| Current laws and policies on wildlife management in Kenya have failed to stem the erosion of those resources and to diffuse the tensions between people and wildlife due to their neglect of the crucial role that diverse property rights institutions play in providing incentives for resource management. This thesis critically analyses wildlife conservation policies and related existing property rights regimes in Kenya pointing to the emphasis on state and individual/private rights vis-a-vis traditional/community rights. It underscores the overwhelming influence of colonial policies and institutions and international legal developments on wildlife management in Kenya.;This study avers that sustainable biodiversity management generally, and fugitive resources such as wildlife particularly, necessitates the inclusion of all stakeholders' value judgements and property rights conceptions. It notes that property rights framed at the right levels can provide incentives for sustainable wildlife management. However, using specific protected areas in Kenya and experiences from other jurisdictions, it illustrates that individual/private and state property rights are not always the most effective media for fostering sustainable wildlife management where the spatial and other requirements for managing the resources are not contained within one entity's property and where security of tenure is not guaranteed. It also shows how common property institutions have resulted in some cases in sustainable wildlife management. This points to the need to move beyond ownership by the state and individuals to broader conceptions of property in the interest of wildlife management. More specifically, common property institutions should be recognised as viable resource management systems and given legal basis.;The study proposes that for individual or common property rights to engender sustainable wildlife management, they have to offer the property holders new and varied incentives through, for instance, the diversification of wildlife uses. Further, the state should devolve some aspects of control, ownership and management of wildlife resources to individuals and communities. Moreover, in the interest of sustainable wildlife management, common property institutions for wildlife management should be recreated among diverse categories of property holders building on their commonality of interest as owners of property providing habitat for common wildlife stock. |
