On the 9th November 2005, representatives of the government of the Republic of Kenya and government of the Kingdom of Thailand signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Co-operation in the Field of Parks and Wildlife management. The Memorandum signed stated that Kenya has given a gift of 175 animals to Thailand for an open sanctuary - Chiang Mai Night Safari Zoo.

On the 20th December 2005, the High Court granted a 60 day injunction halting the exportation 175 animals to Thailand until a case filled by the CBO Consortium and the Kenya Society for the Protection and Care of Animals is heard.

Thousands of concerned citizens in Kenya and around the world are strongly opposed to the government’s decision to export 175 of Kenya’s free-ranging wild animals to Chiang Mai Night Safari zoo in Thailand.

We believe Kenya’s wildlife should remain in Kenya for the benefit of all Kenyans, as part of our magnificent national heritage. Outlined below are the reasons for our concern:

•  The animals involved include endangered species on Appendix II of the CITES list such as Serval cat, Crowned cranes, Lesser flamingos and Hippopotamus. The export of such species sends the wrong signals internationally and undermines Kenya’s future ability to lobby and safeguard endangered wildlife species within the CITES framework
•  According to a 2004 report by the Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Survey, Kenya’s wildlife population declined by 40-60% between 1977 and 2004. This massive reduction has continued unabated due to the rampant illegal bush meat trade, excision of forests, and widespread encroachment into parks and reserves for human settlement. We note with concern that the wildlife population figures advanced by the government spokesman are not based on any known national wildlife species census and, consequently, cannot be reliably used to justify the export.
•  There is evidence of drastic decline and even localized extinction of some wildlife species in habitats across the country. We believe that there are more ecological and economic gains to be had from restocking such habitats from overpopulated areas (e.g. elephants from Shimba Hills to Tsavo) as opposed to token wildlife exports. Kenya has a hard earned reputation for being compassionate and precautionary when it comes to the protection of its wildlife. This reputation, built over decades, will be placed in jeopardy by this single act, nullifying the international goodwill that accompanies it.
•  The process of capturing wild animals, caging them, and transporting them over long distances, is a procedure that should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary. For example, the relocation of endangered species such as the Black Rhino, and restocking of protected areas are essential wildlife management procedures. The intended Thai Zoo capture will certainly result in stress and mortality. In our opinion, it is neither essential nor necessary. Zoos worldwide can source animals from amongst themselves and not from the wild. Further factoring in mortalities will demand that the total number of animals captured must surely exceed the designated 175.
•  The intended export undermines the authority of the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), whose legislation superintends ALL other environment laws. Section 53 (1) & (2) of the Environment and Management and Coordination Act, for instance, lays out the specific conditions under which genetic resources, such as wildlife, can be transferred to non-citizens. Neither these conditions, nor the requirements for an Environmental Impact assessment, have been met
• Kenya’s wildlife has evolved within our local environments for hundreds of thousands of years. There are real dangers, therefore, in taking them to an alien environment, where they may be exposed to potentially fatal diseases. There is also the risk of these animals transferring zoonotic diseases to Thailand. These are some of the issues we believe an Environmental Impact Assessment should have addressed before the MOU was signed.
• The intended export is at odds with official national policy. Kenya has built an international reputation for its anti-wildlife stance. The intention to use wildlife gifts to gain diplomatic and economic leverage amounts to trade in disguise and is therefore, in our view, unethical. Economic gains, so far as Kenya’s wildlife policy is concerned, are meant to be incidental to conservation, and it is not clear whether this zoo is public or private enterprise. Note, also, that while Kenya banned wildlife cropping and consumption of game meat in 2003, the very facility to which our national heritage is destined had planned to offer exotic wildlife menus such as giraffe and lion meat. Although this plan has been rescinded, the proposal provides evidence of how far removed Thailand is from Kenya’s conservation values and policies.
• It is our responsibility to promote the growth of our national tourism industry. Support the Chiang Mai Night Safari Zoo will undermine inroads into the Far East Market, in which the Kenya Tourism Board has invested substantially. All the hard work may be lost because, there is a strong likelihood of many international tourists who are attracted by our conservation values and policies shunning Kenya as a result of this export. This is unfortunate, because it has taken considerable human effort and financial resources to realize the resurgence of tourism in Kenya following many years of decline.

• 45 organizations both Kenyan and from around the world, have signed a full-page Open Letter to the President, published in the Daily Nation on Wednesday 17th January 2006. (Read the letter below under updates)
• We are inviting you to register your opposition to the export of 175 animals to Thailand by voting below.

Thank you for your concern and support.