US embassy cable - 05NAIROBI4506

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 NAIROBI 004506 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR AF/E, AF/EPS, AF/PD, AND OES/ENV 
USAID FOR AFR/EA 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PGOV, SENV, PREL, EAID, ECON, KCOR, KE, Amboseli 
SUBJECT:  GIFTING AMBOSELI FOR VOTES - A BAD ENVIRONMENTAL, 
ECONOMIC, AND POLITICAL PRECEDENT 
 
REF:  A. NAIROBI 4143 (NOTAL), B. NAIROBI 4436 (NOTAL) 
 
Sensitive but unclassified.  Not for release outside USG 
channels. 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary:  Hoping to create support among the 
Maasai community for Kenya's draft constitution, on 
September 28, Kenya's Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife 
degazetted (declassified) Kenya's renowned Amboseli 
National Park and handed over administrative control to the 
local county council.  This blatant political ploy was done 
without consultation and did not follow proper legal 
procedures.  To curry votes, President Kibaki and his pro- 
draft constitution advisors have jeopardized the Kenya 
Wildlife Service's revenue base and its momentum for 
effective reform.  Further, it is unclear whether this 
"gift" to the Maasai will actually deliver their vote. 
What is certain is that the move sets a dangerous precedent 
and has encouraged other ethnic groups to call for local 
control of other national parks.  End Summary. 
 
---------------- 
GIVE IT AWAY NOW 
---------------- 
2.  (U) As noted in ref A, one of the President Kibaki's 
inducements for a "yes" vote from Kenya's Maasai community 
for the November 21 referendum on a new constitution was 
the September 28 degazetting (declassification) of Amboseli 
National Park to a locally-controlled National Reserve, 
handing over the management, and, presumably, much or all 
of the revenue, from one of Africa's best known wildlife 
preserves to the Ol Kejuado County Council.  While the near- 
and-long-term consequences of this move are not yet known, 
there real alarm among conservation groups, donors, the 
Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), and others about the likely 
negative impact on Amboseli's flora and fauna.  In the 
opinion of am umbrella conservation group focused on this 
action, "Amboseli National Park is a UNESCO `Man and the 
Biosphere Reserve' which should mean that it is accorded 
the highest possible national priority in terms of its 
conservation . . . downgrading the Park's status to that of 
a National Reserve is inconsistent with that obligation." 
(See www.saveamboseli.net.) 
 
3.  (U) Last year Amboseli National Park generated 
approximately 240 million Kenyan Shillings (approximately 
US$ 3.5 million) in revenue.  Prior to September 28, these 
funds were collected by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) 
and used, in part, to meet the revenue sharing requirements 
for the seven community group ranches neighboring the park 
and to support other national parks in the KWS system that 
are less well known and less able to generate revenue.  It 
is almost certain that KWS' other parks, reserves, and 
conservation programs will suffer following this loss of a 
key income source. 
 
------------------------------ 
A Tangled Historical Grievance 
------------------------------ 
4.  (U) At the same time, however, the Ol Kejuado Maasai 
contend, and there is ample evidence to support their claim 
that Amboseli National Park was illegally carved out of 
their titled land - the larger Amboseli Game Reserve - and 
as a community, they have not benefited much from 
Amboseli's status as one of the most visited game parks in 
East Africa.  In 1974, Amboseli was declared "State Land," 
and a national park was created by Presidential decree 
against a backdrop of protest by local Maasai communities 
and the Ol Kejuado county council.  To appease the 
community and the county council, the GOK agreed to a five- 
point benefit-sharing scheme:  i) provision and maintenance 
of water for livestock outside the park, ii) an annual 
payment to the community from gate receipts, iii) payment 
of all revenue accrued from hunting, iv) building a park 
headquarters at edge of the park to double as a community 
centre and v) a grant of 400 acres in the park to the 
county council that could be developed to earn revenue; 
e.g., from tourist lodges. 
 
5.  (SBU) This scheme worked from 1976-1981 when it began 
to break down.  Today, only a partial sharing of revenue is 
practiced.  Because of the GOK's failure to honor its part 
of the bargain, the community filed a case in court to have 
ownership of Amboseli returned to them.  The presidential 
decree downgrading Amboseli's status was not, however, part 
of any negotiated agreement to settle the case.  It simply 
came out of the blue as a transparent political attempt to 
buy the Maasai vote. 
 
---------------------- 
A CONSENSUS OF CONCERN 
---------------------- 
6.  (U) One of the most pressing worries, now that the Park 
is under local control, is whether the Council will be able 
to enforce the current practice of minimal livestock 
grazing within the park.  Currently, Maasai cattle and 
goats are permitted limited access to the park for water 
and when forage outside is in short supply.  If controls 
are removed from stock entry, there will be increased 
competition with wildlife for pasture and the incidence 
of human-wildlife conflict will likely mount.  Currently, 
KWS is still manning the gates at Amboseli without a clear 
mandate or revenue-sharing agreement.  Should there be a 
push for greater livestock use of the park, it is unlikely 
that KWS will push back. 
 
7.  (U) Dr. David Western, one of Kenya's most renowned 
conservationists, was intimately involved with designing 
the five-point plan in favor of the Maasai in 1974 when he 
served as Director of KWS.  He was a key speaker at an 
October 19 meeting of environmental donors at which he 
explained the history and range of issues that form the 
backdrop for Amboseli's management and for the moves on the 
part of the Maasai to recover it.  While never contesting 
the right of the Maasai to seek redress for Government's 
abrogating much of the five-point agreement, he has been 
outspoken in his opposition to the manner in which the 
recent degazettement took place. "Amboseli was illegally 
degazetted, and puts all other national parks in jeopardy; 
virtually every other national park in Kenya has now come 
under renewed pressure for degazettement by local 
authorities." 
 
