iscurrently serving a jail term in China as a result of close collaboration between Kenyan and Chinese
law enforcement agents. Thailand and China have often provided useful information to the Kenyan
authorities to assist in further investigations.

Panel discussion during the community
wildlife policing session at the Kenya
Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking
Stakeholder Workshop. From Left Sam
Weru – Wildlife Security Consultant,
Dickson ole Kaelo – Executive Director
KWCA, Ian Craig – Director ofConservation NRT, and Daniel ole Sambu– Programme Officer Big Life Foundation.

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 38© TRAFFIC

However, Kenya’s participation in international co-operation and information sharing on wildlife
trafficking would be enhanced if the capacity of Kenya’s Customs, revenue and port police units todetect and track wildlife contraband was improved. Furthermore, future interventions need to be
more focused on targeting the middlemen and kingpins of large-scale ivory trafficking, rather thaneasily replaceable low-level poachers and transporters. This requires more emphasis on operations
based on intelligence in order to make successful raids. This is where international law enforcement
agencies like INTERPOL are crucial; INTERPOL can track individual offenders, send out global
alerts directly to national law enforcement agencies and document individual traffickers andpoachers in its information sharing repository.

CONCLUSIONS
Kenya’s wildlife, both marine and terrestrial, faces major threats to habitats and animal populations
driven by anthropogenic factors such as growing populations, industrial and agriculturaldevelopment, and rising poaching and trafficking. Land is a critical factor for Kenya’s economic
growth, particularly since agriculture and wildlife-based tourism are the two biggest contributors to
GDP. However, habitat conversion and sub-division into small-holder agricultural and residential
areas has reduced space for wildlife and led to rising human-wildlife conflict, particularly the killingof elephants and lions to protect crops and livestock. Studies and projections by UNEP indicate thatthe amount of land available to each person in Kenya today has shrunk to 1.3 ha from 9.6 ha perperson in 1950, thus exerting massive pressures on land and other natural resources (UNEP, 2009).
The African Elephant and Black Rhino are classified as Vulnerable and Critically Endangered
respectively in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and are both listed in Appendix I of
CITES7. This classification was informed by the severe reduction of elephant and rhino populations
due to poaching and trafficking and the substantial loss of wildlife ranges due to increasing humanpopulations, agricultural growth and the expansion of settlements. Although the incidence ofelephant and rhino poaching has reduced over the last year as a result of an enhanced anti-poaching
response and the government’s overall interest in combating wildlife crime, poaching and thedemand for rhino horn and elephant ivory by East and Southeast Asian consumers remain theleading threats to the survival of these iconic species. This conclusion is consistent with Milliken(2014) who observed that “driven by new wealth and sky rocketing prices, resurgent trades have seen
surging numbers of elephants and rhinos ruthlessly killed and illegal trafficking in contraband ivory andrhino horns to Asia soar to record levels not seen for at least two and a half decades”.
Despite landmark developments in Kenya’s wildlife policy and legal frameworks, there are stillcritical weaknesses and loopholes that hamper wildlife conservation, enforcement and prosecution.
Corruption in government and the transportation sector remains a significant enabling factor for
wildlife trafficking, necessitating a concerted and co-ordinated interagency approach both locallyand internationally. The capacity of key enforcement and prosecution agents needs to be enhanced
to effectively tackle the growing threat of wildlife crime.
The recommendations that follow take into account Kenya’s legal and policy framework for wildlife
crime, and the unique threats to its wildlife heritage. Overall they require that recent gains in Kenya’s
efforts to combat wildlife trafficking are sustained, and that innovative and effective partnerships
continue to foster closer collaboration among stakeholders.

7
Elephant populations in four countries in southern Africa (South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe) are in Appendix II(http://www.iucnredlist.org)

39 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

RECOMMENDATIONS
The twin approaches of preventing the illegal killing of elephants and rhinos at the field level
and reducing the appetites of consumers, particularly in East and Southeast Asia, are the mostimportant aspects in the conservation of Kenya’s wildlife. Kenya should therefore mobilize humanand financial resources towards this end in addition to partnering with conservation NGOs,
relevant international bodies and diplomatic missions in a targeted and continuous dialogue with
the identified consumer nations. Further, acknowledging that a majority of Kenya’s wildlife live
outside formal protected areas, providing incentives for community-led conservation using thewildlife conservancy model is critical to the future of Kenya’s natural heritage. Failure to take action
along these lines will spell doom to Kenya’s iconic species, including local extinction.
The recommendations of this assessment are summarized in Table 10. They were developed frompresentations, panel discussions and information sharing during the Kenya Wildlife Poaching andTrafficking Stakeholder Workshop held in Nairobi, Kenya on April 14 and 15, 2015.
Table 10. Recommendations and Priority Actions for Combating Wildlife Poaching and Trafficking in Kenya

No.

