Nature and extent

of environmental
crime in Kenya

David Kamweti, Deborah Osiro and Donald A. Mwiturubani

Monograph 166
November 2009
Contents
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of tables and figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Chapter 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
State of the environment in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key environmental issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Environmental Crimes Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Environmental crime and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Objectives and scope of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Study approach and methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Chapter 2
Nature of environmental crime in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Participants in environmental crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Environmental Crimes in the Forestry Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Illegal trade in sandalwood (Santalum Album) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Illegal logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Illegal trade in other flora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Forest excisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Forests encroachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Illegal grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Illegal forest fires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Monograph 166 i
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Growing of bhang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Illegal charcoal making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Environmental crimes in the wildlife sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Illegal trade in wildlife and their products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Poaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Environmental crimes in the tourism sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Blockage of access to natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Aesthetic pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Offroad driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Destruction of marine, lacustrine, and river ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Poor waste disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Environmental crimes in the water sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Diversion of water bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Water pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Reclamation of wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Illegal development in riparian areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Environmental crimes in the fisheries sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Illegal trade in ornamental fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Illegal fishing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Illegal fish farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Illegal trawling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Foreign fisherfolk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Hazardous wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Crimes due to non-compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Other crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Use of banned substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Global warming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Illegal mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Non-rehabilitation of mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Sand harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Chapter 3
Legal framework for enforcement of environmental crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and Treaties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

ii Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Challenges in legislation to combat environmental crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Chapter 4
Capacity of institutions to detect crime and enforce law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Kenya Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Kenya Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Kenya Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
National Environmental Management Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Fisheries Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
National Museums of Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Kenya Ports Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Kenya Airports Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Public Complaints Committee on the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Judiciary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
International organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Non-governmental organisations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Chapter 5
Training capacity needs of environmental law
enforcement agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
National Environmental Management Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Current training programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Prosecution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Networking forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Regional and international agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Kenya Wildlife Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
KWS structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Kenya Forest Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Enforcement and compliance division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Training programmes and challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Prosecutorial challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Collaborative initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Public Complaints Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Monograph 166 iii

Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Challenges for the PCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Chapter 6
Tools for capturing, storing and sharing crime information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
NEMA environmental crime information tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
KWS environmental crime information tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
KFS environmental crime information tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
PCC environmental crime information tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Chapter 7
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Chapter 8
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

iv Institute for Security Studies

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) for supporting
the study on which this report is based. We would also like to thank the various
individuals from different institutions for their invaluable inputs, in terms of
both literature and verbal information.
Our appreciation also goes to the participants of the stakeholders’ valida-
tion workshop held on 19 October 2008 in Nairobi for their valuable comments,
which were important in the compilation of this report.

Monograph 166 v
List of tables and figures
Map 1 Protected areas in Kenya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 1 Protected areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2 Approximate number of wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3 Relevant legislation for environmental crime in Kenya . . . . . . 36

Figure 1 Abandoned trailer in Mau forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure 2 Impounded timber at Narok County Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 3 Elephant tusks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 4 Poacher arrested and jailed for five years after killing giraffe . 23
Figure 5 Dried giraffe meat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 6 Beach encroachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 7 Beach walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 8 Blockage of access paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 9 Off road driving impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 10 Open sewer drain into Indian Ocean in Lamu (2006) . . . . . . . 27
Figure 11 Carwash in Lake Victoria Kisumu (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 12 Dandora dumpsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 13 Dandora dumpsite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

vi Institute for Security Studies

Acronyms
ANAW African Network for Animal Welfare
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CDA Coast Development Authority
CID Criminal Investigation Department
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
DRSRS Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing
EAPCCO East African Police Chiefs Cooperation Organisation
ECP Environmental Crimes Project
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMCA Environmental Management and Coordination Act
ESP Environmental Security Programme
GoK Government of Kenya
IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare
IMDG International Maritime Goods Code
ISS Institute for Security Studies
JKIA Jomo Kenyatta International Airport
KAA Kenya Airports Authority
KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KENRIK Kenya Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge
KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services
KFS Kenya Forest Service
KPA Kenya Ports Authority
KWS Kenya Wildlife Services
LATF Lusaka Agreement Taskforce
LVEMP Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project
MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement

Monograph 166 vii

Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

MoU Memorandum of understanding

NCB National Central Bureau
NEMA National Environmental Management Authority
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NMK National Museums of Kenya
ODS Ozone-depleting substances
PCC Public Complaints Committee
POPS Persistent organic chemicals
SOE State of environment
SPM Suspended particulate matter
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
USA United States of America
WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature

viii Institute for Security Studies

Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
This report deals with the nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya
and was commissioned by the Environmental Crimes Project (ECP) of the
Institute for Security Studies (ISS). The ECP is a project in partnership with
the East African Police Chiefs Cooperation Organisation (EAPCCO). Its core
objective is to enhance human security by improving regional law enforcement
and policymaking to fight environmental crime in eastern Africa.
An environmental crime can be defined as a grave act against the environ-
ment that results in the infringement of the right of citizens to a clean and
healthy environment. For such an act to constitute a crime, it must contravene
laid-down legislation in the various sectors of the environment, such as forestry,
water and wildlife. Environmental offences have, for a long time, been treated
as misdemeanours, and not felonies.
Environmental crime is a serious and growing concern, leading to the near
extinction of valuable wildlife species, and significantly impacting on the bio-
logical integrity of the planet.
It contributes to environmental degradation, which in turn affects the
quality and quantity of environmental resources. By doing so, it leads to un-
healthy competition for these scarce resources, and subsequently to volatile sit-
uations and even resource-use conflicts. As such, environmental crime impacts
on human livelihoods.

STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Some 83% (46 140 000 ha) of the land surface in Kenya is classified as arid
and semi-arid, whilst the remaining 17% (11 530 000 ha) is classified as

Monograph 166 ix
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

medium- and high potential. Kenya is rich in biodiversity, with about 35 000
species of animals, plants and micro-organisms. Key resources are forests,
wildlife, aquatic ecosystems and wetlands, drylands, and agricultural lands.
Forests are divided into natural and plantation forests and cover less than
3% of the country. Some 2,4-million ha have been designated as reserves. Kenya
has felled more than 90% of its natural forests and ranks fift h in Africa in terms
of the loss of forests. Forests are disappearing at a rate of more than 5 000 ha per
year, following the settlement of people, cultivation and development projects
in the reserves.
Wildlife. Wildlife-protected areas occupy about 8% of Kenya’s land area. There
are currently 23 terrestrial national parks, four marine national Parks, twenty eight
Terrestrial National Reserves, six Marine National reserves, and four national
sanctuaries. The protected areas are distributed in all ecosystems and therefore
provide an important protection system for flora and fauna and their habitats.
Agriculture is practiced mainly in the medium- and high-potential areas.
Genetic diversity is being reduced by pressure arising from efforts to improve
productivity through cross-breeding and general preference for exotic varieties
of both crops and breeds of animals.
Water: Kenya is a water-scarce country. It is estimated that the country
receives 354-billion m3 of rainwater annually, whilst annual potential of under-
ground water is reportedly about 619 million m3. Water availability is presently
647m3 and is projected to fall to 253 m3 by 2025. This is against the per capita of
1 000 m3 considered the threshold for water sufficiency. Kenya has a total of 467
lake and wetland habitats estimated to cover 1 460 300 ha or 2,5% of total land
area. Constraints to water supply include uncontrolled diversion, degradation
of catchments, microclimate and weather changes, changes in settlement pat-
terns and quarrying along the riverbanks and beds.
The main environmental threats in the country include: poverty, which
leads to over-reliance on natural resources, land degradation in form of soil
erosion, destruction of forests, loss of biodiversity through habitat loss, hazard-
ous wastes, water pollution, air pollution, climate change and desertification.

STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The study approach sought to provide a detailed analysis of the status of envi-
ronmental crime in the country.

x Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Five methods were used, namely extensive review of literature, review of

policy and legislation, key informant interviews, internet searches and e-mail
inquiries where face-to-face interviews were not possible.
Overall, 38 persons from 27 institutions in Nairobi and Mombasa were con-
tacted for information. A stakeholder workshop was also held and participants’
comments incorporated in the report.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME IN KENYA
Those who engage in environmental crime do so to meet either commercial or
subsistence objectives and they include individuals, small independent groups,
organised groups and corporate bodies.
Environmental crimes in the forestry sector include illegal trade in sandal-
wood, illegal logging, illegal trade in endemic flora, including bioprospecting
and biopiracy; forest excisions, forest encroachment, illegal grazing, illegal
forest fires, growing of bhang, and illegal charcoal making.
Environmental crimes in the wildlife sector include illegal trade in wildlife
and their products; poaching, and illegal grazing.
In the tourism sector, crimes include blockage of access to natural resources
for local communities, aesthetic pollution, off road driving, destruction of
marine, lacustrine and river ecosystems, and wastes pollution.
Crimes in the water sector include diversion of water bodies, water pollu-
tion, reclamation of wetlands and illegal development of riparian areas.
Environmental crimes in the fisheries sector include illegal trade in orna-
mental fish, illegal fishing methods, illegal fish farming, illegal trawling and
illegal fishing by foreign fisherfolk.
Other environmental crimes in the country include hazardous wastes, and
failure to comply with the provisions of the Environmental Management and
Coordination Act (EMCA) and its regulations.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Kenya has various laws that seek to protect her natural resources from the con-
sequences of pollution and environmental degradation. However, most of these

Monograph 166 xi
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

laws are sectoral and the country’s institutional framework is still fragmented,
with key environmental laws and regulations still lacking.
The primary legislation is EMCA, which is a framework law, and its regu-
lations published. Other key legislation includes the Wildlife (Conservation
and Management) Act, National Museums and Heritage Act of 2006, Fisheries
Act, Forest Act of 2005, Water Act of 2002, Agriculture Act, Public Health
Act, Local Government Act and the penal code. Kenya has ratified various
international conventions and multilateral environmental agreements against
environmental crimes.
These laws face a number of challenges in fighting environmental crimes,
including the lack of deterrent sanctions, lack of proper enforcement, lack of
policy harmonisation, inadequate public participation, including community
participation; lack of a clear environmental communication strategy on ap-
plicable legislations, and lack of harmonisation in managing transboundary
ecosystems such as parks and waters.

CAPACITY OF INSTITUTIONS TO DETECT

CRIME AND ENFORCE LAW
Kenya has not designated a single national institution to fight environmental
crimes, but key institutions address various crimes. These institutions are the
National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), the Kenya Wildlife
Service (KWS), the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), the police department, the
fisheries department, the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS),
the Lusaka Agreement Taskforce (LATF), the United Nations (UN), and non-
governmental organisations (NGOs). To address crimes adequately, these insti-
tutions should have an intelligence network and law enforcers such as prosecu-
tors to apprehend perpetrators. The law should also have adequate deterrents to
punish those involved n crime and dissuade others from taking part.
In our view, none of these institutions, save for KWS, LATF and UN, has
an effective system to fight environmental crime. There is also lack of links and
systems to collect, store and share data across the various institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The key recommendations arising from the study are the need to:

xii Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

■ Undertake thematic studies on key sectors where there are environmental

crimes;
■ Formulate a communications strategy for environmental crime;
■ Formulate a strategy to amend key legislation on environmental crime;
■ Build capacity of civil authorities and the police;
■ Create a new focal point for environmental crime, and
■ Ensure that the public plays a meaningful role in the fight against environ-
mental crime.

CONCLUSIONS
The study concludes that environmental crimes are a real threat to Kenya as
its economy is based on natural resources. The crimes must thus be fought
from all fronts if the country is to attain the goals set out in the government’s
Vision 2030.

Monograph 166 xiii

1 Introduction
BACKGROUND
This report examines the nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya. It
was commissioned by the Environmental Crimes Project (ECP), which is a joint
initiative of the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) and the East African Police
Chiefs Cooperation Organization (EAPCCO).
But what would constitute environmental crime in Kenya?
The Environmental Management and Coordination Act provides that: ‘Every
person in Kenya is entitled to a clean and healthy environment and has a duty
to safeguard and enhance the environment.’1 It defines the environment as in-
cluding all the physical factors of the surroundings of human beings, including
land, water, atmosphere, climate, sound, odour, taste, the biological factors of
animals and plants, and social factor of aesthetics. It includes both the natural
and built environment2. On the other hand, crime may be defined as an act,
usually grave, which is punishable by law3.
As such, environmental crime can be defined as a grave act against the en-
vironment, which results in the infringement of this statutory right of Kenyans
to enjoy their environment. For the act to qualify as a crime however, it must

Monograph 166 1
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

violate some laid-down law, and should also be punishable by law. Such a law
may be national (including bylaws) or international. In addition, an environ-
mental crime may be committed knowingly or unknowingly.
Laws dealing with various sectors of the environment, such as forestry, water,
wildlife etc, establish various environmental offences. However, these offences
have been treated mainly as misdemeanours or minor crimes, and not felonies
or serious crimes. Nevertheless, with increasing awareness of the environment,
and the adverse impacts of environmental degradation on resources and peo-
ple’s wellbeing, the issue of environmental crimes is slowly gaining currency in
the country.
On the whole, environmental crime is a serious and growing concern leading
to the near extinction of valuable wildlife species, and significantly impacting
the biological integrity of the planet4. Its rise also led to the establishment of an
Environmental Crimes Committee by Interpol in 1992. Further, environmen-
tal crime is closely linked with other crimes such as drug trafficking, weapons
trade, smuggling, fraud and money laundering5. Environmental crime is, thus,
a lucrative trade and has attracted persons with political and security connec-
tions, thus granting protection to operatives.
Internationally, there are five key broad areas of offences that have been
recognised by bodies such as the G8, Interpol, the European Union (EU), the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations
Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. These are:

■ Illegal trade in wildlife and their products;6

■ Illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances;7
■ Dumping and illegal transport of various kinds of hazardous waste;8
■ Illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, and
■ Illegal logging and trade in timber.

