The Present Condition of Wildlife Conservation in Kenya
Toshio Meguro
Abstract
Open-access reader
Toshio Meguro
Abstract
Open-access reader
On September 29th 2005, it was decided that Amboseli National Park would be downgraded to a national reserve by the president. At first, the decision was criticized from the viewpoint of the national referendum scheduled in 2 months. Then NGOs joined in the discussion opposing the management of reserve by the county council, and wildlife conservation became the central issue. At last the fuss was brought to the courts. From the beginning it was clear that the decision was political and illegal, while there was an intense argument whether the county council can conserve wildlife and manage the reserve properly. After the case started, hot debate settled down outside the court. Even though there were some issues that appeared from the fuss, but the bitter collision between NGOs and the county council prevented the discussion going further. The issues are like; who are ‘local people’ that should receive benefit from wildlife conservation, who can give ‘legitimacy’ of wildlife conservation and park/reserve management to someone or some organizations and what is the role of local people. To consider these points environmental sociology in Japan is also helpful other than the preceding discussion in Europe or U. S. A.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
On September 29th 2005, it was decided that Amboseli National Park would be downgraded to a national reserve by the president. At first, the decision was criticized from the viewpoint of the national referendum scheduled in 2 months. Then NGOs joined in the discussion opposing the management of reserve by the county council, and wildlife conservation became the central issue. At last the fuss was brought to the courts. From the beginning it was clear that the decision was political and illegal, while there was an intense argument whether the county council can conserve wildlife and manage the reserve properly. After the case started, hot debate settled down outside the court. Even though there were some issues that appeared from the fuss, but the bitter collision between NGOs and the county council prevented the discussion going further. The issues are like; who are ‘local people’ that should receive benefit from wildlife conservation, who can give ‘legitimacy’ of wildlife conservation and park/reserve management to someone or some organizations and what is the role of local people. To consider these points environmental sociology in Japan is also helpful other than the preceding discussion in Europe or U. S. A.
Key concepts: Wildlife, National park, Wildlife conservation, North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, Legitimacy, Referendum, Politics, Wildlife management