PRIORITY ACTION

KEY PARTNERS

Thematic Area 1: Biological Status of Key Species Appearing in Trade1

Identify geographic locations and carry out surveys to provide and/
KWS, DRSRS, KWCA,
or update data on the biological status of key species with specialNGOsemphasis on elephants, pangolins and big cats.

2

Complete an assessment of the bushmeat trade in Kenya.

KWS, NGOs, CFWK

3

Develop and scale up a national forensic research programme for
species identification.

NMK, KWS, UoN,
JKUAT

4

Implement critical recommendations contained in the report of
the “Mapping Corridors and Connectivity for Conservation Task
Force”, with special focus on the Mara Ecosystem.

KWS, KWCA, NGOs,
Conservancies

5

Carry out a national land-use survey with the emphasis on
examining the trends in loss of conservation space.

GoK, NGOs

Thematic Area 2: Law Enforcement123

Carry out assessments to provide missing poaching and trade data
for trafficked species, particularly elephants, pangolins, big cats,
reptiles, birds and marine species.
Operationalize the KWS forensic laboratory in Nairobi andestablish formal linkages to other international forensic
institutions.
Wide dissemination of the guidance on expert and digital
evidence (contained in the 2015 guide on wildlife crime--‘Points
to Prove’ guidance and Standard Operating Procedures developedwith UK and rolled out nationally by the ODPP in 2015); andregular updates on the changes in the law to investigators,
prosecutors and judges

KWS, NGOs

KWS, NMK

JTI, ODPP, KWS, NPS

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 40

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Strengthen the capacity of wildlife crime investigative andenforcement officers based on training needs identified throughassessments. In particular, train and gazette more scenes-of-crime
officers and sensitize to the changes in the law and evidential
requirements for charge.
Develop a KWS institutional anti-corruption strategy and address
the urgent issue of stockpile management by speeding up necessaryreforms and improvements.
Create secure mechanisms for intelligence gathering andinformation sharing by relevant actors in the wildlife poaching andtrafficking sector.
Support the expansion of the KWS prosecutorial team in adopting
the same charging standard as applied by the ODPP (evidential
and public interest test) with a system of written reviews andaccountability on charging decisions. Awareness of the standard
should be developed amongst investigators as well.
Enhance the use of technology in wildlife management andenforcement (e.g. mapping corridors, tracking animal movements,
providing a poaching early-warning system, supporting forensic
investigations, and enabling detection in ports and airports).
Clarify and implement mechanisms for cross-border collaborationand linkages with relevant regional and global initiatives forcombating the illegal wildlife trade. In particular, support the AGO
in building capacity to address issues of mutual legal assistance(cross-border evidence exchange and prosecution of international
wildlife trafficking).
Develop capacity within the ports and border authority,
KRA and the airports authority regarding detection of suchcrimes. In particular, to assess the current regulatory
processes for import and export of goods at ports andborders with a view to developing measures to tighten
those controls and make prosecution of agents and ‘middle
men’ viable.

GoK (Treasury), KWS,NPSCITES, KWS, GK,
NGOs
NIS, KWCA, KCA,
KWS, CBK-FRC,
INTERPOL, UNODC

KWS, ODPP, NPS

KWS, DRSRS, andNGOS

EAC, KWS, Ministryof Foreign Affairs &Trade, LATF, AGO,
Treasury

Donors, KRA, KWS,
KAA, NGOs

Create a register of wildlife offenders to be shared among national
agencies as well as with regional partners.

Judiciary, KWS,
NGOs, NPSWork with financial, communications and transportationcompanies in the private sector to target the operations of largescale syndicates.
WCMA applies to Kenya’s territorial waters. However, capacity
for investigations regarding crimes committed against marine
species remains limited. Support to Kenya Fisheries Department
and Maritime Authority to harmonise their laws in line with the
WCMA.