Other environmental offences that share similar characteristics with these five
accepted categories include:

■ Biopiracy and transport of controlled biological or genetically modified

material;
■ Illegal dumping of oil and other wastes in oceans;9
■ Trade in chemicals,10 and

2 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

■ Fuel smuggling to avoid taxes or future controls on carbon emissions.

Fighting of environmental crime is not easy as it is cross-border in most cases,

and involves well-organised groups that are sometimes better armed than
those protecting the natural resources base. The issue of environmental crime
is further compounded by the integration of economies, syndicates that use
corruption and take advantage of weak states such as Somalia, lack of political
will to fight it, and the role of unemployed youth, who in most cases do not
find much meaning to life and thus the environment. Further, most agencies
charged with fighting the vice are not well coordinated. ECP was initiated to
address this rising problem, among others.

STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN KENYA

0
Kenya is located astride the equator and longitude 38 E. The country’s total
surface area is about 582 650 m2 (58 900 000 ha),11 out of which 57 670 000 ha is
land surface. About 83% (46 140 000 ha) of the land surface is classified as arid
and semi arid. The remaining 17% (11 530 000 ha) is classified as medium and
high potential. Arid and semi-arid areas are predominantly used for livestock
production and conservation of wildlife.
Kenya is rich in biodiversity which comprises forestry, wildlife resources,
aquatic ecosystems and wetlands, dry lands and agricultural lands. Kenya is
said to contain about 35 000 species12 of animals, plants and micro-organisms
that need protection for the conservation of biodiversity. There are currently
23 terrestrial national parks, four marine national parks, 28 terrestrial national
reserves, six marine national reserves and four national sanctuaries. The pro-
tected areas are distributed in all ecosystems and, therefore, provide an impor-
tant system of protection of flora and fauna and their habitats.
Forests: Forests are the backbone of Kenya’s economy through linkage to
agriculture and tourism. They support livelihoods by providing food, medicine,
wood for construction and fuel-wood, in addition to other products and serv-
ices such as water catchment areas.
Forests cover less than 3% of the country and may be divided largely into
natural ones (about 2-million ha) and plantations (about 0,24-million ha).
Kenya, which has felled more than 90% of its natural forests, ranks fift h in
Africa in terms of the loss of forests. Forests are disappearing at a rate of more

Monograph 166 3
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

than 5 000 ha per year following the settlement of people, cultivation and devel-
opment projects in the reserves. The decrease in forests has led to the decline of
important functions, including prevention of erosion, water yield, and the con-
servation of wildlife habitats and genetic resources. It has also caused problems
of sedimentation in the lower reaches. Overgrazing and felling have resulted in
desertification in arid and semiarid areas.
To protect these limited forest resources, an area of about 2,4-million ha has
been designated as reserves. A timber-harvesting moratorium was put in place
in 1999 and is still in force, although some companies are exempted.
Wildlife: The government has established an extensive system of wildlife-
protected areas that occupies about 8% of the country’s land area. The protected
areas are distributed in all ecosystems and therefore provide an important
system of protection for flora and fauna and their habitats. Despite the great
efforts being made to conserve and use wildlife resources sustainably, the
sector is facing a number of challenges. Agricultural expansion, forest destruc-
tion and human-wildlife conflicts (resource use conflicts) are major chal-
lenges in the country. Changing land tenure systems, subdivision of group
ranches and lack of a comprehensive land-use policy are also major threats to
wildlife conservation.
Loss or damage of crops by wildlife in the farming communities is preva-
lent in areas where migratory routes and dispersal areas for animals have been
encroached by farms and settlements. Elephants are a major source of conflicts
since they destroy crops. Some incidents of lions predating on livestock have
also been a source of conflicts among the Maasai communities. In addition,
lack of equity in the sharing of benefits accruing from wildlife protected area
communities has contributed to the human-wildlife conflicts.
Agriculture: This is practiced mainly in the medium- and high-potential
areas. Genetic diversity within and between species comprising agricultural
biodiversity in the country is being reduced by pressure arising from efforts
to improve productivity through cross-breeding and general preference for
exotic varieties of both crops and breeds of animals. Agricultural biodiversity
also faces threats from neglect and under-utilisation of indigenous crops and
animal species.
Water: Kenya is a water-scarce country. It is estimated that the country re-
ceives 354- billion m3 of rainwater annually. However, due to rapid population
increase the annual per capita availability of water is now 647 m3 and per capita

4 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Table 1 Protected areas

Total area of Kenya 582 650

Area occupied by national parks 29 100,5 km2

Area occupied by national reserves 15 827,34 m2

Area occupied by national parks 5,0 %

Area occupied by reserves 3,7 %

Number of terrestrial national parks 23

Number of marine national parks 4

Total number of national reserves 27

Number of terrestrial national reserves 28

Number of marine national reserves 6

Total number of reserves 34

Total number of national sanctuaries 4

Number of forest reserves 203 (16 690) km2

Number of private reserves 6 (133) km2

Number of biosphere reserve 5 (346) km2

Wetland under the Ramsar Convention 188 km2

Number of planned forest reserve (143) 143 (9 385) km2

Source JICA Country profile on environment, 2007.

availability is projected to fall to 253 m3 by 202513. This is against of 1 000 –

1 700 m3 termed sufficient supply.
Kenya has a total of 467 lake and wetland habitats estimated to cover
1 460 300 ha or 2,5% of total land area.14 These include 18 large and many small
lakes, six man-made lakes, marshes, swamps and the banks of five main water-
shed river systems. Although rivers are distributed across the country, many do
not always have sufficient flow throughout the year. For example, the Athi River
is one of the main rivers in Kenya but may dry up as a result of excessive water
abstraction in the middle reaches during the dry season. Additionally, there is
the problem of rainfall distribution and inadequate water supply infrastructure.
Other constraints to water supply include uncontrolled diversion, degradation

Monograph 166 5
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Map 1 Protected areas in Kenya

Sudan Ethiopia

Lake Rudolf
(Lake Turkana)

Western Northern

Uganda
Somalia

Rift Valley
Mountain
Eastern
Central
Rift
Eastern
Nyeri
Lake
Victoria Central

Tsavo

Southern

Tanzania
Coast

KEY Indian
Indian
Ocean
National Park Marine National Reserve Ocean
National Reserve National Sanctuary Mombasa

Marine National Park

Source http://www.kws.org/kws/parks/conservation_areas/index.html

6 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Table 2 Approximate number of wildlife

Species Number

Elephant 17 500

Buffalo 22 500

Giraffe 34 000

Burchell’s zebra 120 000

Grevey’s zebra 4 800

Topi 3 100

Kongoni 10 000

Wildebeest 300 300

Oryx 21 500

Eland 8 600

H Hartbeest 1 000

Waterbuck 4 400

Kudu 13 600

Gerenuk 27 000

Impala 72 500

Grant’s gazelle 116 100

Thompson’s gazelle 48 700

Warthog 14 400

Ostrich 25 000

NB: declining number due to habitat loss, changes in land use, predation, poaching and
unfavourable weather conditions
Source Kenya Wildlife Service

of catchments, microclimate and weather changes, changes in settlement pat-

terns and quarrying along the riverbanks and beds.
The main freshwater lakes are concentrated in the Rift Valley. Lakes
Victoria, Baringo and Naivasha are freshwater lakes, while lakes Turkana and
Nakuru are brackish or saltwater. The annual potential of underground water
is reportedly about 619 million m3. Some 74% of the urban and 50% of the

Monograph 166 7
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

rural populations have drinking water. Agriculture accounts for 70% of water
consumption, domestic use 20% and industries 4%.15 Precipitation is the main
source of recharge for both surface- and groundwater during rains long and
short. However, deforestation of water catchment areas at an annual rate of 3%
in the Mau, Mount Kenya, Mount Elgon, Aberdares and Cherengany forests
poses a threat to underground and surface-water availability.
Deforestation has reduced the capacity of these water catchments to regulate
runoff , with subsequent flush floods experienced recently on the Kano plains,
in Budalangi area and in other parts of the country.

Key environmental issues

Poverty: About 56% of the Kenyan population lives below the poverty line.
Poverty leads to livelihoods that demand over-reliance on natural resources
leading to their over-use and destruction. Environmental problems aggravate
the poverty situation and make sustainable development an elusive goal.
Land degradation: This includes soil erosion, encroachment and exploita-
tion of marginal lands for agriculture due to population increase; overstocking
of livestock beyond carrying capacities and overgrazing, resulting in a reduction
in the economic potential of the affected areas; poor agricultural husbandry, for
example, ploughing on steep slopes and, indiscriminate use of inorganic ferti-
lisers, and land subdivisions and land-use changes.
Destruction of forests: Forest cover in Kenya is estimated at 1,7% of the
total land area and an annual reduction rate of 3%. Deforestation is increas-
ing due to encroachment, over-reliance on wood fuels, charcoal burning, illegal
logging, frequent forest fires and livestock grazing.
Loss of biodiversity: This arises from clearing of certain habitats such as
forests, over-exploitation of certain tree species such as the slow-growing
acacia, over-reliance on monocultures, erosion of indigenous knowledge related
to biodiversity, poaching, and introduction of invasive species.
Hazardous wastes, including medicinal wastes, pose serious risks to the
environment. The country has only two facilities16 to handle such waste. Most
clinics and hospitals do not have incinerators to dispose of their wastes.
Water pollution: Water resources include surface water, rainwater and
groundwater and these are polluted by organic, inorganic and microbial
matter. The main causes of water pollution include effluent from industry and

8 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

agricultural activities, soil erosion, municipal solid and liquid wastes, sludge
from wastewater treatment plants, asbestos and mining activities. Water quality
is not monitored regularly because of financial constraints and the absence of
monitoring systems. More than half the population does not have proper sani-
tation facilities. No more than 30% of the present 142 urban areas have sewerage
systems due to financial and planning deficiencies.
Air pollution: Air pollution is a major threat, and comes in the form of of-
fensive odour or noxious smells of decay - hydrogen sulphide released by de-
composing garbage, and odours from tanning plants, slaughterhouses and pig-
geries. The main source of air pollution, however, remains industries in major
towns. The main air pollutants in urban areas are the suspended particulate
matter (SPM), lead, oxides of sulphur (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen
sulphide (H2S), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
There are no established standards for most of these pollutants. But studies
show that levels in some towns far exceed WHO and other international stand-
ards. It should be noted, however, that the petroleum industry has now reverted
to low sulphur diesel and unleaded fuels.
Climate change and desertification: Although its contribution to global
warming is small, the impact of climate change is bound to be severely felt in
the country as its economy depends on climate-sensitive sectors such as agri-
culture and tourism. The country does not have the means to cope adequately
with climate hazards. Already, changing climate conditions are melting glaciers
on Mt Kenya - in 1900 it had 18 glaciers and now has only seven.17

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES PROJECT

The core objective of the ECP is to enhance human security through improving
regional law enforcement and policymaking to fight environmental crime in
eastern Africa.18
The ISS is a regional research institute operating across sub-Saharan Africa
and guided by a broad approach to security, reflecting the changing nature and
origin of threats to human development. Its mission is to conceptualise, inform
and enhance the debate on human security in Africa to support policy formula-
tion, implementation and decision making at all levels.19
The ECP intends to develop mechanisms to fight against environmental
crimes and, thus, improve the protection of the eastern Africa environment. It

Monograph 166 9
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

strives to enhance regional capacity to combat different forms of environmental

crimes such as illegal logging, illegal dumping, and illegal transportation or
transit of hazardous waste, illegal trade in wildlife species and illegal trade in
bush meat. The project is implemented in the following member states: Burundi,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. It also
seeks for future engagement with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The ECP falls under the Environmental Security Programme (ESP), which
addresses a wide range of issues, including environmental crimes, climate
change, energy security, food security, environment and natural resource man-
agement, pollution, gender-related issues in environment and human security,
the environmental agenda in peacekeeping doctrines, environmental diplo-
matic discourse and capacity building, and sustainable livelihoods.
The objectives of ECP are to:

■ Collect, collate, analyse, document and publish information on environ-

ment-related crimes;
■ Monitor, track and contribute to the prevention of environment-related
crimes;
■ Enhance institutional and legislative capacity of law enforcement agencies
to address environment-related crimes;
■ Undertake public education, awareness and community outreach pro-
grammes, and
■ Facilitate and participate in collaborative national, regional and interna-
tional processes to combat environmental crimes.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME AND SECURITY

Security can be defined as a sense of confidence, or that which guards or guar-
antees.20 Security is further divided into national and human security, with the
former looking mainly at external aggressors and internal domestic enemies.
On the other hand, human security is an emerging paradigm for understand-
ing global vulnerabilities, with proponents arguing that the proper referent for
security should be the individual rather than the state.21 First, human secu-
rity means safety from chronic threats such as hunger, disease and repression.
Secondly, it means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions to the pat-
terns of daily life.22

10 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Environmental crime affects the environment, quality of life and wellbeing

of human beings. It degrades the environment, destroys habitats and biodiver-
sity, reduces forest and wildlife resources, and destroys watersheds, leaving wells
and springs to dry and impact on the quality and quantity of water. Eventually,
it also impacts adversely on agriculture and food security, the overall quality
and quantity of environmental resources, and, ultimately, people’s lives and
livelihoods. Conflicts are often triggered by loss of or difficulty in sustaining
traditional livelihoods.23
The environment is about resources, and environmental crime impacts on
the availability of resources, resulting in undue competition for them. Growing
competition for scarce and dwindling resources, particularly vital resources
such as water, food and energy, in turn creates tension and volatile situations,
which easily trigger violent conflicts within and even between countries.
Competition for resources ordinarily results in resource-use conflicts. These
are already rife for water usage, and for pastures in pastoralist communities in
Kenya. Competition for resources has also led to conflicts between agricultur-
ists and pastoral communities, especially when droughts occur. Internationally,
the control and use of the River Nile is a good example of international political
tension on resources, which can easily lead to conflict.
Resource scarcity is usually induced by environmental degradation, which
is closely tied to poverty. Poverty, on the other hand, can be regarded as a cause
and consequence of environmental degradation. As such, environmental crime
also contributes to poverty and the potential for conflict. Environmental deg-
radation is thus a threat to human security and can also be both a cause and
consequence of violent conflict.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study was to collect data and generate information for the
production and publication of a comprehensive status report on the nature
and extent of illegal trade in flora and fauna as well as the illegal dumping of
hazardous waste in eastern Africa. This, in part, addresses the first and fourth
objectives of the ECP. It is a first step that hopefully will lead to other, more
detailed studies in thematic areas.
The study addressed the following nine tasks set out in the terms of refer-
ence (ToR):

Monograph 166 11
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

■ Undertake an inventory and thorough analysis of the state of the environ-

ment in the country.
■ Undertake a thorough analysis of the nature and extent of illegal trade in
fauna and flora.
■ Undertake a thorough examination of the nature and extent of pollution
and illegal transportation and dumping of hazardous waste.
■ Collect data from the national agencies, including national central bureaus
(NCBs), on statistics on the illegal trade in fauna and flora including illegal
logging, illegal transportation and dumping of hazardous waste as well as
pollution.
■ Examine the legal regime governing the management and enforcement of
environmental crime in the country.
■ Identify and assess the effectiveness of the relevant government institutions
in detecting and enforcing environmental crime in the country.
■ Identify and analyse the challenges faced by government institutions in the
detection of environmental crime in the country and enforcement.
■ Identify key national level civil society actors and the role they play in as-
sisting law enforcement agencies in fighting environmental crime in the
country.
■ Present the findings of the study at public fora and workshops organised by
the ISS.