8.  (U) The donors were also informed of a civil suit that 
four conservation NGOs and one private citizen have filed 
with the High Court of Kenya challenging the procedures and 
legality of the degazettment vis--vis the provisions of 
the Wildlife Management and Conservation Act and the 
Environmental Management and Coordination Act.  [Note:  on 
October 28 a Kenya High Court Justice acted on this suit 
and ordered a temporary halt to the transfer.  However, a 
previous court ruled that the suit "lacked merit," and it 
is not yet clear which ruling will be upheld.  End note.] 
The environment donors resolved to develop a joint 
statement that will be forwarded to their respective Chiefs 
of Missions and Directors with the aim that these 
ambassadors and high commissioners will present a joint 
position to President Kibaki. 
 
------------------------------------ 
THE KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE SIDELINED 
------------------------------------ 
9.  (U) There is broad agreement that the change of 
Amboseli's status was done improperly.  Specifically, 
Kenyan law requires consultations with relevant 
stakeholders (including KWS), a 60 day public comment 
period, and ratification by the National Assembly - none 
which took place.  The apparent illegality of the move has 
done nothing to faze the GOK.  The Ministry of Tourism and 
Wildlife, which took the administrative action to change 
Amboseli's status, claims it is resolving a historic 
injustice, and has simply unilaterally asserted that it has 
the authority to do so. 
 
10.  (SBU) For KWS, the move on Amboseli not only threatens 
its revenue base (22 percent of its annual income, by one 
estimate), but also its current efforts to secure Cabinet 
commitments and international partnerships for upgrading 
Kenya's National Parks and reserves.  Three days before its 
degazettment, KWS Director Julius Kipng'etich was reveling 
in Amboseli's new label as a "World Class Park".  KWS' new 
approach to enhance the global visibility and attractions 
of its Protected Areas, termed "Branding of Parks," focuses 
on scientific management of park ecosystems, engaging local 
communities to keep wildlife dispersal areas and movement 
corridors open, rehabilitating park infrastructure and 
emphasizing interpretive services to enhance a positive 
visitor experience. 
 
11.  (SBU) Such an approach, however, hinges on KWS control 
of these areas.  During an October 21 meeting with the 
Ambassador, KWS Director Julius Kipng'etich confided that 
the President's "gift" of Amboseli to the County Council 
made him "distraught."  Kipng'etich believed that his 
Presidential appointment to KWS was done with a clear 
understanding that he could pursue a reform mandate based 
on sound management practices, long-term planning, and 
broad participation among stakeholders.  He views the 
degazettement action as a reversion to the political 
patronage of previous administrations that clearly 
undercuts KWS' ability to reform itself.  Kipng'etich 
confessed that the Amboseli situation, and the precedent it 
sets, has him considering resigning. 
 
---------------------------- 
THE OL KEJUADO ARE NOT READY 
---------------------------- 
12.  (SBU) In addition to asserting its historic claim on 
the Amboseli land, the Ol Kejuado County Council argues 
that it can manage the Park effectively.  It cites the 
"Mara Triangle" in the Maasai Mara National Reserve as an 
example of effective local management.  However, Joyce 
Engoke, Senior Programmes Officer, Kenya Organization for 
Environmental Education (EOEE), an organization dedicated 
to community-based conservation, told Econoff that "giving 
Amboseli to the county council is a shame.  The Ol Kejuado 
Council does not have the expertise, capacity, or ability 
to properly manage the park; it is not like the Maasai Mara 
where there is an established local conservancy to manage 
the park on behalf of the community".  In addition to 
managing the park with sound practices, the County Council 
is challenged to equitably and transparently share the 
benefits accruing from Amboseli with the Maasai group 
ranches that surround it. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
WHAT THE GOK GIVETH, IT MAY TAKETH AWAY 
--------------------------------------- 
13.  (U) Ironically, an article of the draft constitution 
states that lands held by district governments are `public 
lands' and, as such, will be administered on behalf of 
local people by a National Land Commission.  If the draft 
constitution passes, it is quite possible that the Ol 
Kejuado County Council could be forced to relinquish its 
newly-gained control over Amboseli. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
14.  (SBU) Even following other controversial vote-seeking 
moves, including Kibaki's gift of land title deeds in 
direct contradiction to a standing court order (ref B), and 
promises of significant pay raises to county councilors 
(septel), the move on Amboseli is shocking.  It was done 
without the consent of the Ministry of Environment and 
Natural Resources and KWS.  And yet, most observers believe 
the Maasai will still vote overwhelmingly against the 
referendum. 
 
15.  (SBU) Giving this amazing asset to a county council 
with no track record of effective management or fiscal 
accountability is no guarantee of improved livelihoods for 
the local communities.  At the same time, the Amboseli move 
is a terrible precedent, possibly clearing the way for more 
of the kind of land grabbing and gifting that characterized 
the economically disastrous Moi era.  If the Ministry of 
Tourism and Wildlife can unilaterally degazette a park, it, 
or other ministries, could claim the authority to create 
new public land designations without the input of local 
communities or wider stakeholders and without observing the 
rule of law. 
 
BELLAMY