Save Amboseli - update 7th November
Dear Friends,
With the High Court hearing just
a week or so away it is obviously a tense and yet strangely
quiet time.
Nothing seems to have developed
much concerning the fate of Amboseli National Park but I have
found a number of interesting contributions which I have posted
to the site.
a) An article which appeared in
ENVIRONMENT-KENYA on 26th October 2005:
Amboseli at a Crossroads by Joyce Mulama.
"NAIROBI,
Oct 26 (IPS) - It's a move which some say has created a "disaster
in waiting". However, Kenya's government is refusing
to alter its decision to downgrade Amboseli, a globally-renowned
national park, to game reserve status.
The decision was put into effect earlier this
month by Tourism and Wildlife Minister Morris Dzoro following
a presidential order -- and has resulted in Amboseli being
placed under the control of a local authority, the Ol Kejuado
County Council. Previously the park was managed by the Kenya
Wildlife Service (KWS), the East African country's national
conservation authority, which took charge of Amboseli in 1974.
Alarmed environmentalists point out that local
councils have proved less than competent at managing reserves
elsewhere -- the famed Maasai Mara being a case in point.
Once a national park, it was put in the care
of Narok County Council by the previous government. The reserve
is estimated to bring in revenues of over four million dollars
annually; but, there is little to show for it.
Roads in the Maasai Mara are in a state of disrepair,
while tour vans are allowed to drive off-road in search of
wildlife, unchecked -- a practice that has resulted in widespread
damage to the environment.
Outside the reserve the situation is scarcely
more promising, with high levels of poverty testifying to
the fact that little of the park's revenue has found its way
to surrounding communities.
"We wonder what miracle Ol Kejuado County
Council has...that will beneficially administer Amboseli National
Park...where other local government institutions have failed
-- as in the case of 27 other national reserves, whose benefits
have not trickled down to communities," says Odenda Lumumba,
national coordinator of the Kenya Land Alliance. This organisation
is an umbrella body for groups which lobby for land reform.
It is feared that the fragile nature of Amboseli's
ecosystem will make the park even more vulnerable to inept
management than the Maasai Mara. Currently, Amboseli is home
to dozens of animal species, including an elephant population
of over 1,300 -- reportedly the largest in the country. More
than 400 types of birds can also be found in the reserve.
Furthermore, there are concerns that the Ol
Kejuado County Council will not be up to the task of preventing
poaching in Amboseli.
Despite these arguments, President Mwai Kibaki
said last week (Oct. 21) that the park's change of status
was irreversible.
The comment came during a visit to the presidential
residence by hundreds of Maasai, heightening fears that the
decision on Amboseli was a ploy to garner votes from their
ethnic group in the upcoming constitutional referendum, scheduled
for Nov. 21.
The draft of Kenya's new constitution is itself
a topic of controversy, with the opposition -- and even a
section of the ruling National Rainbow Coalition -- calling
on citizens to vote against it. One of the main bones of contention
concerns parliament's altering of the draft to ensure that
substantial powers continue to be vested in the presidency.
A previous version of the draft had indicated
that many of these powers should be shifted to the post of
prime minister, newly created for the purpose.
This reflected views gathered by the Constitution
of Kenya Review Commission, a body which toured the country
in a bid to gauge opinions on what a new constitution should
look like. The commission reported that Kenyans wanted to
see the powers of the president reduced, possibly in reaction
to abuses under former heads of state Daniel arap Moi and
Jomo Kenyatta.
During the visit to Kibaki, the Maasai members
said they would vote for the new constitution.
Efforts by conservationists to challenge the
decision about Amboseli on legal grounds have also been thwarted:
earlier this month, the courts declined to issue an order
halting government's bid to change the park's status.
This was despite the fact that under the law,
neither the president nor the tourism and wildlife minister
has the power to change the status of a national park unilaterally.
Parliament is required to approve the decision, while government
is also supposed to consult the KWS on the matter.
In the face of the uncertainty surrounding Amboseli,
Kenya Tourism Board Chairman Jake Grieves-Cook adopts a cautious
tone.
"We hope that the changeover of management
of Amboseli to the Ol Kejuado County Council will not have
an effect on tourism," he told IPS. Currently, the park
is one of the six most popular of Kenya's 50 game reserves.
"We hope that Amboseli will be managed
in a way that enhances it as a wildlife reserve that attracts
tourists. This is one of the leading parks in the country
and its proper management is crucial," said Grieves-Cook.
(END/2005) "
b) A public letter written by Dr John Waithaka.
John is a leading Kenya conservationist whom I met first in
the mid-1990's. He is a former Deputy Director of the Kenya
Wildlife Service (KWS) and has extensive knowledge of community
issues.
"The Editor Daily Nation
RE: De-gazettement of Amboseli National Park.
I am writing this letter from Ottawa, Canada to expressed
disappointment with the recent degazettement of Amboseli National
Park. Many people from universities, environmental groups
and conservation organizations in Canada have contacted me,
wanting to understand the implications of the above action.
They have all expressed outrage and frustration with the government's
decision, particularly because they have always viewed Kenya
as one of the pillars of conservation in Africa. Some would
like to protest openly over the degazettement of Amboseli
but are constrained by protocol and issues of sovereignty.