The study further looked at the capacity of key institutions to fight environ-
mental crime, and the manner in which data are captured, stored, retrieved and
shared among the focal players.

STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The study approach was geared to meet all the tasks in the ToR, and give a de-
tailed analysis of the status of environmental crime in the country.
The methods used were:

■ Extensive review of literature, policy and legislation;

■ Key informant interviews;
■ Internet searches, and
■ E-mail enquiries where face-to-face interviews were not possible.

12 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

The study was undertaken mainly in Nairobi, but included a brief visit to the
coastal town of Mombasa.
The team interviewed 38 persons from 27 institutions who gave informa-
tion on the nature of crimes they are aware of, the extent and seriousness of
the crimes, species involved, the perpetrators, how they and their organisations
are dealing with the crimes, and the challenges of doing so. All data were then
collated and analysed.
A stakeholders’ workshop was held to authenticate the findings and to obtain
feedback and additional information on the study.

Monograph 166 13
2 Nature of
environmental
crime in Kenya
PARTICIPANTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME
The characteristics of those involved in environmental crime depend on
whether the crime is intentional or not, and whether it is commercial (has some
economic benefit) or subsistent.
As with other crimes, those involved in environmental crimes can be char-
acterised largely into four groups:
Individuals: They act of their own accord and are mainly subsistent. Most of
these crimes are committed out of negligence, lack of alternatives or the need to
survive. Examples are waste disposal in slums and snaring of wildlife for own
consumption. This group is difficult to apprehend or control.
Small, independent groups: These are small, largely independent and
semi-permanent groups of persons who are subsistent in their operations, and
meet only to actualise the crime, for example, snaring or hunting of animals.
They are hard to control, especially if they are irregular operators. Regular
groups are easier to apprehend, since they operate in the same areas and use
similar tactics.

Monograph 166 15
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Organised groups: They operate in networks and are always commercial in

their exploits. In organised groups, different people play different roles, and this
makes it difficult to control or apprehend them. In rare cases, some links to
the long chain may be arrested, especially those involved in the initial crime
(actual killing of wildlife or undertaking illegal logging), or those involved in
transportation. The real leaders of organised groups are well connected with
politicians and security personnel, and are rarely arrested as they do not do
the actual work, but only facilitate the movement of the illegal goods from one
point to another.
Corporate bodies: They are involved mainly in business or other com-
mercial activities and their crimes are related primarily to pollution and
non-compliance to statutory obligations such as undertaking environ-
mental impact assessments and audits. Their main interest is economic,
and they pollute to save costs, by, for example, not treating their effluent
before discharging into water bodies. These are easy to apprehend with
strict enforcement.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN THE FORESTRY SECTOR

Illegal trade in sandalwood (Santalum Album)

This is currently the most popular commercial illegal trade in flora. A five-year
presidential ban on harvesting sandalwood was imposed in February 2007.
Sandalwood contains essential oils with a fragrant scent and is used in the
manufacture of cosmetics. The essential oils are more concentrated in the roots
than in the stem, and as a result the whole tree is uprooted. The species has male
and female plants, with the latter being favoured for its fragrance.
Currently, there is a ‘rush’ for sandalwood because it fetches very good prices
on the international market: 1kg of essential oils sells for about US$ 1 500. These
prices are not reflected locally, where farmers sell sandalwood to middlemen for
between KSh. 80 and 200 (US$ 1 – US$ 2,50) per kg.24 Sandalwood was origi-
nally sourced from Chyulu Hills, and from Tsavo West in protected areas. It
was then ‘discovered’ in the western and eastern parts of the country, with key
areas including Baringo, Pokot, Samburu and Naivasha districts.
Kenyan sandalwood is exported mainly to India and China and is or-
dinarily sent abroad as wood. The key dealers are politicians and traders of

16 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Asian origin. However, since the ban and subsequent awareness of it export,
sandalwood now is exported through Tanzania. There is a chain to facilitate
passage from the village where middlemen buy it, to its transportation by
road to Namanga and the larger Kajiado district, from where it smuggled
into Tanzania. On 6 October 2008, 40 tonnes harvested in Maralal (Samburu
district) were netted at Namanga.25 An estimated similar amount had already
crossed into Tanzania. KWS has already netted about 20 tonnes in 2009 and
made 40 arrests.26
With transportation becoming increasingly difficult, traders are now semi-
processing sandalwood into chips and sawdust. It is then transported, and even
exported, in these forms packaged in packets the size of cigarette packs. Some
are sent as ‘free samples’ and are thus exempt from duty.27
Although the tree would assist communities to generate revenue and improve
their lives, the present method of uprooting the whole tree is not sustainable
as the tree is slow growing. Additionally, the plant is parasitic and it requires
a host to support its growth. To make the growing of sandalwood sustainable
and commercial, KEFRI is currently researching its propagation, but the main
problem has been to find a suitable host.28

Illegal logging
This is rampant in most forests, especially as a result of the presidential ban on
logging in government forests. Illegal loggers targets mainly indigenous species
although exotics are also illegally harvested.

Figure 1 Abandoned trailer in Mau forest

Source Kamfor Company Limited (2005)

Monograph 166 17
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Figure 2 Impounded timber at

Narok County Council

Source Kamfor Company Limited (2005)

Small-scale illegal logging is done using seesaws, and power saws in some areas,
and is done mainly at night. Large-scale illegal logging is done using power saws
and is undertaken by timber merchants in collusion with government authori-
ties responsible for the resources.
Some illegally mined timber is exported to Singapore, China, India and the
Middle East, which favour mainly the indigenous species of cedar, podo and
camphor. Although exotic, cypress is also popular, mainly in the local market.
KFS and KWS staff patrol and make arrests and seizures of some of the
illegally harvested timber and the vehicles carrying it. However, the areas
are large and the staff few. Corruption is also rampant, especially with the
timber merchants.
Key areas are the Mau and Mt Elgon. The problem has declined in the
Aberdares due to the fencing project and because various groups are active in
this area. In October 2008 alone, six trucks were apprehended in Mau forest,29
and in Transmara district, an average of one lorryload of illegal timber is seized
each month.30

Illegal trade in other flora

This involves mainly endemic species such as the African orchid flower, which
looks like leopard skin, in Tiwi and Kwale; and the African violet in the Taita
Hills. The African Violet Society in the USA has clones of the African violet
that it admits were sourced from Kenya.31

18 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

There is also the African aloe which is listed under CITES and is now ex-
ported as resin, and Prunus africana. Additionally, there is bioprospecting
and biopiracy of undetermined extent. Some cases, however, are well known
and followed up. These include the bacteria from Lake Bogoria, sourced from
Kenya,32 and used in an enzyme for the production of faded jeans.
There is also theft of indigenous knowledge, especially of the use and values
of certain herbs and medicinal herbs. Benefits sharing as enshrined in the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have not been actualised, although
Kenya is a signatory to this convention.

Forest excisions
Forests have in the past been excised illegally, even without the necessary
degazettement. Key areas have included water catchments such as the Mau
complex. The excisions have been done mainly with a view to settling indig-
enous communities such as the Ogiek, who have lived in the Mau all their
lives, but the bulk of the land is hijacked by politicians and administrators. The
‘illegal’ beneficiaries then sub-divide their large parcels of land and then sell
tracts to unsuspecting members of local communities.
In the Mau complex alone, 35 000 ha have been excised in eastern Mau,
22 000 ha in south western Mau and 1 000 ha in Molo. About 15 000 ha have
been settled on in the Maasai Mau.33 There are about 20 000 persons now settled
in the Mau, but only 1 962 have title deeds.34
Excisions especially in the water catchment have resulted in loss of ecosys-
tem goods and services, leading to flash floods during and just after the rainy
seasons, and lower base flows during other times. With increasing human
populations in the upper catchments, communities downstream experience
water shortages, which leads to conflicts. In the Mau complex alone, 12 rivers
are threatened. Excisions have also resulted in loss of biodiversity.
The new Forest Act of 2005 has adequately addressed the issue of forest exci-
sions. It provides that no forest excisions will be done without an EIA and the
approval of parliament. If these provisions are enforced, the Act will enhance
the preservation of gazetted forests.
In areas such as the Mau, a land audit is being undertaken by a taskforce
appointed by the prime minister in 2008. After the audit the taskforce, which

Monograph 166 19
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

includes both public and private sector actors, will give recommendations on
measures to preserve the Mau.

Forests encroachment
This is rampant in most forest areas with the most common areas being the
Mau forest complex, Marmanet forest, Marakwet forest, and Ol rabel, Gakanga
and Mandusuna near Arabuko Sokoke at the Coast Province.
Encroachment takes different forms with the key forms being illegal cultiva-
tion of food crops, cutting of fodder, beekeeping, and firewood collection (the
most common). Collection of firewood and fodder is allowed in some forests for
a token fee. These issues are addressed in the new Forest Act.35
Most encroachment results from the ending of the Shamba system, through
which communities were allowed to farm on condition that they plant and tend
young seedlings.
There have also been illegal assemblies of people and training of warriors
in forests. An example is Mt Elgon, where militias hide in caves and take part
in transboundary crime, terrorising the local communities and taking cover
in Uganda.36

Illegal grazing
This is a crime in both forests and wildlife conservation areas and is closely tied
to encroachment. It is a major problem especially in the Tsavos, Mau complex
and Mt Kenya regions. Countrywide, about 500 000 animals are poached an-
nually, with the Tsavos accounting for about 80%. The KWS alone arrests in the
region of 1 000 persons a year.37 Others are arrested by KFS and the police for
trespassing on private property.
The problem is difficult to manage as the boundary between the protected
areas and forests has no barriers. The local communities, mostly pastoralists
with high regard for their animals, also feel they have a ‘right’ to graze their
animals anywhere. Illegal grazing also occurs in Laikipia, where pastoral com-
munities invade private, agricultural and ranching farms.
Illegal grazing, other than destroying the forests and protected areas’ eco-
systems, causes conflicts between pastoralists and farmers, and pastoralists and

20 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

the government (KFS and KWS), and also leads to animals contracting diseases
such as east coast fever from the close interaction with wildlife.

Illegal forest fires

Lighting of fires is forbidden in government forests,38 but this rule has been rou-
tinely ignored and fires started for land preparation, honey hunting, charcoal
burning and cigarette smoking. Other fires are started maliciously or through
carelessness in throwing away matches or cigarette butts. For example, a total
of 200 acres of the Ontulili forest in the Mt. Kenya region was destroyed by fire
in August 2008.39

Growing of bhang
This was common in the Mt Kenya forest, where large-scale plantations had
been established and transported using even helicopters. This has now been
curbed somewhat, but there are still small pockets of bhang being planted. The
crop takes about six months to mature.
This crime escalates during the rainy season when it is difficult to patrol the
forests. However, the perpetrators collude with certain government officials,
which make the crime difficult to eliminate.

Illegal charcoal making

This crime is akin to illegal logging, as trees in government forests and trust
land are felled and converted into charcoal. It is very common in the arid and
semi-arid lands (ASALs) where it is a fallback economic activity when it is too
dry to farm or raise livestock. It is also common in areas under civic authorities
as they are more easily accessible and rarely manned.
In dealing with the problem, charcoal kilns found are usually destroyed and
bags of charcoal seized. In the Mau forest alone since the taskforce was formed,
11 031 bags of charcoal40 have been seized, whilst in Transmara District, there
is an average of eight lorryloads of charcoal a month and 90 donkeys that
carry charcoal from the forests each day41. Mangroves are also harvested for
charcoal burning.42

Monograph 166 21
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN THE WILDLIFE SECTOR

Illegal trade in wildlife and their products

It is illegal in Kenya to handle wildlife or wildlife products without a licence.43
Illegal trade involves mainly African grey parrots and lovebirds, most of which
originate from Congo and Uganda. Most are sourced from trailer drivers at
about Ksh. 40 000 a pair.44 Most buyers are Asians.
There are about 4 000 illegal parrots and KWS has, through a public notice,
given citizens the chance to keep the birds by registering them. The response
has been very poor, however, with only 25 people responding.45 Those who reg-
istered their birds were given letters of authenticity to foster the birds on behalf
of KWS. They will, however, not be able to export them.
Other illegal trade involves snakes such as puff adders, cobras, black mambas,
mountain vipers and pythons, which are all traded as pets. Others include croc-
odile and tortoise (leopard tortoise found in Ukambani, Baringo, Koibatek and
Kajiado districts and pancake tortoise commonly found in Mwingi district).
Recently, 18 crates of snakes and terrapins were impounded at Jomo Kenyatta
International Airport (JKIA). A similar consignment had already flown out, but
was intercepted in Frankfurt, Germany, with assistance from Interpol.46
There is also illegal trade in bush meat from zebra, buffalo, giraffe and other
animals. This is sold mostly in Nairobi and other major towns. The main outlets
are hotels and restaurants, where the meat is cut into small pieces and cooked,
rather than places such as butcheries where meat is displayed. The trade in bush
meat is receding, but it has been a tough battle for KWS.47
There have also been a few cases of ivory trade involving Chinese nationals.

