THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

technologies. This kind of thinking is embedded in the old age traditions relating to natural
resource usage that most of African communities treasured. In fact, most of the provisions in
the African legal regimes governing biodiversity have important clauses of the African
convention.
In regard to the above, the convention provided a framework for many environmental laws in
African countries. However, although the African notion moved away from the globalcentric
notion in an effort to recognize the community and access right in protected areas, many of
the African institutions relating to biodiversity continued to work within their old frameworks
punctuated by the colonial legacies imbedded in the 1900 and 1933 London Conventions on
Biodiversity. 86 In summary, the thinking in the African notion is African, while much of the
practice is Eurocentric. It is also worth noting that, the international treaties have influenced
the development of most of the biodiversity policies and laws in African countries over the
decades. Most of these treaties call for setting aside large tracks of land to keep the flora and
fauna in one place.
This has predicated a move towards conservation ethics that don’t focus primarily on the
integrated management of resource commons principles, based on the recognition of the needs
and perspectives of the local populations living in or near the resource commons. 87 It has also
formed a basis for most wildlife policies in Africa. The other important international treaty
that has become a hallmark for most of the African policies governing biodiversity is the
convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 88
The current Kenya Wildlife Act which was amended in 1989 is a case in point. The act
banned the trade and hunting of wild game in an effort to conserve and manage rare species of
animals. 89 Generally speaking, the African convention on Biodiversity which forms the
backbone for the African biodiversity conservation continues to be influenced by the
international norms and international biodiversity funding agencies. The African notion was
initially rooted in the heart of community and customary tenureship, but was later derailed
due to the influence of the 1933 London Convention as well as international actors such as the
International Conservation Union. 90
This fact is well collaborated with responses from one key informant, Dr.Sam Kasiki. He
noted that, “the influence of donor agencies is so immense and they continue to play a
significant role in the institutional framing processes in many African countries and Kenya is
no isolated case”. 91 Further still, in reference to the Kenyan Wildlife Act and the Forest Act,
we note that the two acts restrict access to natural resource regimes, such as forests and
national parks. Accordingly, free access to the natural domains under these legal regimes, is
86
Marroquin, M. 1995. Wildlife Utilization: A New International Mechanism for the protection of Biological
Diversity. Law and Policy International Bussiness 26:318-363.
87
The OAU 1968 African Convention Article X (1).
88
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Washington, March 1973.
89
The Kenya Wildlife and Conservation Act, amendment 1989.
90
The Kenyan Gazette, 1977/1978.
91
Key Informant Interview with Dr. Kasiki, Kenya Wildlife Services. 27 Aug 2006.
21