Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
compounds such as carbofuran), is now more dynamic since there are several NGOs, including
numerous wildlife conservancies, whose mandate covers issues such as human-wildlife confl ict and
protection of wildlife species from any threat (including poisons). While the involvement of these
NGOs has led to general awareness in the general public about the existing pesticide laws and the
need for their enforcement, many of the conservationists that work within them remain unconvinced
that there has been a single case of these laws being enforced, even perhaps since their enactment.
The standard practice in Kenya has been for Parliament to pass sectoral laws, with the aim of pro-
tecting the environment. However, there is currently no umbrella law that encompasses all aspects of
environmental protection, a subject of concern to various environmental NGOs and to UNEP since
1994 when the drafting of new environmental law began (KENGO/UNEP 1996). Such a bill has now
been drawn under environmental law and the new constitution includes revised law on environmental
matters, including pesticides. However, the current pesticide regulation has a major defi ciency: it lacks
cohesions and directionality of policies and statutes, which means it cannot be implemented effectively.
Further, the penalties prescribed are simply not high enough to deter offenders from misuse of very toxic
pesticides such as carbofuran. Kenya is therefore in real need of an environmental law that will tangibly
protect its environment, people and wildlife. There should perhaps be optimism that pesticide regula-
tion will become active within the current, new constitution of Kenya which was promulgated in 2010.
3.9 General conclusions regarding carbofuran use, misuse
and monitoring in Kenya
Joseph Lalah and Peter Otieno
2
This chapter has described how carbofuran (as Furadan) was fi rst imported into Kenya in the 1960s
for agricultural use, primarily in rice paddies (Section 3.3), and how it has subsequently been mis-
used as a bait, to poison wildlife in retaliation for predation on crops and livestock and as a means of
hunting/fi shing for human consumption. In 2009, FMC announced a buy-back of Furadan in Kenya
(though the use of the product within the country is not banned
per se
), after a segment featuring the
use of the product to poison lions was aired on the US television programme '60 Minutes' (http://
www.furadanfacts.com/InTheNews.aspx?itemId=1002). As of April 2011, Furadan is essentially
absent from most agrovet shops in Kenya. However, in some cases it is still possible to purchase it
'under the table' at some shops, and it is apparently still feasible to obtain the product from adjacent
countries (e.g., Uganda). Even those on the ground (e.g., researchers) fi nd it diffi cult to fi rmly grasp
and monitor the situation. We are frankly sceptical that Furadan will not resurface again once the
international attention generated by the recent lion poisonings (see Section 3.4) has abated since
FMC also pledged to withdraw Furadan from the Kenyan market in the 1990s (see Section 3.1) but
did not do so until 2010, and only after the second alarm against Furadan was raised. Although there
is evidently no shortage of governmental bodies or Acts in Kenya (see Section 3.8) what is really
required, in our view, is fi rm action by the government, with the help and backing of the international
community, to ensure that this product, and others like it, are rapidly and completely phased out of
the market once and for all.
However, withdrawing Furadan or (any similarly toxic and popular products) is only a stop-
gap solution at best. Until our perceptions towards wildlife change and the conditions that create
human-wildlife confl ict, particularly the decreasing wildlife habitat base, are addressed, wildlife
poisonings will continue. The survey conducted in Laikipia and Isiolo Districts (see Section 3.6)
revealed that human-wildlife confl ict has partly arisen because of lack of strong Kenyan government
policies to address it. The communities feel alienated from wildlife despite its big contribution to
the country's economic development and view them as a nuisance and hindrance to their way of life.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search