Poaching
Poaching is either commercial or subsistence. Commercial poaching involves
bush meat, elephants (for ivory), rhino (for their horn) and cats, namely leopard
and lion (for their skin, claws and teeth).48 Commercial poaching is rife on the
northern frontier where there are many illegal firearms. Key areas are Tana
River, Lamu, Isiolo, Samburu, Marsabit and Garissa districts.
Subsistence poaching involves use of dogs, blinding by powerful torches
and stupefying with blow horns, bows and arrows, and snares (wire, string, and

22 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Figure 3 Elephant tusks

Source Interpol – www.interpol.org

noose). It is widespread and more than 95%49 occurs outside protected areas
where more than 60% of wildlife is found. The main problem areas are wildlife
dispersal areas and corridors, and where KWS presence is thin. Most of these
areas are controlled by local authorities. The main animals targeted are ante-
lopes, zebra, buffalo, gazelles, dik dik and other small animals, and the main
problem areas are the Tsavos, Taita Taveta and Machakos areas. This year alone
KWS has removed about 5 000 snares, 80% from the Tsavos, whilst the African
Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) removed 171 snares in four days in
Machakos and estimates that about 8 000 animals have been killed in a 23 km2

Figure 4 Poacher arrested and jailed for

five years after killing giraffe

Source ANAW (2008)

Monograph 166 23
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Figure 5 Dried giraffe meat

Source ANAW (2008)

area in Machakos alone50. In Transmara district, an average of fift y snares are

removed every month.51
Subsistence poaching is also undertaken by settler communities that
have not lived side by side with wildlife. This is common in former ranges in
Samburu, Laikipia and Taita districts.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN THE TOURISM SECTOR

Blockage of access to natural resources

Tourist facilities, especially hotels and lodges at the coast, block access paths
to beaches, making it difficult for local communities to access these important
recreational facilities. In some instances, tourist facilities also block fish landing
sites in the name of security of tourists.
Other than blocking access to beaches, tourist facilities impact on the landscape
and block the beach view and sea breeze to those behind the facilities.

Aesthetic pollution
Some tourist facilities are built totally out of character with their surroundings,
with materials and colours not in harmony with the natural environment. This
is mainly so in and around wildlife protected areas.

24 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Figure 6 Beach
encroachment Figure 7 Beach walls

Figure 8 Blockage of Figure 9 Offroad driving

access paths impacts

Source Kamfor 2006

Offroad driving
This is common in national parks and reserves, where tour operators drive
off road in search of animals to for tourists to view and photograph. This de-
grades the vegetation causes soil erosion. Off road driving also disturbs animals,
with many tourist vehicles congregating around single animals, especially the
big cats.

Destruction of marine, lacustrine and river ecosystems

Many tourist facilities along the Kenya coast and the major rivers (Tana, Athi,
Ewaso Ng’iro) are built too close to the water bodies in contravention of the law
requiring a distance of 6m – 30m from the highest water mark.

Monograph 166 25
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Built too close to water bodies, these facilities contribute to soil erosion and
sometimes discharge liquid and solid wastes directly or indirectly through in-
fi ltration. The facilities also expose guests to the dangers of flooding.
At the coast, these facilities also interfere with marine life, especially turtles,
which breed on the beaches and which are disoriented by light and glare. The
facilities also contribute to beach erosion, especially through construction of
beach walls, and sometimes encroach on the beaches.

Poor waste disposal

Tourist facilities are wanting in terms of both solid and effluent disposal, with
some facilities discharging their wastes directly into water bodies. Poor disposal
of solid wastes by the tourist facilities is evident from the many marabou storks
seen hovering around their waste disposal sites. The facilities also contribute to
beach littering and pollution, and impact on wildlife, which become dependent
on waste food.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN THE WATER SECTOR

Diversion of water bodies

This is illegal in Kenya52 and is done mainly for irrigation. In some instances,
it has led to significant adverse environmental impacts and water use conflicts,
especially between communities upstream and downstream. An example is the
Rumi River in Taveta, which originates from the Kilimanjaro hills and flows to
Lake Jipe from where another river, Ruvu, starts. Earlier, water had been divert-
ed using blockages so that it flowed directly to Ruvu River, bypassing Lake Jipe,
which was in danger of drying up completely. Water from Ruvu River flows to
Nyumba ya Mungu dam and then goes on to generate power. As the Ruvu is in
Tanzania, the issue is actually transboundary in nature.53 Rivers have also been
diverted for fish farming.
The diversion of water bodies is closely tied with over-abstraction of water.
Most water abstracted is not metered. Further, the abstraction occurs all year in
contravention of laid-down regulations,54 which mandate the construction of
reservoirs for storage.

26 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Water pollution
This is rampant and includes discharge of effluent directly into water bodies.
The most common illegal source of pollution is discharge of raw sewerage from
municipalities that lack adequate systems for sewerage treatment and disposal.
Other polluters are industry and hotels. Illegal discharge is also done by those
who do not meet the required standards.55
Landlords and real estate developers also discharge wastewater illegally,
when their properties are not connected to sewers or septic tanks as is required
by law. Others may have septic tanks that cannot handle the amount of waste
generated mainly because they have changed the original building plans.
Through a notice issued through the newspapers, these persons are usually
given one month’s notice by NEMA to put up adequate septic tanks and exhaust
them regularly, or come together and set up an effluent treatment plant. Failure
to do so results in their buildings being condemned.56
Other environmental crimes include anthropogenic activities such as car-
washing on shores and in rivers.

Reclamation of wetlands
Wetlands are protected by law57 and by international convention.58 However,
most wetland areas are being reclaimed for agriculture, whilst some in the cities
are being used for construction, with resultant flooding during the rainy season.
Key wetlands impacted include the Yala Swamp.

Figure 10 Open sewer drain

Figure 11 Carwash in Lake
into Indian Ocean
Victoria, Kisumu (2007)
in Lamu (2006)

Source Kamfor 2008

Source Kamfor 2008

Monograph 166 27
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Illegal development in riparian areas

Due to increasing competition for land, people have encroached on riparian
reserves for economic activities. There is also a tendency in towns and cities for
developments to occur along rivers and other water bodies. This is more so in
towns such as Nairobi, where there are many developments along the Nairobi
River. Naivasha is another town where several horticultural farms have en-
croached on the riparian reserve. The Nairobi River is currently being mapped
with a view to moving any developments out of the riparian section.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN THE FISHERIES SECTOR

Illegal trade in ornamental fish

Ornamental fish are collected among the coral reefs and exported to interna-
tional markets. It is very lucrative and there are some licensed dealers, but also
several illegal traders who are difficult to net because most licensed operators
hire local fishermen to collect fish for them, creating a grey area in terms of
which fishermen are contracted by licensed dealers.
Even for licensed dealers, there are no limits on amounts and species collected.
All licensed dealers do is declare their fish to the fisheries department for royalty
purposes. The beach management units operating in the various ports, which are
made up of locals, have, however, raised complaints with the department about
the quantities and sizes of ornamental fish, and even the methods used.59

Illegal fishing methods

Both dynamite and poisons are used in the fishing industry contrary to laid-
down regulations.60 Dynamite is used to scare fish (mainly lobsters) from
crevices in coral rocks and results in the destruction of coral reefs that may
have been formed over many years. This is undertaken mainly by the Wapemba
from Tanzania. Other illegal fishing methods include the use of irregular gear
comprising mainly small/restricted nets in certain water bodies, and the use of
fishing crabs among mangroves.
Illegal fishing also involves the use of leaves and other materials which
sedate or kill fish, which then float in the water and are easy to catch. Other

28 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

fisherfolk use water gas, which removes fish (mainly lobsters) from their crev-
ices. Poisoned fish are easily identifiable from bleeding gills.61
In Malindi, the use of ringnets for fishing has been a very controversial
subject and a source of a fierce resource-use conflict between artisanal fisher-
men and the commercial ringnet fishermen. However, ringnet fishing targets
only fish moving in shoals and its destructiveness arises from its catching of
fish en masse. Due to fierce opposition from local fishermen, the fisheries de-
partment has ordered this method suspended in the district.
Other illegal fishing methods include use of undersize nets, monofi lament
nets, spear guns, harpoons, beach seines and herbal poison (locally called
mkanga). Although these methods are illegal, some persist due to poor enforce-
ment by the fisheries department.

Illegal fish farming

Although fish farming is highly encouraged in the country, a new, illegal form
that involves blocking of creeks along the Kenyan coast. There is no farming per
se, but the fish are trapped in these ‘ponds’ and then harvested. The activity is
done in groups and is now rampant in the Kwetu area along the coast.

Illegal trawling
Trawling is banned in Lake Victoria but allowed in the Indian Ocean62 where
there are some licensed dealers. However, there are several unlicensed trawler
operators who come into Kenyan waters (200 nautical miles from the shore)
for trawling purposes, mostly for prawns. This is a very destructive method of
fishing, as it catches other fish, which are later discarded as bycatch. This bycatch,
on average, constitutes a ratio of 8:1 of the total catch by weight. That means for
every a tonne of prawns caught, there are eight tonnes of bycatch. Artisanal fish-
ermen are strongly opposed to trawlers because they argue that trawler operators
destroy the fish that would constitute their catch. Most trawlers are of Japanese
and Korean origin and it is said that the piracy on the Gulf of Eden actually
started with armed gangs protecting the Somali waters from these trawlers.
Even for licensed operators, the amounts netted are not known, as the ships
do not dock and some process their catch aboard. It is also not clear whether
the trawlers release unintended catches as required.

Monograph 166 29
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Another challenge is that trawlers destroy local fishing gear such as boats
and fishing nets, which contributes to impoverishment of artisanal fishermen.
Furthermore, although trawlers are fitted with turtle exclusion devices
(TEDs), they are not effective and deaths of turtles and dugongs from trawlers
are always reported by fishermen.

Foreign fisherfolk
Many foreigners, notably the Wapemba from Tanzania, fish illegally in Kenyan
waters and also use the wrong fishing methods. That said, Kenyan fisherfolk
are often arrested and jailed by both Ugandan and Tanzanian authorities for
fishing outside Kenya waters.

HAZARDOUS WASTES
Hazardous wastes, which include medical wastes, are generated in industries
producing consumer products such as tobacco, beer, rubber, tyres and steel, and
in oilwell drilling, medical institutions and agriculture.
There is much concern about radioactive pollution, including radioac-
tive wastes dumped on uncontrolled landfi ll sites without inspection by local
governments. This may affect the health of garbage-processing workers and
scavengers. Radioactive materials dumped on the coast may affect the natural
environment, and there is the international transport of nuclear wastes. Some
20 years ago,63 the Kenya Grain Growers Cooperative Union complained about
dumping of radioactive wastes by oil-drilling companies in Wajir and in Athi
River, Ngurumani and Menengai. In other incidents, 13 lorries carrying suspi-
cious materials (claimed to be scrap metal) were stopped in Garissa.
Transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes is also not uncommon64 at
the port of Mombasa, where occasionally, damaged or leaking cargo is send back
to the ship. In one incident last year, two leaking containers of nitric acid were
returned to the ship. Ideally, the cargo should have been stripped and salvaged at
the ship owner’s cost before going back to the ship, the owner refused to comply
and the nitric acid was dumped into the sea. The vessel owner has been sued.65
Given the rising concern about hazardous wastes, NEMA has developed
regulations66 to govern waste disposal mechanisms and procedures, including
those for e-waste, which is considered hazardous waste due to its content.

30 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Figure 12 Dandora dumpsite, Nairobi

Source Fieldwork October 2008

Figure 13 Dandora dumpsite, Nairobi

Source Fieldwork October 2008

As per the new regulations, the major environmental ‘criminals’ are municipal
and town councils that are required to have designated sites for waste disposal
where sanitary landfi lls are to be used. None of the councils has fulfilled these
conditions. Others are large multinational firms that do not see the need to
conform to the stringent environmental standards they follow while operating
in western countries. What matters to them are costs and the result is adverse
impact on the environment.
Other violators include medical clinics and hospitals without incinerators to
burn their waste as required and that dump medical and solid waste together.
Others are transporters of solid waste, who have to be registered, have covered
vehicles, and the required personnel.

Monograph 166 31
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

CRIMES DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE

These are new crimes arising out of new legislation, namely the Environmental
Management and Coordination Act and the various regulations prepared under
the Act.
The key offences here include those related to inspection (for example,
blocking of environmental inspectors), failing to carry out environmental
impact assessment and environmental audits, not keeping records as required,
not operating according to laid-out standards, offences related to hazardous
wastes, pollution, and non-compliance with restoration orders, easements and
conservation orders.

OTHER CRIMES

Use of banned substances

Although several chemicals, especially persistent organic pollutants (POPS)
have been banned in the country, they are still used and traces found in water
bodies, agricultural produce and soil samples.67

Global warming
Contributing to global warming is a new crime due to the grave impacts of
the phenomenon. The chemistry department of the University of Nairobi is
currently monitoring climate change in the country especially its impact on
malaria, which is currently shifting to the highlands. Here, its impact is severe
as the residents do not have natural resistance to the disease.68

Illegal mining
Mining involves construction materials and gemstones and is done in both pro-
tected and non-protected areas. Most mining in Kenya is open cast and in some
cases uses ammonium nitrate dynamites for blasting.
Most illegal mining is undertaken for gemstones (green, purple and red
granites and rubies), whilst most operators in the construction sector operate
without licences. Other illegal activities in mining include use of licensed

32 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

blasters.69 Mining in protected areas and forests requires special consent from
KFS70 and KWS.71

Non-rehabilitation of mines
This is widespread in both protected and non-protected areas and goes against
the Mining Act,72 which mandates those who carry out mining to rehabilitate
the mining areas on abandonment. In practice, however, miners move to new
sites without rehabilitating the old mines. With gemstones, the main issue is the
technology used, with old mines being left open ‘in case’ more minerals will be
found later.
Non-rehabilitation of mines causes land degradation and is an eyesore, es-
pecially as most mines in Kenya are open cast. Their non-rehabilitation also
causes accidents and provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other pests.
NEMA is piloting new guidelines for miners in the eastern province.

