Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Few of the available analytical instruments are fully operational due to the lack of fi nancial resources
and analytical expertise to ensure regular maintenance is carried out, capability to run them properly,
and knowledge to interpret the results. Another important concern remains how to maintain the integ-
rity of samples, which must be transported over distances from the fi eld, under extreme environmental
conditions, to the few analytical facilities that are in operation. There is little in the way of storage
capacity (e.g., refrigeration or freezing units) in the bush and electricity tends to either be intermittent
or severely restricted. Systematic and concerted protocols are still required to gather, store and trans-
port samples from the fi eld, and screen them both for carbofuran and for other potential compounds
of concern. One of the recommendations of the Stop Wildlife Poisoning taskforce (see Section 3.1)
was, in fact, the implementation of memoranda of understanding (MOU) with laboratories that could
conduct the forensic tests, and adopting standardised procedures specifying the organs selected for
analysis (e.g., liver, gastrointestinal tract, feathers and talons/feet), the amount and location of sample
collected, and the storage and preservation procedures (e.g., freezing or refrigeration) post-collection.
A lack of credible, robust data is one of the most important and pressing impediments to con-
clusively (i.e., forensically) identify any compound(s) involved in incidents of wildlife poisoning.
Without such evidence, it is virtually impossible to legally resolve or even convincingly address
the issue. Fortunately, Kenya's conservation community has once again risen to meet this pressing
challenge. However, it is very diffi cult to sustain the kind of effort and energy that is required, par-
ticularly since no person or conservation entity is currently coordinating these efforts.
3.8.2 Legislation and regulation of pesticides in Kenya
Many Acts, laws, policies and governmental bodies have been implemented to regulate pesticide
use and address misuse within Kenya. The earliest recorded legislation regarding general usage and
handling of pesticides in the country dates back to 6 September 1921 (when the Public Health Act
Chapter (i.e., CAP) 242 was passed by the colonial government). Sixteen years later, a second
Act of Parliament dealing with Cattle Cleansing (CAP) 358 was passed (on 27 April 1937). This Act
prescribed various preparations for destroying ticks which are still retained in law, although several
amendments have modifi ed the original prescriptions. The Poisonous Substances Ordinance, based
on the UK Act of 1952 to ensure the protection of employees against risk of poisons by certain sub-
stances used in agriculture and incidental and connected matters, was implemented in 1952.
The Pharmacy and Poisons Act of Parliament was passed in Westminster (UK) on 1 May 1957
and incorporated into law to regulate the pharmaceutical profession and the drugs and poisons trade.
Included in this Act was the control of veterinary drugs and poisons with additional rules on selling
and labelling poisons, including pesticides. The Food, Drug and Chemical Substances Act (Cap 254)
was enacted by Kenyan Parliament on 11 May 1965. Under this Act, pesticides were given particular
attention and the term 'chemical substances' was defi ned as: 'any substance or mixture of substances
prepared, sold, or represented for use as a germicide, a disinfectant, an insecticide, a rodenticide,
an antiseptic, a pesticide, a vermicide or a detergent'. The Act also set tolerance levels (in parts per
million, ppm) in foodstuffs, i.e., matter intended for human consumption. To our knowledge, this law
has never been effectively implemented, nor has it been reviewed or modifi ed since being enacted.
The Factories Act (Cap 514) regarding workplace safety, and enacted to ensure safe factory work-
ing conditions, also covers pesticides. Other legislative laws passed by Parliament that have a bear-
ing on pesticide use, distribution and control include the Agriculture Act (Cap 313), the Fertilizers
and Animal Foodstuffs Act (Cap 345), the Forest Act Cap (385), the Plant Protection Act (Cap 324),
and the Water Act (Cap 389). Presumably, all these statutes could be invoked in the event of a case
involving pesticides, however, we are not aware of whether any of these have.
Except for the Poisonous Substances Ordinance of 1954, the rest of the aforementioned Acts
remain in force. A replacement ordinance (Use of Poisonous Substances Ordinance), which regulates
Search WWH ::
Custom Search