KWS, CID, ODPP,
KWS, KEPSA, AGO,
NGOs

41 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

GoK, Kenya Maritime
Authority, Fisheries
Department

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Thematic Area 3: Public Awarenessand Community-Based Natural Resource Management
Finalize regulations that govern incentives for private land owners
Minst of Env., KWS,
and communities to establish conservancies, corridors and
KWCA
dispersal areas in order to secure more land for wildlife.
Finalize and issue regulations governing the operation of wildlife
conservancies.
Develop and implement conservancy management plans inpartnership with local communities, as provided for under the
WCMA.
Foster a national conservation ethic through education andawareness campaigns in order to safeguard the intrinsic andeconomic value of wildlife and reduce human-wildlife conflict.
Train and deploy additional community rangers in wildlife
enforcement based on capacity needs assessments carried out by anindependent expert.
Develop and implement the regulations for benefit-sharing
mechanisms established by the WCMA.
Improve community awareness and understanding of relevantlaws, with special emphasis on the WCMA and the Environmental
Management and Coordination Act (EMCA).
Strengthen the capacity of the Kenya Wildlife Conservancies
Association (KWCA) and regional conservancy associations as
vehicles for strategic engagement with government, donors andinvestors.

Minst of Env., KWS,
KWCA
KWCA, KWS,
Conservancies, NGOs
Min of Education,
Min of Envt & W/life,
KWS, NGOs
KWS, NGOs,
Conservancies,
Treasury
Min Envt & W/life
KWS, Judiciary,NGOs, Conservancies
KWCA, NGOs, KWS,
Conservancies

9

Build KWCA’s capacity to help conservancies meet administrativeand operational standards.

NGOs, Donors

10

Carry out exchange and learning visits between and amongconservancies.

Conservancies, NGOs,
KWS

Thematic Area 4: Cross Cutting Issues

1

Operationalize and strengthen the Kenya Conservation Alliance(KCA) as a vehicle for strategic engagement with the government,
information and data sharing, co-ordination and dispute
resolution.

GoK, NGOs,
Conservancies

2

Harmonize land-use planning and development in line with the
EMCA and other relevant legislation.

GoK

3

Develop necessary infrastructure (road signs, speed bumps,
underpasses, bridges, etc.) in wildlife areas to prevent accidental
deaths of wildlife.

GoK

4

Assess the economic value of key species impacted by trade tosupport conservation, enforcement, and legal processes.

GoK, IGOs, NGOs

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 42

REFERENCES
Akwiri, J. (2013). Kenya Police find record haul of smuggled ivory. Reuters, USA January 15, 2013
Anon. (2015a). Operation COBRA III records Largest Number of Seizures of Wildlife Contraband
Ever: Press Release. LATF, Bangkok June 18, 2015. Press release viewed July 6, 2015
Anon. (2015b). KRA Official Charged Over Ivory Trafficking. Daily Nation, Nairobi, Kenya. June 26,
2015
Anon. (2015c). Thailand seizes 3 tons of elephant tusks, smuggled from Kenya. News24. April 27,
2015
Brown, D. (2013). “A big catch”: Record two tons of ivory seized in Kenya. NBC News. New YorkUSA. January 15, 2013
Challender D.W.S. and Hywood L. (2012). African Pangolins under Increased Pressure fromPoaching and Intercontinental Trade. TRAFFIC Bulletin 24(2):53-55. TRAFFIC International,
Cambridge, UK.
Challender, D.W.S., Waterman, C. and Baillie, J.E.M. (2014). Scaling Up Pangolin Conservation.
IUCN SSC Pangolin Specialist Group Conservation Action Plan. Zoological Society of London,
London, UK.
CITES SC65 Doc. 42.2 of July 2014
Cota-Larson R. 2014. 1-Ton of Pangolin Scales from South Africa Seized in Hong Kong. http://
annamiticus.com/2014/05/28/1-ton-pangolin-scales-south-africa-seized-hong-kong Accessed
September 14, 2015
Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2009). The Current Elephant Poaching Trend. Pachyderm No. 45 July 2008–
June 2009. pg 154-157
Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2012): Testimony on Ivory and Insecurity: The Global Implications ofPoaching in Africa Before the Committee of Foreign Relations U.S. Senate, May 24, 2012.
Emslie, R.H., Milledge, S., Brooks, M., van Strien, N.J. and Dublin, H.T. (2007). African and Asian
Rhinoceroses – Status, Conservation and Trade. CoP14, Doc. 54. CITES Secretariat,
Geneva, Switzerland.
GoK (2013a). Vision 2030 2nd Medium Term Plan 2012-2017 - Transforming Kenya: Pathway to
Devolution, Socio-Economic Development, Equity and National Unity. The Presidency, Governmentof the Republic of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
GoK (2013b). Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. Government of Kenya Printer Nairobi,
Kenya.
GoK, (2014a). Kenya Facts and Figures 2014. National Bureau of Statistics, Republic of Kenya.
Nairobi, Kenya. xiv + 71pp
GoK, (2014b). Lifting the Siege: Securing Kenya’s Wildlife. Report Prepared by Task Force on Wildlife
Security for Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. Republic of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya

