Conservationists, wildlife experts, and community representatives have called for a comprehensive re-evaluation of the proposed Wildlife Bill, 2025, warning that the draft law threatens to undermine hard-won gains in Kenya’s conservation landscape
In a press briefing held days after the final public participation forum at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC), the group expressed gratitude for the State Department of Wildlife’s legislative initiative but strongly opposed the full repeal of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 2013. Instead, they advocated for targeted amendments that build on existing legal frameworks.
“We see tremendous potential in this process,” said the group’s spokesperson, adding that with thoughtful refinement, the Bill could become “the cornerstone of Kenya’s conservation success story.”
The group submitted a detailed 63-page memorandum during the public participation phase, flagging several critical gaps and concerns. Chief among these were vague or undefined terms within the Bill—such as biodiversity credits, debt-for-nature swaps, green parks, and biodiversity offsets—as well as the narrowing of crucial definitions like “protected areas,” which they say weakens the legal standing of conservancies and sanctuaries.
One of the major red flags was the proposed creation of a new Wildlife Regulatory Authority (WRA), which they say would duplicate functions already assigned to the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Wildlife Research and Training Institute (WRTI). “Institutional overlaps compromise conservation effectiveness and increase the tax burden on citizens,” they noted, urging instead for the strengthening of existing agencies.
The Bill also proposes the formation of a National Wildlife Tribunal, but conservationists argue this could further fragment environmental adjudication processes. “It would be more efficient to empower the existing National Environment Tribunal,” the statement read, aligning with government plans to consolidate institutions with overlapping mandates.
Of particular concern is the Bill’s proposed expansion of Kenya’s wildlife economy to include consumptive uses such as wildlife farming, ranching, harvesting from the wild, and biotrade. Conservationists argue that Kenya’s wildlife populations are too fragile to support these practices.
“Our ecosystems are already stressed by habitat loss, poaching, climate change, and human-wildlife conflict,” they warned. “Permitting increased extraction and trade of live animals or wildlife products is scientifically and ethically indefensible.”
The group also condemned a controversial clause—Section 101—which would allow mining and quarrying in protected areas, saying it directly contradicts conservation goals and the spirit of the Constitution. “This provision must be deleted entirely,” they stated, emphasizing that such activities endanger critical habitats and remove the Kenya Wildlife Service’s discretion over mining approvals.
Regarding compensation for human-wildlife conflict, the group recommended reforms to ensure timely payouts, trauma-sensitive timelines, clear documentation guidelines, and an expanded list of compensable species.
The group urged a pause on the Bill to allow for deeper reflection and restructuring. They called for enhanced consultation mechanisms, including the formation of technical review panels and pilot studies to assess the practicality of proposed changes.
“Kenya’s natural heritage deserves legislation that matches its extraordinary value,” the statement concluded. “With collaborative engagement, we can create a sustainable, inclusive, and effective framework for future generations.”
The session concluded with an invitation for further remarks from various stakeholders in the room, as the conservation community emphasized a united front in defending Kenya’s wildlife legacy.