Sand harvesting
Sand harvesting, although legally undertaken, is done unsustainably in the
country. Harvesting in river beds has led to change even in river courses with
resultant adverse impacts on livelihoods, particularly among women who now
have to walk longer distances to fetch water. Sand harvesting has been banned
in many areas, but the local civic authorities are not keen to enforce the ban as
they get cess from the sand transporters.

Monograph 166 33
3 Legal framework
for enforcement of
environmental crime
LEGISLATION
Kenya has various statutes that seek to protect natural resources from over-
exploitation and degradation and protect the public from the potentially dire
consequences of pollution and the degradation of natural resources. This body
of legislation is concerned principally with ensuring the sustainable use of
natural resources according to a number of fundamental principles developed
over the years through both local and international processes.
The key environmental law is the Environmental Management and
Coordination Act of 1999, which, as the name implies, seeks to coordinate the
protection of the environment in Kenya. Despite this law, the country’s institu-
tional framework remains fragmented and key environmental laws and regula-
tions are still lacking.73 Relevant and applicable laws governing flora, fauna and
the environment include the following:

Monograph 166 35
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Table 3 Relevant legislation for environmental crime in Kenya

Legislation Applicability Institution

■ EIA licence
Environmental Management and ■ EIA/EA compliance
■
NEMA
Coordination Act (EMCA) 1999 Pollution prevention
■ Environmental degradation

Environmental Management and ■ Undertaking of EIA

Coordination (Environmental ■ Undertaking of EA NEMA
Impact Assessment and Audit) ■ Improvement orders
Regulations 2003

■ Provides for the protection of

water sources
Environmental Management ■ Water pollution prevention
and Coordination (Water Quality) ■
NEMA
Provides standards for effluent
Regulations 2006
discharge in aquatic and
sewerage systems

Environmental Management and ■ Provides standards for handling,

Coordination (Waste Management transportation and disposal of NEMA
) Regulations 2006 different types of wastes

Environmental Management and ■ Protection of endangered

Coordination (Conservation of species andenvironmentally
Biodiversity, Access to Genetic significant areas, provision of NEMA
Resources and Benefit Sharing) access permits, material transfer
Regulations 2006 agreements and benefit sharing
■ Provides for acceptable emission
standards by motor vehicles and
Environmental Management and
generators
Coordination (Fossil Fuel Emission ■
NEMA
Any use of unpermitted fuel
Control) Regulations 2006
catalysts must be disclosed for
approval
■ Establishment of national parks,
reserves and sanctuaries
■ Establishment of mines within
parks
The Wildlife (Conservation and ■
Ministry of forestry
Code of conduct within the park:
Management )Act, Cap. 376 and wildlife
offroad driving, introduction of
invasive species, collecting of
trophies and animal disturbance
■ Flying restrictions (<1500ft)

36 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Legislation Applicability Institution

■ Acquisition of land and
National Museums and Heritage National Museums
monuments, sacred sites and
Act 2006 of Kenya
forests of cultural significance
■ Regulates trout fishing
■ Protection of fish and turtle
breeding sites
■ Prohibits gathering of corals Department of
Fisheries Act, Cap 378 1989
whether alive or dead, and use of fisheries
explosives in fishing
■ Provides a list of gazetted fish
landing sites
■ Provides for the establishment
of the Kenya Forest Service to
manage state forests
■ Recognises the vital role played
by community participation
in the management and
conservation of forestry Kenya Forest
Forest Act 2005
resources Service
■ Provides for protection of
forestry resources
■ Any tourism development in
the national forest must be
authorised by Kenya Forest
Service.
■ Provides for prevention and
introduction of diseases that are
destructive to plants
■
Kenya Plant Health
Plant Protection Act Cap 324 Prohibits introduction of exotic
Inspectorate
species into the country
■ Provides for quarantine and
prescribed offences
■ Provides for clearing of
Suppression of Noxious Weeds noxious weeds such as datura Ministry of
Cap 325 stramonium and eichhornia agriculture
crassipes (water hyacinth)
■ Management of water resources
■ Regulation of rights to supply
and use water Ministry of water
Water Act 2002 ■ Provision of water permits and irrigation
■ Provision of sewerage services
■ Prevention of water pollution

Monograph 166 37
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Legislation Applicability Institution

■ Principal land use statute
■ Prohibits any land use practices
that may intensify soil erosion Ministry of
Agriculture Act Cap 318 ■ Provides for protection of agriculture
riparian zones up to 30m-high
watermark
■ Provision of clean and sanitary
premises
Public Health Act Cap 242 ■
Local authorities
Protection of public health
■ Prevention of public nuisance
■ Provision of sewerage services
Local Government Act Cap 265 ■ Pollution prevention through Local authorities
enforcement of the law
■ Provides for prosecution of
persons polluting water bodies,
Penal Code Cap 63 GoK
or causing injury to human
health

■ Prohibits air pollution from

Traffic Act Cap 403 GoK
motor vehicles

■ Provides for protection of public

and radiation workers from
ionising radiation
Radiation Protection Act Cap 243 ■
NEMA
Prohibits unauthorized
manufacture, use and disposal of
radioactive materials
■ Provides for conservation
and management of marine
Kenya Maritime
The Maritime Zones Act Cap 371 resources
■
Authority
Prescribes the limits of national
jurisdiction

■ Provides for the establishment of Kenya Maritime

Maritime Authority Act 2006
new maritime authority Authority

■ Governs the exploration of

Kenya Maritime
Continental Shelf Act Cap 312 natural resourcesliving and non-
Authority
living on the seabed or in subsoil

■ Provides for duty of care upon

Occupier’s Liability Act Cap 34 Local authorities
persons residing on the premises

38 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
AGREEMENTS (MEAS) AND TREATIES
Kenya has ratified various international conventions and multilateral environ-
mental agreements that outlaw environmental crimes. Conventions are agree-
ments that are binding on states that have become parties to them. Kenya is a
party to, among others:

■ ‘Convention on biological diversity’ (ratified 26 July 1994) and the

‘Cartegena protocol on biosafety (party 11 September 2003).
■ ‘Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna
and flora’ (ratified 13 February 1978).
■ ‘Lusaka agreement on cooperative enforcement operations directed at
illegal trade in wild fauna and flora’ (ratified 17 January 1997).
■ ‘Convention on the conservation of migratory species (ratified 5 January
1999) and one of its instruments, the ‘African Eurasian waterbird agree-
ment’ (ratified 1 June 2001). Kenya also participates in information ex-
change and joint cooperation with other countries in the western Indian
Ocean sub-region on sea turtle and dugong conservation.
■ ‘Ramsar convention on wetlands’ (ratified 5 October 1990).
■ ‘African convention on conservation of nature and natural resources
(Algiers 1969) ratified in 1992.
■ ‘Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazard-
ous wastes and their disposal’ (ratified in 2000).
■ ‘The Kyoto Protocol’
■ ‘Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants’ (ratified in
2006).

CHALLENGES IN LEGISLATION TO
COMBAT ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME
Kenya has established statutory and regulatory frameworks to control environ-
mental crimes, especially illegal trade in flora and fauna. The implementation
and enforcement of the various statutes is vested in the relevant government
agencies, but are marred by various challenge, including:

Monograph 166 39
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

■ Lack of sufficiently punitive deterrents, since most environmental offenders

are given very light sentences. Typically, environmental offenders are fined
very low sums of money, which only makes it worthwhile for them to con-
tinue with their illegal activities.
■ Lack of enforcement. There is poor enforcement of existing legislation,
mainly because law enforcement agencies lack the capacity to detect, arrest
and enforce the laws on environmental crime. Law enforcement has also
been undermined by corruption, whilst some law enforcers have been dis-
couraged by the non-deterrent punishment, especially when compared to
the efforts they expend in bringing the offenders to book.
■ Lack of policy harmonisation in fighting environmental crimes. An illustra-
tion is the conflict between the Wildlife Act and the Forest Act. The former
prohibits entry into protected areas, whilst the latter allows access to forest
products by communities in protected areas. The National Museums and
Heritage Act 2006 also provides for acquisition of land and monuments,
sacred sites and forests of cultural significance. Due to lack of harmoniation
in the management of flora and fauna, the general public is unsure of what
constitutes environmental crime and what does not.
■ Community participation is crucial in the fight against illegal trade in flora
and fauna and other environmental crimes. This is because agencies depend
upon the voluntary cooperation and truthful reporting of members of the
regulated community. But community participation and community polic-
ing have been lacking, which undermines the credibility and integrity of the
overall regulatory regime.
■ Lack of a clear environmental communication strategy on applicable
laws and regulations is also a challenge. New laws are published, but are
not disseminated to the grassroot levels, which is crucial if they are to be
implemented.
■ Lack of harmonisation in managing transboundary ecosystems such as
parks and waters. The Serengeti and Maasai Mara are good examples of such
transboundary ecosystems. However, the former is a national park and the
latter is a game reserve. Lack of harmonisation poses a big challenge, espe-
cially when pursuing poachers and enforcing environmental crimes such as
deforestation of the Mau forest, which affects the Mara River, the lifeline of
the Serengeti and Maasai Mara.

40 Institute for Security Studies

4 Capacity of
institutions to detect
crime and enforce law
To address environmental crime adequately, the key institutions need to be
mandated by law, which should provide for sufficiently punitive deterrents.
These institutions should also be supported by an intelligence network capable
of detecting crimes, able enforcers to apprehend the perpetrators, and able
prosecutors. This whole system should also be seen to be fair and address the
issues of corruption.
Kenya has not designated a single national institution to fight environmen-
tal crime as such, but there are key institutions which address various crimes.
These key institutions include:

KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE

The KWS is a state corporation with the mandate of conserving and managing
wildlife, and enforcing the relevant laws and regulations. The key legislation that
governs the operations of KWS is the Wildlife (Conservation and Management)
Act as amended in 1989.
KWS manages national parks and national reserves; formulates policies on
the conservation, management and utilisation of all types of wild fauna and

Monograph 166 41
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

flora; provides wildlife conservation education and extension services to create

public awareness and support for wildlife policies; administers and coordinates
international conventions, treaties and protocols regarding wildlife, and renders
services to the farming and ranching communities in Kenya necessary for the
protection of agriculture and animal husbandry against destruction by wildlife.
Its responsibilities include custody of Kenya’s 56 protected areas (26 national
parks and 30 national reserves) used to conserve ecosystems and areas of dis-
tinct biodiversity. KWS is also responsible for the protection of wildlife outside
the protected areas, which constitutes more than 70% of Kenya’s wildlife. It
provides legal protection of wild animals, including a ban on hunting and pro-
hibition of trade in wildlife and wildlife products.
On the whole, this is the agency at the forefront of fighting environmental
crime in the country. It enforces the relevant laws, including stopping illegal
trade and trafficking in live fauna and flora and their products. It also provides
security to tourists and protects water catchment areas.
KWS has an intelligence system to gather information on poaching and
trade in environmental crime. It also has trained rangers and wardens on the
ground and works with local communities. In terms of law enforcement, the
service has a good record and most crimes occur outside the protected areas.
They are, however, thin on the ground and much of their time is taken up with
animal-wildlife conflicts.
KWS has a good system of data collection and collation that produces
weekly data on environmental crimes and other security-related activities. One
is thus able to see at a glance what has happened in any given week and cumu-
latively throughout the year. The data is shared with the NCB quarterly and
whenever required.
KWS has strong links with other institutions, for example, joint manage-
ment programmes with KFS in Mt Kenya. It also has links with the police in
their operations. At KWS, there is a senior superintendent of police for liaison
purposes, and a chief inspector of police for investigations and follow-up with
the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) on various cases.
KWS also has links with LATF, with which it shares intelligence and carries
out joint operations; and with private ranches and wildlife sanctuaries such as
Lewa and Muge, with which it carries out joint management and from which
it borrows even sniffer dogs. KWS also gives honorary warden status to key
persons involved in conservation to aid their work.

42 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Additionally, KWS liaises with the immigration and customs departments

on trade of fauna and flora, and on surveillance of known traffickers, and with
the neighbouring countries of Uganda and Tanzania.
To enhance its law enforcement capabilities, 26 KWS officers (plus four
police and two officers from LATF) have been trained by Interpol in, among
others, crime scene management and wildlife forensics for prosecution.

KENYA POLICE
This is the main law enforcement agency in the country and, as such, should
have the resources to investigate and detect environmental crime. However,
environmental crime is not among its priorities as this is seen as the domain of
others – read KWS and KFS – to which it refers such cases.74
Information of all crimes is recorded in what are known as occurrence
books, but these books contain little information on environmental crime.
Other than in 2000, when pole fishing was listed as a reported crime,75 no inci-
dents of environmental crime have been reported. The police links established
with other organisations dealing with the environment are, however, crucial in
the war against environmental crime.

