Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest

• Illegal activities leading to serious destruction of canopy and a decrease of the overall forest area
• Livestock grazing in the site
• Fire
• Landslides
• Cannabis cultivation
• Lack of implementation of the Management Plan

Previous deliberations: 
Twenty-third session of the Committee - page 90 of Annex VII
Twenty-fourth session of the Bureau – paragraph IV.31
Twenty-fourth session of the Committee – paragraph VIII.25 / Annex X page 114.

Main Issues: Transition of management, deforestation and rehabilitation;

New information: The Centre received an e-mail letter dated 12 April 2001 from the Director of the Kenya National Parks in which he informed the Centre that the State Party has had some delay in preparing a management plan from the international assistance (US$25,000) approved by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau. IUCN is concerned about the ongoing illegal activities in the Mt. Kenya Forest, despite the Kenya Wildlife Service taking over responsibility last year for a larger part of the Mt. Kenya Forest. Forest land excisions still take place on the ground, in particular in the Mt. Hombe and Ragati blocks of Mt Kenya Forest, outside the World Heritage site. In February 2001, the Environment Minister gave 28-days notice of intent to allocate 68,000 hectares of forest land, including locations around Mt. Kenya, for settlement, and there are reports that surveyors are working in the Hombe and Ragati blocks in an attempt to start land demarcation before the implementation of the Forest Bill. However, on 16 March, 2001 it was reported that the Kenyan High Court granted an injunction to prevent authorities allowing forests to be cleared.  These forests will now remain state property until a case filed against the Minister for the Environment is heard.  Cannabis plantations continue to pose a threat to conservation of the Mt. Kenya. Plantations  range in size from 2 to 3 acres and are located on the Embu and Meru South slopes of Mt. Kenya . When plantations are destroyed by anti-narcotics police growers simply move deeper into the forest.  Despite the arrest of some plantations guards, the authorities have not been able to identify plantation owners. The police and Kenya Wildlife Service do not currently have adequate resources to eliminate the plantations.

IUCN recommends that the Bureau invite the State Party to provide further information by 15 September 2001 on its actions to combat deforestation in the vicinity of Mount Kenya. IUCN urges the State Party to invite a monitoring mission to this site as suggested by the World Heritage Bureau in November 2000.

The Centre and IUCN received a letter from the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) noting that IUCN had ‘requested KWS nominate Mt Kenya World Heritage Site for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger’, and expressing opposition to the ‘proposed de-listing of Mt Kenya World Heritage site.   The letter noted that the management of the site had recently been transferred from the Forest Department to the KWS with the aim of enhancing management and enforcement.  The KWS reported that it had extended the boundaries of the site to include the natural forest, and was in the process of preparing an integrated management plan. IUCN has responded to the State Party by:  clarifying its role as an Advisory Body; outlining the process involved in listing sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger;  explaining the implications of inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and outlining the purpose of monitoring missions and the need for such missions to be approved by the State Party.  The Centre and IUCN note that the delay in receiving an invitation from the Kenyan State Party for a monitoring mission appears to be related to a misunderstanding on what was requested by the Bureau in June 2001.  The KWS was of the understanding that the request for a mission with the view to considering whether the site should be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger constituted automatic inclusion in this List, as well as subsequent removal from the World Heritage List.