43 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

GoK, (2015). Kenya Facts and Figures 2015. National Bureau of Statistics, Republic of Kenya.
Nairobi, Kenya. xiv + 71pp
Graham, M. (Ed) 2012: Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Laikipia County 2012 – 2030. Laikipia
Wildlife Forum, Nanyuki, Kenya.
http://www.elephantdatabase.org/ viewed July 10, 2015
http://www.amboseliecosystemtrust.org/ viewed June 20, 2015
http://www.cites.org viewed May 2, 2015
http://www.iucnredlist.org viewed July 10, 2015
http://www.laikipia.org/about-us/ viewed June 1, 2015
Kahumbu, P., Byamukama, L., Mbuthia, J. and Drori. O. (2014). Scoping Study on the Prosecution of
Wildlife Related Crimes in Kenyan Courts; January 2008 to June 2013. WildlifeDirect, Nairobi, Kenya
King, A. (2013). Conservancies in Kenya: Report to the Kenya Land Conservation Trust. Isiolo, Kenya
Knight, M. (2013). African rhinos: a brief update. PowerPoint to Workshop on Wildlife Poaching
and Trafficking in Southern Africa, Gaborone, Botswana, October 22-23, 2013
KWCA (2015). Strategic Action Plan 2015 – 2018. KWCA, Nairobi, Kenya
KWS (2012). Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya 2012-2021. Kenya
Wildlife Service. Nairobi, Kenya.
Leader-Williams, N. (2003). Regulation and Protection: Success and Failures in Rhinoceros
Conservation. In: Oldfield, S. (ed) (2003) The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation.
Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK xxii + 210 p
Luxmoore, R., Caldwell, J. and Hithersay, L. (1989). The volume of raw ivory entering international
trade from African producing countries from 1979 to 1988. In: The Ivory Trade and the Future of theAfrican Elephant. Ivory Trade Review Group. Oxford, United Kingdom.
McNeish, H. (2014). $213bn illegal wildlife and charcoal trade ‘funding global terror groups’. The
Guardian (UK) June 24, 2014
Milliken, T. (2014). Illegal Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn: an Assessment Report to Improve Law
Enforcement under the Wildlife-TRAPS Project. USAID and TRAFFIC.
Milliken, T. and Shaw, J. (2012). The South Africa–Viet Nam Rhino Horn Trade Nexus: A deadly
combination of institutional lapses, corrupt wildlife industry professionals and Asian crime syndicates.
TRAFFIC, Johannesburg, South Africa
Milliken, T., Emslie, R.H. and Talukdar, B. (2009) African and Asian Rhinoceroses – Status,
Conservation and Trade CoP15, Doc 45-1 Annex CITES Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nellemann, C., Henriksen, R., Raxter, P., Ash, N. and Mrema, E. (Eds). (2014). The Environmental
Crime Crisis – Threats to Sustainable Development from Illegal Exploitation and Trade in Wildlife andForest Resources. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme and
GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal,