There is no evidence that the Maasai in Amboseli
are not benefiting from tourism, neither is anybody arguing
against the rights of the Maasai to manage and benefit from
their God-given resources. Since KWS introduced the Community
Wildlife Service (CWS) program in 1992, community-based wildlife
management within the greater Amboseli ecosystem has experienced
phenomenal growth.
I am concerned about the following impacts.
Illegal bush meat trade is likely to escalate
in the area without the presence of KWS. This trade has been
going on within the larger Amboseli ecosystem, and is likely
to get out of hand without adequate security.
Historically, the park has always been a refuge
for animals escaping from poachers and KWS has always provided
high level security using ground and aerial surveillance,
with back-up support from Nairobi and Tsavo NP.
Equally at stake is security for tourists. Withdrawing
KWS from Amboseli is likely to compromise provision of security,
with serious consequences to the tourist industry in the country
because any incident of insecurity involving a tourist promptly
leads to adverse international advisories, followed by mass
cancellations.
Grazing of livestock in the park is likely to escalate. The
Amboseli ecosystem is maintained by a system of swamps, half
of which are in the park. The ones outside the park have been
converted into farms. With a change in status, grazing of
cattle in the park will become rampant, and Amboseli may have
more livestock than wildlife in the drier months. The impact
of this on wildlife and tourism is quite predictable.
Benefit sharing is always a volatile issue,
with stakeholders always claiming more than their rightful
share. Amboseli is surrounded by four group ranches which
are likely to enter into protracted benefit-sharing battles,
at the detriment of wildlife. The reason why Amboseli was
made into a national park in 1974 was because of poor management
that resulted from constant wrangling over benefit sharing.
There is also a need to manage expectations. If Amboseli was
making KSh 40 million every month, the people need to know
that there are very significant overheads. Failure to manage
people's expectations will see Amboseli going down the drain
- very fast.
The decision is also likely to have serious
impacts on the management of other protected areas in the
country. Amboseli, Nairobi, Tsavo (East and West), Aberdares,
and Nakuru National Parks generate more than 80% of the revenue
for KWS that is used for running the other protected areas.
About 20 other National Parks and 35 national reserves do
not generate any money and have to rely on revenue from the
six. Removing Amboseli from KWS immediately puts wildlife
conservation in Kenya on a tight rope.
In terms of management, running Amboseli require
a great diversity of professionals, including wardens, rangers,
scientists, planners, accountants, pilots, drivers, tourist
officers, among others. By 2003, the group ranches in Amboseli
were struggling to recruit a handful of community game scouts
to manage human-wildlife conflicts outside the park. It will
certainly take several years to build adequate capacity for
managing the reserve.
Amboseli is one of the most studied ecosystems
in Africa, with monitoring programs that have been going on
for decades. As a researcher, I am also concerned about the
plight of researchers in Amboseli, who will now operate under
the mercies of the council and the local politicians. Without
the moderating role of KWS, researchers may start experiencing
some restrictions. This may not appear significant today,
but time will tell.
Many people do support the devolution of responsibility
for managing protected areas to the local people, and Amboseli
could have been a good model for this, given its Man and Biosphere
(MAB) status. But due to the interests that such a decision
is likely to create at local, national and international levels,
coupled with the social, economic and political ramifications
of such a decision, the right procedures should have been
followed. Kenya has failed to create a model of a successful
devolution process using Amboseli. Without a devolution strategy
and an exit plan for KWS, serious governance issues have been
introduced, unrealistic expectations created, and Amboseli
has been put in a state of "crisis management" with
effects that are likely to linger for a long time. To save
Amboseli may require the government to rescind its decision
and go back to the drawing board.
John Waithaka
Former Deputy Director
Kenya Wildlife Service"
c) I would also like to especially thank
the small handful of people who have contacted me so far offering
financial support in relation to the High Court action. I
suppose I am reluctant to make too much of this - obviously
some critics might want to characterise my appeal for funds
as 'another NGO wanting to feather his nest' but the truth
is that the direct costs associated with the High Court case
so far come to about US$8,000 and undoubtedly will be considerably
more and at the moment we are perhaps 5% of the way to this
initial target.
So if any of the many, many people who have
written to http://www.saveamboseli.net
would like to help meet these costs and assist with the case
in general then I urge you to please write to me personally
at traverswill@yahoo.co.uk
Thank you.
Finally, having now received more than 8,500
emails and having personally read more than 3,000 of them
I can confirm that 99% are against the degazetting, that about
1% are in favour and that many, many ask what can be done
to maintain Amboseli as a National Park yet deliver more meaningful
benefits to the local communities.
As I see it, until the threat of degazetting
is lifted then it is very hard to work together to find better
solutions for people and wildlife in the future. However,
if the High Court finds in our favour and degazetting is abandoned
then we must be ready - every single person who has written
to the Save Amboseli website - to step up to the mark and
assist in whatever way they can to making sure that in future
no Kenyan National Park is threatened in this way again and
that people living around National Parks have every reason
to protect and nurture them rather than see them lost forever.
I suppose what I am saying is that I hope you
all will consider becoming the nucleus of a body of concerned
individuals who will be there for the long-term to help protect
Kenya's wildlife and support Kenya's people.
Thanks for everything you do.
Will Travers
CEO Born Free Foundation