Conservationists Call for Key Revisions to Proposed Wildlife Bill 2025

Conservationists, wildlife experts, and community representatives have urged the government to reconsider key provisions of the proposed Wildlife Bill 2025, warning that without major revisions, the legislation could undermine Kenya’s conservation gains.

Speaking during a press briefing held in Nairobi,led by Raabia Hawa, the group commended the State Department of Wildlife for initiating the legislative process, noting that the bill represents a critical step toward modernising Kenya’s conservation framework.

However, they stressed that the bill requires careful refinement to truly serve the country’s wildlife and communities.”We appreciate the intent behind this legislative review, but we believe the best path forward lies in strengthening and amending the existing Wildlife Conservation and Management Act of 2013 rather than a full repeal,” they stated.

They noted that during last week’s public participation forum at KICC, they submitted a 63-page document detailing their recommendations.Among their concerns are the introduction of undefined terms such as biodiversity credits and debt-for-nature swaps, and the narrowing of definitions for protected areas.

They argue this could weaken protections for conservancies and sanctuaries that currently form vital parts of Kenya’s conservation network.The proposed creation of a Wildlife Regulatory Authority was also flagged. The group warned of overlapping mandates with existing institutions like the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Wildlife Research and Training Institute (WRTI).

“Rather than adding new layers of bureaucracy, we should strengthen the existing agencies. This would enhance conservation delivery and reduce the tax burden on Kenyans,” they said.

Another major concern is the bill’s introduction of a wildlife economy model that includes consumptive use such as wildlife farming and live animal trade. “Given current threats like habitat loss and climate change, Kenya’s wildlife cannot support increased extraction. These proposals ignore the precautionary principle and pose both ethical and ecological risks,” they cautioned.

The group also criticised a provision (Section 101) allowing mining and quarrying in protected areas, arguing it contradicts the Constitution’s commitment to environmental protection. “The mandate given to KWS to approve such activities removes its discretionary power and threatens fragile ecosystems,” they said, recommending a complete deletion of the clause.

On compensation, they urged improved timelines, clarity in document processing, and a broader scope of compensable species to better support affected communities.

Calling for a pause and broader consultation, the group proposed the creation of technical review panels and pilot studies to assess the bill’s mechanisms. “With collaborative effort, we can craft legislation that truly safeguards our natural heritage,” they stated.