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 44

NRT (2014). State of Conservancies Report. Northern Rangelands Trust. Isiolo, Kenya
Ojwang’ G. O., Wargute, P.W., Said, M.Y., Worden, J., Muruthi P. and Kanga E. (Eds) (2014). Kenya’s
Wildlife Corridors and Migratory Routes: Connectivity for Conservation. Government of the Republic
Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.
Parker, I.S.C., (1979). The Ivory Trade, Volume 1: Commerce in Ivory. A consultancy for Dr. Iain
Douglas-Hamilton for the USFWS and IUCN. Nairobi, Kenya
Phillip, A. (2015). The Real Reason for the Catastrophic Collapse of Tanzania’s Elephant Population.
The Washington Post. Washington DC, USA June 6, 2015
Poole, J. and Granli, P. (2015). Elephant Voices End Year Report 2014 for Elephant Partners.
ElephantVoices, Maasai Mara, Kenya. 9pgs
Pye-Smith C. (2013). The Story of Northern Rangelands Trust. NRT, Isiolo, Kenya
Ratchford, M., Allgood, B. and Todd, P. (2013). Criminal Nature - The Global Security Implications of
the Illegal Wildlife Trade. International Fund for Animal Welfare, Washington DC, USA 32 pgs
Schneider, R.M. (2014). The Securitisation of Poaching and the Illegal Wildlife Trade in Sub-SaharanAfrica: A Necessary Evil? Dissertation submitted to the School of Social Science, Department of
Politics and International Relations, University of Aberdeen, as partial requirement for an Honours
degree in Politics and International Relations, 2015. Aberdeen. 35pp.
STE (2015). Mozambique, Viet Nam join hands in wildlife conservation protection. Posted June 26,
2015. http://savetheelephants.org/elephant-news-service, viewed June 30, 2015
Stewart, C. (2013). Illegal ivory trade funds al-Shabaab’s terrorist attacks. The Independent (UK)
June 6, 2015
TRAFFIC (2012). New Agreement Between South Africa and Viet Nam - A turning Point in Tackling
Rhino Poaching Crisis, say WWF, TRAFFIC. http://www.traffic.org, viewed July 6, 2015
UN (2012). Wildlife and Forest Crime Analytic Toolkit (Rev edn). United Nations, Vienna, Austria.
Xii + 196 pp
UNEP (2009), Kenya: Atlas of Our Changing Environment. Division of Early Warning andAssessment (DEWA) United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya
UNEP (2014): UNEP Year Book: Emerging Issues in Our Global Environment. Division of Early
Warning and Assessment (DEWA), United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya
UNODC (2012). Environmental Crime – The Trafficking of Wildlife and Timber. Environment Fact
Sheet available at http://www.unodc.org, viewed June 1, 2015
UNODC (2015). Wildlife and Forest Crime: Overview available at http://www.unodc.org/unodc
viewed May 1 2015
Vira, V. and Ewing, T. (2014). Ivory’s Curse: The Militarization & Professionalization of Poaching in
Africa. C4ADS. Washington D.C., United States.

45 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

Wepundi, M., Nthiga E., Kabuu E., Murray R. and Alvazzi del Frate, A. (2012). Availability of Small
Arms and Perceptions of Security in Kenya: An Assessment (special report). GoK and Graduate
Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland.
Wilson, D. A. and Ayerst, P. (1976). White Gold: The Story of the African Ivory. Taplinger Publishing
Company. New York, USA
World Bank (2014). Kenya Economic Update. December 2014, 11th edn. World Bank Group,
Nairobi, Kenya. X+71 pp
WTTC (2014). Travel & Tourism Economic Impact: Kenya. WTTC. London, UK
WWF/Dalberg, (2012). Fighting illicit wildlife trafficking: A consultation with governments. WWF
International, Gland, Switzerland

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 46

APPENDICES$SSHQGL[/LVWRI3DUWLFLSDQWV²:LOGOLIH3RDFKLQJDQG
7UDIÀFNLQJ6WDNHKROGHU:RUNVKRS
NAME

TITLE

1
2

Nyokabi Gitahi
Koikai Oloitiptip

Program Officer
Coordinator

3
4

Daudi Sumba
Fiesta Warinwa

Vice President
Director

56
7
8

Philip Muruthi
Daniel Ole Sambu
Linda Kimotho
Asqar Rathan

Chief Scientist
Coordinator
BG Officer
Director

910

Dr Sitoki Lewis
Charles Oluchina

Chairman
The Nature Conservancy

11

Nigel Hunter

12
13
14

Michael Gachanja
Jim Nyamu
Hjordis Ogendo

15
16
17
18

Noelle Obrien
Doug Goessman
Onkuri Majumdar
Pamela Scruggs

Head Department And
Communication
Executive Director
Director
Head, Social Affairs andEnvironment
Team leader
Director Field Ops
Senior Project Officer
Branch Chief

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Sam Friberg
William Adams
James Isiche
Steve Njumbi
Benson OchiengPeter K.Muiruri
Christian Dietrich
Holly Dublin

27

Leo Niskanen

28

Luther Bois Anukur

Special Agent
Strategic Consultant
Regional Director
Regional Program Officer
Executive Director
Interpol-Nairobi Bureau
Chair, IUCN SSC African ElephantSpecies Group
Technical Coordinator Species+ SSP
diversity program
Regional Director Eastern andSouthern Africa

