Save Amboseli Home

2007

Update
5th February

2006

Update
22nd November

Update
21st October

Update
14th July

Update
11th May

Update
8th May

Update
15th February

Update 1st December

Update 24th November

Update 22nd November

Update 15th November

Update 14th November

Update 11th November

Update 10th November

Update 7th November

Update 31st October

Update 28th October

***stop press***
26/10/05 Court Case Adjourned Until November

October 24th

October 19th

Open Letter To The Media and Conservation Organizations from David Western

EAWLS Statement

Open Letter to the His Excellency, The Rt. Hon. Mwai Kibaki, President of the Republic of Kenya.

**Press release**
October 13th

October 10th

Save Amboseli

Dear Friends

It is my understanding that the matter of Amboseli National Park being downgraded to a National Reserve will come before the High Court tomorrow (Tuesday 25th) when the Minister, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the County Council will be asked to address the concerns raised by the plaintiffs in the document submitted on 7th October 2005. Of course, as soon as I hear what the outcome of this hearing is, I will report it on www.saveamboseli.net.

I will keep this particular update quite brief.

I want to try and address some of the comments made by a number of correspondents to the site to ask what the difference is between a National Park and a National Reserve. It would appear (and I am not a lawyer) that they include:

  1. The management of a National Reserve divolves to the local authority (eg county council) whereas the management of a National Park is undertaken by the national authority, such as KWS, on behalf of the nation.
  2. The income derived from the gate receipts to a National Reserve go to the local authority whereas the gate receipts from a National Park go to the national authority.
  3. The degree of human activity inside the National Park is severely restricted and, as I understand it, should not take priority over the needs of wildlife. The human activities inside the National Reserve are less restricted and it can involve permission for livestock to enter the area, etc..
  4. As I understand it, any change of use or modification of the use of the National Park requires consultation by the Minister and the approval of the National Assembly. Modifications to the human use of a National Reserve can be decided by the Minister without recourse to the National Assembly.

This last point seems to me particularly important since it seems clear that once an area has been accorded National Reserve status its protection from further changes of use and status is significantly diminished by comparison with a National Park. Perhaps there are lawyers out there who can clarify this?

I have also had a number of constructive comments from people asking whether there is a way of reconciling the needs of local people while still maintaining Amboseli's status as a National Park. It does seem to me that this is a critical issue and it cannot be beyond us to arrive at a structure which would ensure that meaningful and significant benefits, which would address issues such as health, sanitation, water, education etc., are delivered to the local community while at the same time ensuring that the wildlife professionals at KWS continue to manage the areas as a National Park and that the income from the Park, upon which KWS currently relies to carry out a significant proportion of its work in other Parks is not jeopardised.

Please check the website soon for the latest news - I will post the outcome of the court case as soon as I have it.

Will Travers
CEO Born Free Foundation

< back