KENYA FOREST SERVICE

KFS was established by the Forest Act of 2005 and formulates policies and
guidelines for the management, conservation and utilisation of all types of
forest areas in the country. Its mandate includes managing all state forests and
provisional forests in consultation with the forest owners. It also protects forests
in the country in accordance with the provisions of the Act, which include pro-
moting capacity building in forest management, assisting in drawing up man-
agement plans for all indigenous and plantation forests, and collaborating with
other organisations and communities in the management and conservation of
forests and for utilisation of the biodiversity therein.
The Act empowers KFS to enforce the laws and regulations pertaining to
logging, charcoal making and other forest utilisation activities, and any forestry
and land use laws made pursuant to any other written laws.
KFS employs a number of rangers, has capacity for law enforcement and
occasionally arrests illegal loggers. The crime, however, is perpetrated by

Monograph 166 43
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

syndicates and the rangers on the ground may have no control after handing in
the culprits to the police.
Data capture and storage in KFS has still to be developed, especially a regu-
larly updated central database on crimes and other information from various
forests or forest stations. Sharing of information is also poor.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
The operations of NEMA are governed by the Environmental Management
and Coordination Act of 1999 (EMCA) and by sectoral environmental laws,
including those relating to agriculture, energy, fisheries, health, industry, local
government, natural resources, tourism and water resources.
EMCA establishes various environmental offences that relate to inspec-
tion, EIA, standards, hazardous wastes, materials, chemicals and radioactive
substances, pollution, restoration orders, easements and conservation orders. A
general penalty of imprisonment for not more than 18 months or to a fine of not
more than KSh 350 000 or both is stipulated for most of these offences. EMCA
also provides for forfeiture, cancellation and other orders.
Accordingly, NEMA plays a coordinating role but also enforces environ-
mental law. But its capacity to detect crime is low because it is fairly thin
on the ground, and most of its regulations are also new. With time, as the
public and collaborating institutions internalise these regulations, its ca-
pacity to detect hopefully will improve. NEMA also has a hotline to report
environmental crimes.
The authority employs about 120 environmental inspectors to assist in en-
forcement work. Additionally, it has established a new environmental police
unit, with ten officers, headed by an inspector of police. Whilst this unit is
relatively new, its impact is already felt with about 30 cases prosecuted so far.
The police unit investigates, prosecutes offenders and provides security to en-
vironmental inspectors. It also liaises with other police stations countrywide to
provide similar services to other NEMA inspectors on the ground. Additionally,
NEMA has employed about 20 trained prosecutors, who, however, are yet to be
gazetted. The prosecutors will help improve the success rate of environmental
crimes as they are trained environmentalists able to argue court cases better
than ordinary police prosecutors.

44 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

In terms of records, NEMA has a hotline, and at the moment, only crimes
reported over this system are recorded. However, it has additional information
that needs to be organised. Environmental crimes should also be reported in
the ‘State of environment report’. As a coordinating agency, NEMA has good
links with other stakeholders.

FISHERIES DEPARTMENT
This department enforces law in its sector but lacks capacity and has, as its
primary concern, ensuring fish quality. Accordingly, most arrests it makes
concern the types of fishing gear used and illegal methods.
The fisheries department has trained about 20 prosecutors under the Lake
Victoria Environmental Management Project (LVEMP 1) and has held a work-
shop to train magistrates on the importance of giving deterrent sentences for
fish-related crimes.

NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF KENYA

Whilst the National Museum of Kenya (NMK) does not undertake any man-
agement role, it provides backstopping support to fight environmental crimes
by providing key agencies with scientific information about existing species,
populations and their geographical spread. It gives information on lookalikes
– for example, how to identify Kenyan aloe from resin. NMK has links with
KWS, KFS and KEPHIS.

KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY

This institution handles imported and exported cargo. To detect environmental
crime it relies on customs and police personnel. However, the three institutions
do not have enough capacity to detect environmental crime, especially on illegal
trade of flora and fauna.
KPA handles hazardous wastes in accordance with the International
Maritime Goods Code, which covers safe handling, classification, storage and
transportation of hazardous cargo. It also has a pollution control unit that
monitors pollution especially that relating to oil spillages.

Monograph 166 45
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

KENYA AIRPORTS AUTHORITY

Most live fauna is transported though airports, but KAA has no capacity
to detect and relies on customs and police officers. It should establish better
links with KWS staff to monitor illegal trade. With regard to flora, KAA relies
on KEPHIS.

KENYA PLANT HEALTH INSPECTORATE SERVICE

Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS ) is mandated to provide
plant variety protection, seed certification, phytosanitary services, analytical
chemistry laboratory and farmer advisory services. In terms of environmental
crimes, KEPHIS controls importation and exportation of plant material, for
which it has employed inspectors and established inspection units at various
points of entry in the county. To enable KEPHIS carry out its functions effec-
tively, the law requires that all ‘persons entering Kenya must declare plant ma-
terials (including gifts) in their possession to a plant inspector.’ In addition, the
law requires all persons dealing with the exportation of plant materials to apply
for a licence, stating species, variety, category and quantities, and to obtain a
copy of certification from KEPHIS.

DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE SURVEYS

AND REMOTE SENSING
DRSRS monitors land use cover changes in various habitats, habitat changes in
various habitats and livestock/wildlife population trends. Changes in popula-
tions of wildlife and livestock, for instance, may be used as indicators of habitat
changes in the respective areas. DRSRS has capacity to detect environmental
crime, but only after it has occurred, through comparing maps and satellite
imagery. Its storage and sharing of information are fairly good.

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The PCC is the environmental ombudsman in Kenya and is mandated to in-
vestigate all allegations or complaints on the condition of the environment in

46 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Kenya or, on its own motion, all cases of suspected environmental degradation.
It presents its findings to the National Environmental Council. The PCC also
deals with environmental conflict resolution. It has capacity to detect environ-
mental crime through public information and keeps good records on all com-
plaints received. However, it needs to share information and forge links with
other stakeholders.

JUDICIARY
Members of the judiciary are key in the fight against environmental crime,
because sentences imposed by the courts have been very lenient and have failed
to deter persons from engaging again in these activities.
The members of the judiciary have in the past been trained by the fisheries
department on environmental crimes in the fish sector. Others have been trained
on environmental crimes. After these training sessions, environmental crimes are
now seen not as administrative breaches, but for the offences they really are, es-
pecially in view of their impact on community health and the national economy.
Courts now give fairly deterrent sentences to violators of the environment.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
LATF: Its mission is to support member states and collaborating partners in re-
ducing and ultimately eliminating illegal trade in wild fauna and flora through
facilitation of cooperative activities in undertaking law enforcement, investi-
gations on violations of national wildlife law, dissemination and exchange of
information on illegal trade activities, and capacity building, including promo-
tion of awareness. In Kenya, LATF works closely with and shares headquar-
ters with KWS in Langata, Nairobi. LATF has the staff and capacity to fight
environmental crime and has undertaken successful operations with KWS and
member countries. Its technology is appropriate and includes ivory detectors,
and it experiments with more effective law enforcement techniques, which it
then shares with party states. LATF has good links with governments, research
organisations and NGOs.
United Nations offices in Nairobi: This hosts a number of UN agencies, in-
cluding the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Development

Monograph 166 47
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Programme (UNDP), UN Habitat, and United Nations Children’s Fund

(Unicef). In terms of environmental crime, UNEP plays the role of overall
promotion of the environment, mainly through the UNEP division of environ-
mental law and conventions. This division has data on environmental crime
and has prepared different guidelines to combat the vice. Guidelines prepared
include that for establishing and strengthening environmental crime units to
complement civil and administrative enforcement programmes. The role of the
division is mainly geared towards multinational environmental agreements.
Kenya can therefore take advantage of the support it can receive from these UN
agencies to fight environmental crime.
For its part, UNDP supports sustainable economic development.

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
Various NGOs play a role in the fight against environmental crime, and these
are crucial partners and stakeholders whose capacity should also be enhanced.
Kenya Forest Working Group: This organisation brings together various
forest industry players in both private and public sectors. KFWG has been at
the forefront of highlighting illegal logging and general forests degradation
especially in the Mau.
Greenbelt Movement: This organisation is best known through its founder,
Prof. Wangari Mathai, who won the Nobel Prize in 2006. It has successfully
fought against forest excisions in the Karura forest. Other than tree planting, it
also works to protect wetlands, riverbanks and riverines and carries out advo-
cacy against environmental crimes.
African Network for Animal Welfare: This organisation undertakes de-
snaring exercises with KWS and researches the extent of poaching and other
illegal activities practiced in its areas of operation. Its chief executive officer is
an honorary KWS warden. Other organisations involved in desnaring are the
Sheldrick Trust Foundation, and the Youth for Conservation.
World Wildlife Fund: This has different projects in the country, including
the coast forests project, good woods and certification process, fresh water pro-
gramme and elephant project. The WWF has the capacity to detect environ-
mental crime and fight it through links with relevant government bodies. For
example, in Transmara, under the elephant project, it supports local communi-
ties and KWS to undertake regular patrols.

48 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW): It carries out habitat

management and conservation programmes, which have been successful
in, for example, Meru National Park (2002-7) and Amboselli (2007-12). Its
activities include providing basic park operations such as housing and equip-
ment; dealing with human-wildlife conflicts; undertaking research on wildlife
numbers, movement, and behaviour; conservation education, especially of large
mammals; conservation and community participation, and programmes on
non-consumptive utilisation of wildlife.

Monograph 166 49
5 Training capacity
needs of environmental
law enforcement agencies
The main environmental law enforcers are NEMA, the police and the govern-
ment departments in charge of forests, environment and wildlife. These institu-
tions face similar challenges, including limited personnel, inadequate legisla-
tion and lack of essential resources.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
NEMA supervises and coordinates all matters relating to the environment. It
is the principal instrument of the government in the implementation of all its
environmental policies. In carrying out its mandate, NEMA coordinates the
various environmental management activities undertaken by the lead agencies
and promotes the integration of environmental considerations into develop-
ment policies, plans, programmes and projects, with a view to ensuring the
sustainable management of environmental resources.

Monograph 166 51
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Current training programmes

NEMA runs a basic essential law enforcement course, which is modelled on
courses offered by the United Kingdom’s Environmental Agency. About 140
staff have been trained on how to collect evidence, compile a case fi le and
present it in court. Staff who complete the course successfully are gazetted as
environmental inspectors. The training cost, at KSh140 000 a week, is high for
the authority.
In addition, NEMA runs a training programme for prosecutors, which has
been completed by 20 prosecutors, who are currently awaiting gazettement.
Finally, NEMA proposes starting a DFID-funded programme for trainers,
which will focus on a risk-based approach to environmental management.
NEMA’s capacity needs are evolving. Its staff need to be educated on the
main laws relevant to environmental protection, namely the constitution, penal
code, the criminal procedure code (CPC) and the Civil Procedure Act (CPA).
NEMA would also like to have the sectoral laws aligned to EMCA so that they
do not conflict with the Act. NEMA proposes to train its personnel on foren-
sics, prosecution and directed surveillance. However, it lacks the resources to
conduct this training.

Prosecution
According to NEMA, prosecution is a major challenge, because the courts seem
not to know how to manage environmental cases. Currently, there are about 40
pending cases, with those that have already been determined riddled with legal
inconsistencies. Additionally, the penalties are non-deterrent as noted earlier.
For instance, in a case against Orbit Chemicals for failure to obtain a licence of
KSh100 000, the company was fined only KSh 20 000. This does not encourage
compliance as it is cheaper to pay the fine than adhere to the requirements of
the licensing regime. The public and government bear the burden of such non-
compliance.
Furthermore, there are no lower limits for the fines. NEMA is advocating a
bond for all licensees. which is refundable if a project does not have an adverse
environmental impact.
Part of the problem, which may be resolved soon, is that NEMA is cur-
rently using police prosecutors who do not understand environmental crimes.

52 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Moreover, even when the authority begins prosecuting cases with its own staff,
the impact may not be substantial as the judges are not environmentally savvy.

Collaboration
NEMA has cordial relations with the police force. There is an environmental
police unit based in NEMA whose duty is to enforce environmental laws. It
works with the environmental inspectors to apprehend offenders. The officers
are stationed at NEMA headquarters at the moment but the authority hopes
to decentralise its operations to the regional offices and will therefore need to
train more police officers.
There has been some hostility from the regulated community because it feels
that NEMA is either too strict or is trying to take over its roles. For example,
NEMA has faced opposition from the Nairobi City Council over the manage-
ment of Dandora dumpsite, which poses an environmental hazard. Opposition
has also come from the Ministry of Health over its orders to close the Dagoretti
abattoir (which provides meat for Nairobi and its suburbs) for failing to comply
with established health standards.
Yet NEMA mandate’s includes supervising and coordinating actions by all
government departments and private individuals. Therefore, it has the power
to direct lead agencies to act, prosecute if they fail to do so (as in the case of
the Kibarani dumpsite in Mombasa); challenge judicial rulings and correct the
environmental problem by taking the essential remedial measures.

Networking forum
NEMA has been selected to be the regional focal point for the international
network for environmental compliance and enforcement officers. This is an in-
formal organisation that provides a forum for environmental law enforcers such
as KWS, NEMA and KFS to work together. The Danish Government promised
to fund the secretariat of the regional network. To that end, NEMA decided first
to establish a national network before initiating the regional one. However, the
efforts of national agencies to collaborate in a similar national forum have been
hampered by lack of resources. In addition, NEMA has requested concerned
agencies to send their representatives to the national forum, but no agency has
responded so far. Only two meetings have taken place, but at least the network

Monograph 166 53
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

has been widened to include the local authorities and the ministry of water.
Although rolling out the national network has been a problem, there is an
urgent need to act in a coordinated manner and NEMA would like the network
to be facilitated.

Regional and international agreements

Participation in and implementation of international and regional environmen-
tal obligations of the country have been a challenge for the authority. Policy
decisions are made at the ministry level, whilst NEMA is the implementing
agent. It is the focal point for domesticating the Rotterdam, Stockholm and
Basel conventions, among others. Since the establishment of NEMA, no MEAs
have been ratified. In fact, the authority believes that the MEAs it inherited
were ratified without due consideration to the country’s needs and would like
more engagement in future MEA negotiations.
Another challenge is the lack of knowledge of the major issues negotiated
on MEAs, such as climate change. Finally, the authority would like to develop
a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on how it engages with other bodies/
agencies in other countries. Currently, the ministry commits the authority to
activities it may be ill-prepared or ill-resourced to manage, for example, the
training of environmental officials of the government of southern Sudan.
There are also conflicts with Tanzania that NEMA hopes will be resolved
at the East African Community (EAC) level. At present, UNEP is helping to
develop the East Africa framework agreement on air pollution, which will
domesticate and harmonise air standards. Nothing is binding yet, although
the countries have set fuel standards by agreeing to reduce to 500ppn from
10 000ppn by 2009.

KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE

KWS structure
As we have seen, KWS is responsible for conserving and managing wildlife
in Kenya. To carry out its mandate, KWS has an armed wing of wardens and
rangers, who make up 80% of its staff, and a civilian wing of three depart-
ments, namely fi nance, human resources and research and planning. The

54 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

armed unit has a security division to enforce wildlife laws and which com-
prises two units: a wildlife protection unit and an investigations unit. The
former is the ‘fighting unit’ of KWS, which handles patrols and protection of
the parks and reserves.
The key security areas are Tsavo East, Tsavo West, Lamu/Tana River, moun-
tain areas, Mt Elgon, Meru, Isiolo and Samburu, and Nairobi. The investigations
unit investigates offences with a view to prosecuting. It has already trained some
officers who are awaiting gazettement. Threat levels vary and the unit is biased
towards higher threats areas due to the limited personnel. It also ensures asset
security, conducts internal investigation, and makes arrests, working with other
departments on prosecution. Since the arrest powers of the unit are limited to
wildlife management, a police officer from the CID has been seconded to the
unit to help with non-wildlife crimes.
KWS trains its staff at Manyani Training School (paramilitary skills and law
enforcement), and the University of Nairobi-affiliated Naivasha College (profes-
sional and academic programmes).

Challenges
Prosecution is a complex issue. For example, bush meat or trophy cases are dif-
ficult to prove without a forensic laboratory. It is currently establishing such
a laboratory, which means that it will need to train its officers on the basics
of forensics.
Lack of operating funds hinders activities, partly because it is difficult to
predict operations. Further, its few staff members must be deployed strategi-
cally as threats demand.

Collaboration
KWS has a community wildlife department that deals with community con-
servation programmes and manages human-wildlife conflicts and manages all
120 district stations. The department creates community awareness of wildlife
management and advises on translocation of animals. It also promotes the
creation of private sanctuaries to allow wildlife to inhabit private land and en-
courages landowners to accept training and certain responsibilities delegated
by KWS. In return, they receive certain wildlife-related, revenue-sharing and

Monograph 166 55
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

consumptive-utilisation enterprises (tourism). Procedures have been developed

for mobilising and training communities in wildlife management, including
local wildlife associations and problem-animal control committees (PACCs).
A police liaison officer deals with KWS and other government law enforce-
ment departments.
Through its intelligence department, KWS engages daily with LATF, an
institution established by the 1996 ‘Lusaka agreement on cooperative enforce-
ment operations directed at illegal trade in wild fauna and flora’. There are six
parties to the agreement, namely Congo Brazzaville, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda,
Zambia and Lesotho. South Africa, Ethiopia and Swaziland are signatories. The
agreement provides for the establishment of a permanent taskforce to imple-
ment its objectives, which include providing support to member states and
collaborating partners to reduce and ultimately eliminate illegal trade in wild
fauna and flora through:

■ Facilitating cooperative activities in undertaking law enforcement

operations;
■ Investigating violations of national wildlife laws;
■ Disseminating and exchanging information on illegal trade activities, and
■ Building capacity, including promoting awareness.

KENYA FOREST SERVICE

KFS, through rangers, manages natural forests and plantations. It enjoys good
relations with forest-adjacent communities in most areas. This would enable it
to develop a good intelligence system to detect environmental crimes, but it has
not done so. KFS comprises a director, a professional cadre of forest officers, a
technical cadre of foresters headed by a chief conservator, and an enforcement
and compliance division made up by disciplined officers (forest guards) under
the leadership of a commandant.

Enforcement and compliance division

The enforcement and compliance division has 5 600 staff overseeing 165
forests stations. Its mandate is to protect the forests from illegal activities
(grazing, logging and charcoal burning) through patrols, inspections and

56 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

accompanying licensed harvesters to enforce the laws. Further, it prevents

crimes such as carjackings in Karura forest in Nairobi. The major environ-
mental crimes include:

■ Forests encroachment;
■ Illegal logging;
■ Eviction of illegal squatters, for instance, in the Kiserian settlement, which
was gazetted as a forest after people had settled in it;
■ Harvesting of forest produce other than timber, for example, honey and
plants for medicinal purposes. The latter is problematic as communities
such as the Dorobos in the Mau consider such activities part of their her-
itage. Honey harvesting presents a fire hazard, since the bees are smoked
out. Some communities conduct religious activities and set up shrines in
protected forests, for example, in Karura forest.

Training programmes and challenges

The Kenya forestry college has a forestry wing for training foresters and a para-
military wing for rangers. Trained by foresters, rangers complete a five-week
intensive course on weaponry, forests, equipment and community outreach. In
addition, KFS plans to launch a skills development programme to give rangers
an understanding and scientific knowledge of all trees, pests and natural
forest habitats.
It is hoped to make ranger training a six-month programme, three months
each of paramilitary training and forestry training. The challenge here is train-
ing the trainers. The division has received support from the CID of the Kenya
police, the army and the general police, but hope to be self sufficient soon.
Other capacity challenges include:

■ Limited personnel – currently, one ranger oversees 650 ha, which leaves
most of the forests cover unpatrolled. KFS is establishing forests conserva-
tion committees (FCCs) to work with local communities to protect forests.
An FCC consists of representatives from the provincial administration, the
timber industry, four knowledgeable persons nominated by forest associa-
tions operating in the conservancy area (at least one woman and one youth),
the forest officer, an agricultural officer and an environmental officer.

Monograph 166 57
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

■ Lack of equipment – vehicles, binoculars, aircrafts - maintenance of vehicles

and bad roads. It is not allocated funds by the Kenya Roads Board because
forest roads are not gazetted. In contrast, KWS receives more than Ksh
200-m annually for road maintenance.
■ Technology – the service needs a geographic information system (GIS) for
surveillance.
■ Communications - whilst the service has radios and phones, it requires base
stations to connect the forests.

Prosecutorial challenges
The Forestry Act empowers KFS to train its own officers. Fifteen have already
been trained and are currently attached to the attorney-general (AG)’s chambers
while they await gazetting. Their main challenge is the judiciary, which has
limited knowledge of environmental crimes. KFS personnel recently intercepted
200 tonnes of sandalwood in Namanga, but a magistrate released the containers
despite the laws banning the species and the fact that the container had no permit
to transport any forest produce. The judiciary needs to be better informed.

Collaborative initiatives
The Mau forest complex, which is one of Kenya’s main water towers, is an
example of the service collaborating with other government agencies to protect
the environment. KFS realised that the problems facing the Mau complex were
too complicated for a single agency to deal with and sought to work with KWS,
the administration police, and Narok County Council to evict squatters from
the forest and protect it from illegal encroachments.
KFS had assumed that, with the support of politicians, the evictions would
be carried out smoothly and finalised in three months after the creation of a
high level taskforce headed by the prime minister in July 2008. But within two
months, KFS’s leadership role was given to KWS, which has more resources.
This has demoralised the service staff who feel the plans they had for the forest
have been diluted, under an organisation with a lesser mandate. What will
happen is uncertain, but KFS hopes to resume its role in the Mau complex.
The FCC has a pilot scheme in Rumuruti forest in which forest scouts who
have been given basic forest training and equipment have been sent to the local

58 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

community to detect illegal activities in neighbouring forests. The community

pays the forest scouts a token wage. The division is urging the foresters to adopt
the use of forest scouts in other stations.
Apart from the FCC, KFS is making local communities understand the im-
portance of protecting forest species such as sandalwood, which is protected
by a 1999 presidential decree. However, since it grows naturally, KFS has no
control over how communities use it. KFS is currently holding regular discus-
sions with the people and ranchers on how to stop trade in the tree.
KFS participates in Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance
(AFLEG), which offers it a forum to exchange information and ideas, and
discuss the harmonisation of laws. For instance, Kenya and Uganda have differ-
ent forest laws, which mean that criminals escape to the neighbouring countries
where they think that the laws are favourable.

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

The Public Complaints Committee (PCC) is a statutory body created by EMCA
to address environmental complaints from the public against any private or
public entity. The committee investigates allegations or complaints made against
any person or NEMA regarding the condition of the environment, and any sus-
pected case of environmental degradation anywhere in the country. Refusal to
assist it in its investigations is an offence under the Act. PCC-initiated investi-
gations, constitute 15-20% of investigations. It conducts investigation of poten-
tially adverse environmental activities on behalf of the public without charge, a
role similar to that of a public ombudsman.
The PCC prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for sub-
mission to the National Environment Council (NEC), the highest institution
created by the EMCA. NEC, which is a policymaking body, prescribes allow-
ances for members of the PCC and assigns additional functions or powers
to it. The committee submits regular reports and recommendations to NEC,
which form part of the annual state of environment report submitted by NEMA
to parliament.
The committee consists of seven members, a chairman who is qualified to
be appointed as a judge, a representative of the AG, a representative of the law
society of Kenya, a representative of NGOs appointed by the NGO council who
shall be designated as secretary, a representative of the business community and

Monograph 166 59
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

two members appointed by the minister for their active role in environmental
management.

Challenges for the PCC

The PCC cannot order the cessation of any act or omission during its inves-
tigation of a matter within its jurisdiction, that is, it does not have injunctive
powers. Moreover, it cannot ensure that its recommendations are acted upon by
the relevant lead agencies or parties.
It lacks the powers to prosecute persons who do not comply with its request
based on its findings. In addition, PCC has inadequate funding to engage in
activities such as raising public awareness of its existence. However, it is allowed
to accept funding from other sources.
The committee is seeking powers to enable it to compel any entity, public
or private, to act on its recommendations. Another major challenge is redefin-
ing its role to better serve the public. Nonetheless it is a unique organisation
in Africa.

60 Institute for Security Studies

6 Tools for capturing,
storing and sharing
crime information
NEMA ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME INFORMATION TOOL
This tool includes EIA, but NEMA states that it is too early to assess whether
it has been effective. Moreover, an EIA on its own is not enough to regulate
development and tools such as a strategic environmental assessment (SEA)
are needed.
The first database established by NEMA contains information on solid waste
management and effluent discharge, indicates which companies/entities have
been licensed, and whether they have complied with or breached the licence
conditions.
NEMA is now installing another database in the inspectorate department. A
classification of environmental incidents has been developed but a good track-
ing system is still lacking and the authority has no database yet to identify, for
instance, whether an incident is high risk or high priority, or whether it needs
immediate attention. Thus, key stakeholders are left out of the information
loop - for example, the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) should have been on
board because it intercepts waste containers and needs to know how to dispose
of them.

Monograph 166 61
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

NEMA has a 24-hour hotline (020-606041) for reports of any incident of

environmental damage by the public, but it is not a toll-free number and is
manned by only one person. In addition, the number needs to be publicised to
make more people aware of its existence.

KWS ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME INFORMATION TOOL

The intelligence unit of the security division of KWS supports the other units
(wildlife protection unit and investigations) by disseminating information for
appropriate action. The department provides information on movements of
trophy dealers, poachers, tourism attacks etc. It maintains a civilian network of
informants through 15 field units (cliques).
The unit also handles all the security-related information of the organisa-
tion, including maintaining informant networks, intelligence operators and
assistants. The unit stores and analyses this information and provides peri-
odic security reports. A smaller database is maintained of wildlife and related
offences.
The department is of the view that KWS is self sufficient in terms of wild-
life crime enforcement. However, it lacks adequate skills in surveillance work
(trophies, poachers, and armed gangs), analysis of intelligence gathered, general
investigation and forensic investigations (for example, to undertake a DNA test
to discover the origin of captured contraband). Currently, it is forced to work
with the government chemists, Interpol and NMK.
The unit collaborates with law enforcement agencies, mainly the Kenya police
and national security intelligence, and with neighbouring wildlife agencies
(such as the Tanzania National Parks Authority and Ngorongoro Conservation
Authority), which provides opportunities to engage and exchange informa-
tion on transboundary crimes, particularly in the Serengeti and Mara areas. A
police liaison officer liaises with KWS and other government law enforcement
departments. The intelligence unit also liaises with LATF on daily basis.

KFS ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME INFORMATION TOOL

Enforcement and compliance division personnel lack expertise on forest crimi-
nology, whilst the police have no expertise on forestry, a dual deficiency that
hampers environmental crime tracking and enforcement.

62 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Staff members are currently being trained with CID support on the sharing
and processing of information on criminal activities.
During 2009, KFS intends to establish two departments dealing with forests
intelligence and investigation, along the lines of KWS, with which it works well
and shares information on the Mau area, for example. KFS also works well with
local administration at provincial and local government level. For example,
a communication was received recently from the chief in Eburu, Gilgil, over
illegal logging activities in the area. The agency also has a toll-free hotline (020-
2107027).

PCC ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME INFORMATION TOOL

The committee gathers information from daily news reports (print and electron-
ic) as well as observations by members and staff of the committee. Sometimes,
information prompting new investigations arises during investigations of other
complaints. In 2008, it received 212 complaints, more than double those of the
previous year. These involved, among other things, air and noise pollution,
land degradation, deforestation, poor waste management and water pollution.
About 60% of the cases relate to EIA, such as the dominion farms’ effects on the
western Kenya wetlands.
The PCC knows it needs to conduct more awareness workshops to sensi-
tise the public on its existence and mandate, as this would increase the flow
of information. However, it lacks financing and facilitation. Complaints are
lodged letter, email, phone call or completion of a complaint form issued by the
PCC. The information can also be conveyed in person to the PCC offices which,
unfortunately, are situated only in Nairobi. The information and results and
recommendation of PCC investigations are presented in a report to the NEC.