47 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

ORGANIZATION
AFD
Amboseli Ecosystem
Trust
AWF
AWF
AWF
BLF
Born Free Foundation
Care For the Wild
Kenya
Conservation Kenya
Director of field
Programs
EAWLS
EAWLS
ENC
EU
FICCF/DFID
FREELANDFREELANDFWS-International
Affairs
USFWS
GMF
IFAW
IFAW
ILEG
INTERPOL
INTERPOL
IUCN
IUCN
IUCN

29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

Kaori Yasuda
Tara Daniel
Nzioki Wa Makau
Jackie Odudoh
Martin Kampala
Dickson Kaelo
Patrick Omondi
William Kiprono
Samuel Tokore
Edwin Wanyonyi
Robert Muasya
Michael Kipkeu
Didi Wamukoya
Jack Marubu
Tamara Mopel
Sveva Gallman

Strategic Partnership
AFESG Programme Officer
Judge/Zanzibar
HR/Admin Manager
SecurityCEO
Deputy Director
Ag. Director General
Chief of Operations
Deputy Director
DD Security
Senior Assistant Director Devolution
Chief Prosecutor
WardenInternDirector

45
46

Theotimus N Rwegasira
Edward Ndiritu

Intelligence Officer
Head Of Anti-Poaching

47

John M. Ringera

Field Officer

48
49

Stephen Nyaga
Stephen Manegene

Wildlife Officer
Director of Wildlife Conservation

50
51
52
53

Daniel Sopia
Irene Angwenyi
Bonface Mambaleo
Ian Craig

Conservancies Council Chairman
Communication Specialist
Senior Process Engineer
Wildlife Conservation Advisor

54

Martin Mulama

Chief Conservation Officer

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

Fraser Smith
Dr Benson Okita Ouma
Iain Douglas-Hamilton
Samson Silanto
John Kamanga
Keith Roberts
Deborah Murphy
Ivy Kirima
Tom Milliken

64

Nick Ahlers

Head Monitoring
CEO
Head of Conservancy
Director
Director, wildlife Protection
Technical Advisor
student
Elephant & Rhino Programme
LeaderWildlife-TRAPS Project leader

IUCN
IUCN &AFESG
Judiciary/Zanzibar
KATO
Kenya Airways
KWCA
KWS
KWS
KWS
KWS
KWS
KWS
KWS
KWS
KWS
Laikipia Nature
conservancy
LATF
Lewer Wildlife
conservancy
Lusaka Agreement
Force
LWF
Kenya’s Ministry ofEnvironment, Water
and Natural Resources
MMWCA
MSI
NEMA
Northern Rangelands
Trust
OL PEJETA
conservancy
PUT
Save the Elephants
Save the Elephants
SORALOSORALO/ACC
Space For Giants
STARK &DFID
Strathmore University
TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC

TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 48

65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

Julie Thomson
Sam Weru
Shanny Pelle
Julian Blanc
Marc PatryTim Steele
Javier Montano
Barbara Pitkin

East Africa Co-ordinator
Consultant
Admin Assistant
MIKE Coordinator
Program Specialist
SNR Adviser
Programme Coordinator
Director, ITAP,DOI

73
74
75

Juniper Neill
Ben Wandago
Beatrice Wamalwa

76
77
78
79
80
81

Susan Nzii
Faith Njoki
Josh OmondiPaula Kahumbu
Elizabeth Gitari
Robert Ndetei

Director ENV
Programme Specialist
Deputy Director, Environmental
officeProgram Management AssistantCEO
Legal Manager
Species Manager

49 TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya

TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC
TRAFFICUNEP-MIKEUNESCOUNODC
UNODC
US Department of theInterior
USAID
USAID
USAID
USAID
USAID/MSIUSAID/MSI
Wildlife Direct
Wildlife DirectWWF5RJHU+RRSHU::)TRAFFIC report: Wildlife Protection and Trafficking Assessment in Kenya 50

MAY 2016

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network,is the leading non-governmental organization
working globally on trade in wild animals andplants in the context of both biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development.
For further information contact:
TRAFFIC
Headquarters OfficeDavid Attenborough Building
Pembroke Street
Cambridge CB2 3QZ
UK

Telephone: (44) 1223 277427
E-mail: traffic@traffic.org

UK Registered Charity No. 1076722,
Registered Limited Company No. 3785518.

is a strategic alliance of