THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

Furthermore, issues of monitoring and enforcement stand out very prominently in the
management of biodiversity resources as seen in the realm of forestry and wildlife as sectoral
users of biodiversity. We have earlier noted that this is also given ample clout in the Forest
Act as well as the Wildlife Act. We certainly note that enforcement translates into big donor
funding as articulated in the First National Report. 590 The report points out that there is need
for a simple, robust, and scientifically defensible monitoring system which will enable
institutionalised monitoring within government agencies and other relevant players. To ensure
sustainability, there is need to support the initial running costs of the systems. This should be
done in view of the following: (i) Standard forms have been developed and are being used to
collect data on important bird areas (ii) Synthesised information from monitoring data is being
disseminated to stakeholders regularly (iii) Human resource available, but materials and
operational costs very limiting (iv) Capacity building on indicators and monitoring
programme has been developed. 591
In relation to the above, we must point out that there is also a potential conflict of interest
from the international donor group, especially with regard to the execution of monitoring,
advocacy and other related services for biodiversity. For instance we need to ask: what is the
balance of interest in reporting between the negative (forest crimes and offences,
degeneration, pollution among others) and the positive (in terms of better forest management
and improvement of the national image) try to integrate what is in the brackets into the
sentence. These questions are essential since they inform the decisions for those actors
interested in seeing more investment in the improvement of biodiversity management. Given
the fact that international interest is so strong in the country, such assessments be it partial or
impartial can have a significant impact on the improvement or restoration of biodiversity as a
resource in the country.
The other critical area of interest that forms part of the wider donor interest in the biodiversity
enterprise is the capacity building component. This was found to be an integral component in
many of the international NGOs evaluated. Seen through an international political economy
lens, capacity building translates into big donor funding/multilateral investment. What was
not well tabulated however, is how much of the funds are finally absorbed by the Kenyan
biodiversity sector? Therefore, although the above treatment offers an insight into the
international perspective and influence on biodiversity restoration in Kenya, one key question
that remains a puzzle for future research is why Kenya has become a centre of interest in
terms of biodiversity restoration and conservation at this point in time.
590 GOK. 2000. The First National Report on the implementation of Convention on Biodiversity.
591 GOK. 2005. The Second National Report on the implementation of Convention on Biodiversity.
123