Monograph 166 63
7 Recommendations
The study on environmental crimes in Kenya indicated several gaps in informa-
tion and understanding of the issues involved. The following recommendations
were made:
Undertaking of thematic studies: There is a need to carry out further
studies on the various sectors to come up with the actual levels of the crimes
listed, and others which might not have been captured. Key among these crimes
are those relating to hazardous wastes, where information is minimal and non-
authoritative, especially on dumping and transportation of waste. The situation
is similar with snaring, the bush meat trade and illegal logging. A monetary
value should be determined for economic crimes and further studies conducted
in the key sectors identified broadly in this study.
Formulating an environmental communication strategy: It is important
to formulate a communication strategy on environmental crimes that will
be both internal (among the key players) and external (targeting the media,
politicians and technocrats, public and private sector and local communi-
ties). Raising awareness on the nature, extent and status of environmental
crime, especially among local communities, and formal and informal insti-
tutions, will assist in the fight against it. Eventually, issues of environmental

Monograph 166 65
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

crime need to be mainstreamed into the education curricula in primary and

secondary schools.
The communication strategy should publicise and politicise environmental
crime so that it becomes a concern at the very highest levels of government and
attracts the political will necessary to fight it.
The strategy should also target the judiciary to encourage it give more deter-
rent sentences where allowed by law.
Formulate a strategy to push for amendment of legislation: This is closely
tied to the communication strategy and is critical to the fight against envi-
ronmental crime. The law, especially the penal code, needs to be amended to
deal adequately with environmental crime, especially by providing deterrent
punishment. This strategy will require a detailed study on what legislation
needs to be changed, and then advocate the required changes. It is particu-
larly important to incorporate the ‘polluter pays principle’ in dealing with
environmental crime.
The strategy to amend legislation should also look at the possibility of estab-
lishing and lobbying for special courts to deal with environmental crimes.
Capacity building of civic authorities: Most environmental crimes occur
in areas under civic authorities, most of which have no environmental depart-
ments and lack capacity to detect, enforce and even collect and collate data on
environmental crimes. Capacity building is needed. A capacity building as-
sessment of key civic authorities should be undertaken and a pilot designed for
them prior to a countrywide rollout.
Creating a new focal point for environment: NCBs are currently the focal
point for the environment and environmental crime in particular countries.
However, Kenya NCB seems to have no capacity to collect and disseminate in-
formation from and among key stakeholders. That it is part of the Kenya police
system may make it difficult to obtain voluntary information and may also
impede communication flow among key stakeholders. Other than strengthen-
ing the NCB, there is a need to create a new focal point for the collection and
collation of environmental crimes data and information among the key institu-
tions. The focal point should ideally be within NEMA, which is responsible for
coordinating the work of all institutions dealing with the environment.
A new focal point will also assist to create links and fora for the differ-
ent stakeholders and to disseminate information on environmental crime to
the public.

66 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Capacity building: There is a need to build the capacity of new institutions

such as the environmental police unit based at NEMA to detect, investigate,
prosecute and otherwise enforce law on environmental crimes. Capacity build-
ing should then extend to other police and law enforcers, including staff of
KAA, KPA, customs and immigration.
Special attention should be given to prosecutors, who should be capacitated
in preparing charge sheets, investigation and presenting evidence.
Cross-border links: Cross-border sharing of information on environmental
crimes is needed, as is enhanced community participation in the fight against
the crime.
Investments: Institutions should invest in advanced technology to detect
smuggling of flora and fauna at points of entry and departure. Law enforcers
should have weapons, communication equipment and transport to fight envi-
ronmental crime effectively.
Public participation: The public and industry should be encouraged and
their help enlisted to detect and eliminate contraband. Public education
should go hand-in-hand with an emphasis on solving poverty that might
drive crime. The campaigns should foster the legitimacy of protected areas
with local residents and ensure that resources devoted to conservation enrich
rather than deprive local communities by providing alternative employment
programmes.
Certification: Institutions should be encouraged to undertake professional
due diligence through ISO certification, engaging insurance companies and
banks to assess the legality of operations as part of financial due diligence.
Investors, banks and export credit agencies that have funded illegal activities
or activities without due diligence could perhaps be targeted by legislation on
money laundering or proceeds of crime.
Incentives: The issue of hazardous waste can be addressed by providing in-
centives and subsidies for clean production and waste minimisation technolo-
gies. For communities, incentives for wildlife protection should include benefits
sharing from proceeds of tourism. Incentives may also be given for those who
report or give intelligence on environmental crime and those who play a role in
apprehending offenders.
Gazettement: Several officers from fisheries department and NEMA have
been trained as inspectors and prosecutors but are yet to be gazetted. Their
gazettement should be facilitated through lobbying and advocacy.

Monograph 166 67
8 Conclusions
Environmental crimes present a key challenge to Kenya, which depends
largely on its natural resources base especially for tourism and agriculture.
Environmental crimes thus hit at the very core of the economy and should be
addressed by rallying and coordinating all relevant agencies.
Fighting environmental crimes is crucial to the realisation of Vision 2030,
especially because they impact on people’s livelihoods, poverty and human
security. The vision can be achieved only when people enjoy human security
and live in a conducive environment. The sustainable use of resources and their
availability in adequate quantities and quality are also key.
The rise in environmental crimes should be addressed by policy and leg-
islation that ensure that local communities benefit from the country’s natural
resources so that they value and protect them.
Furthermore, environmental crimes should be addressed by improving the
capacity of environmental law enforcement officials and agencies by enhancing
training. The main training gaps across the agencies visited include:

■ Poor or lack of knowledge of the relevant environmental and criminal

legislation;

Monograph 166 69
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

■ The need to harmonise the sectoral environmental laws with EMCA;

■ Lack of knowledge of environmental crimes by the police and judiciary;
■ Inadequate investigation and prosecution skills among enforcement
personnel;
■ The need for improved cooperation and networking skills and opportunities
among agencies;
■ The need to enhance knowledge of international environmental agreements
and their domestication/implementation in the country.

70 Institute for Security Studies

References
Akech, M (2006). The environment and law report in Kenya. Kenya Law Reports, (Environment &
Land) xiv, Nairobi.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2003). Kenya demographic and health survey. Ministry of Planning
and National Development, Nairobi.

Central Bureau of Statistics, (2003). Statistical Abstract, 2002. Government printer, Nairobi.

Central Bureau of Statistics, (2008). Economic Survey, 2007. Government printer, Nairobi.

Central Bureau of Statistics, (2008). Statistical Abstract, 2007. Government printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (1983). Lakes and Rivers Act, Laws of Kenya Government printer,
Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (1985). Mining Act chapter 306, Laws of Kenya. Government printer,
Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (1985). Radiation Protection Act, Laws of Kenya. Government printer,
Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (1985). Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act chapter 376, Laws of
Kenya. Government printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (1986). Agriculture Act chapter 318, Laws of Kenya. Government printer,
Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (1986). Public Health Act chapter 242, Laws of Kenya. Government printer,
Nairobi

Government of Kenya (1989). Land Control Act chapter 302, Laws of Kenya. Government printer,
Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (1991). Fisheries Act chapter 378, Laws of Kenya. Government printer,
Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2000). Environmental Management and Coordination Act, Act No 8 of

1999, Laws of Kenya. Government printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2002). Water Act, 2002, Laws of Kenya. Government printer, Nairobi.

Monograph 166 71
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

Government of Kenya (2005), Forests Act, 2005, Laws of Kenya. Government printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2006). Environmental Management and Coordination (Conservation of

Biodiversity, Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing) Regulations, Government
printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2006). Environmental Management and Coordination (Fossil Fuel

Emission Control) Regulations, Government printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2006). Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste

Management) Regulations, 2006, Government printer, Nairobi

Government of Kenya (2006). Environmental Management and Coordination (Water Quality)

Regulations, 2006, Government printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2006). National Museums and Heritage Act 2006, Laws of Kenya.
Government printer, Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. Ministry of Planning and National Development,
Nairobi.

Government of Kenya (2006) Department of Resource Survey and Remote Sensing, Kenya Forest
Working Group (2006), Changes in forest cover Kenya’s five ‘water tower’ 2003–5,

Government of Kenya UNEP (2005) Maasai Mau Forest Status Report, Nairobi.

Kamfor (2007). JICA country environmental profi le, JICA, Nairobi.

Kamfor (2006). Environmental audit of Maasai Mara and Mau forest. Narok County Council,
Narok.

Mathu, EM and Davies, TC (1996). Geology and the environment in Kenya. Journal of African
Earth Sciences.

Military Advisory Board (2007): National security and the threat of climate change. Virginia:
CAN Corporation, April.

Ministry of Finance and Planning, (June 2001): Poverty reduction strategy paper for the period
2001–4, Vol I.

Ministry of Finance and Planning, (June 2001): Poverty reduction strategy paper for the period
2001–4, Vol II.

Ministry of Water Resources (1999): Sectional paper no 1 of 1999: National policy on water re-
sources management and development, Government printer, Nairobi.

NEMA 2005, Strategic plan 2005-10. National Environmental Management Authority,

Nairobi.

NEMA (2003). State of the environment report. National Environmental Management Authority,
Nairobi.

72 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

Ojwang’ GO, Agatsiva, J, Said, MY, Njino, LW, Situma, C, Wargute, PW and Ojema, EPM (2006).
District Land Cover Atlas. Kenya land cover at national and district level. DRSRS technical
report.

Sykes, JB (1976). The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

United Nations Development Programme (2004). UNDP development reports. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

UNEP (2001): The making of environmental law in Kenya. UNEP, Nairobi.

UNEP/GoK (2006). Kenya drought impacts on agriculture, livestock and wildlife. UNEP,
Nairobi.

UNEP (2002): Challenges on cleaner production in developing countries, UNEP, Nairobi.

United Nations (2002). Kenya country profi le for Johannesburg Summit, Ministry of Environment
and Natural Resources, Nairobi.

World Bank (2005) Handbook on Environment: Cleaner Production 2005.

www.interpol.com (accessed on 23 October 2008).

www.fao.org (accessed on 23 October 2008).

www.issafrica.org (accessed on 23 October 2008).

www.kar.org (accessed on 23 October 2008).

www.un.untreaty.org (accessed on 23 October 2008).

www.unep.org (accessed on 23 October 2008).

Monograph 166 73
Notes
1 Environmental Management and Coordination Act, Act No 8 of 1999, Laws of Kenya,
section 3(1).
2 Ibid, section 2.
3 Sykes, JB (1976). The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4 www.interpol.int/environmentalcrime/
5 Ibid.
6 Washington Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora
(CITES).
7 1987, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
8 1989, Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes
and Other Wastes and their Disposal.
9 1973, International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the
1972 London Convention on Dumping.
10 2001, Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
11 Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical abstract 2007. Government printer, Nairobi, 2008.
12 NEMA (2003). State of the environment report (SOE). National Environmental Management
Authority, Nairobi.
13 Ministry of Water Resources, Sectional Paper No 1 of 1999: National Policy on Water
Resources Management and Development, Government printer, Nairobi, 1999.
14 Ibid, NEMA.
15 UNEP, The making of environmental law in Kenya. UNEP, Nairobi, 2001.
16 Government of Kenya, Kenya Vision 2030. Ministry of Planning and National Development,
Nairobi, 2007.
17 Ibid.

18 ISS flyer for Environmental Crime Project.

Monograph 166 75
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

19 www.issafrica.org

20 Sykes, above.

21 Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia.

22 United Nations Development Programme. (2004). UNDP development reports. Oxford

University Press. Oxford.

23 Military Advisory Board (2007). National security and the threat of climate change. Virginia:
CAN Corporation, April.

24 Stakeholder interviews – Kenya Forests Working Group (KFWG).

25 Stakeholder interviews, Kenya Forest Service (KFS).

26 Stakeholder interviews, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS).

27 Stakeholder interviews – Kenya Dock Workers Union (KDWU).

28 Ibid, KFWG.

29 Ibid, KFS.

30 Stakeholder interviews – WWF.

31 Stakeholder interviews – East African Wildlife Society.

32 Ibid, KWS.

33 East African Standard Newspaper. 24 October 2008.

34 Ibid, KFWG.

35 Government of Kenya, Forest Act, 2005. Government printers, Nairobi, 2005, Section 52 (1).

36 Ibid, KFS.

37 Ibid, KWS.

38 Ibid, Forest Act, sections 52 (1–d).

39 Ibid, KFS.

40 Ibid, Forest Act.

41 Ibid, WWF.

42 Stakeholder interviews – Coast Development Authority (CDA).

43 Government of Kenya, The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, Cap 376.
Government printer, Nairobi, 1985.

44 Ibid, KWS.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

76 Institute for Security Studies

 David K amweti, Deborah Osiro & Donald A. Mwiturubani

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 Stakeholder interviews – African Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW).

51 Stakeholder interviews – WWF.

52 Ibid, EMCA Sec 42(f).

53 Ibid, EAWS.

54 Government of Kenya, Water Act, 2002. Government printer, Nairobi, 2002.

55 Government of Kenya, Environmental Management and Coordination (Water Quality)

Regulations, 2006, Government printer, Nairobi, 2006.

56 Stakeholder interviews – NEMA.

57 Ibid, EMCA.

58 Ramsar Convention.

59 Stakeholder interviews, fisheries department (FD).

60 Government of Kenya, Fisheries Act, Cap 378, Government printer, Nairobi, 1999.

61 Ibid, FD.

62 Ibid, Forest Act.

63 Daily Nation October 2008.

64 Stakeholder interviews – Kenya Ports Authority (KPA).

65 Ibid.

66 Government of Kenya, Environmental Management and Coordination (Waste Management)

Regulations, 2006, Government printer, Nairobi, 2006.

67 Stakeholder interviews - University of Nairobi.

68 Ibid.

69 Explosives Act Cap 115 requires all mines to have an explosives permit for blasting and
transportation.

70 Ibid, Forest Act, section 42.

71 Ibid, Wildlife Act.

72 Government of Kenya, Mining Act Cap 306. Government printer, Nairobi, 1985, section 35.

73 Government of Kenya, Kenya Vision 2030. Ministry of Planning and National Development,
Nairobi, 2007.

Monograph 166 77
Nature and extent of environmental crime in Kenya

74 The police ordinarily need a complainant in their work and if there is none, eg from KFS or
KWS, there is no case for them to deal with.

75 Central Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstract, 2007, Government printer, Nairobi, 2008
(335–242).

78 Institute for Security Studies