Baraza

Category: Ivory, elephants, poaching, wildlife, wildlife trade | Date: Feb 27 2009 | By: baraza

 This is the official response from China on ivory smuggling through Kenya- what do you think? Is China really innocent?

Recently, several Chinese nationals were found in possession of ivory bangles, necklaces during their transit in Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, through which exaggeration and misinterpretation within some local NGOs arose. The embassy would like to reiterate China’s position on ivory trade and some related issues.

1. China greatly values the endangered species and has banned ivory trade since 1991. The Chinese government has adopted a series of laws and policies against the smuggling and illegal trade of ivories. With the new policy loosing the regulation on ivory trade conditionally introduced by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1997, China are targeted as destination of ivory trade by many businessmen internationally. Since May 2004, the Chinese government has requested all the markets to earmark their ivory products with unified icon to check the flow of the products and set up a database information system on all ivory products to ensure no illegal ivory enters the legal market.

At the same time, the Chinese government engaged in wide range of educational campaigns. The relevant authorities hosted seminars to emphasize the importance of the ivory trade control, printed and dispatched posters on ivory trade control to be posted in the visa chambers of Chinese Embassies in African countries as well as the Embassies of African countries in China. The Chinese government requests its citizens in Africa to abide strictly by the local laws and regulations, and not engage in any trade or transportation of ivory or its products.

The aforesaid efforts have won the recognition by the representatives from many international organizations and CITES Parties upon their visit to China inspecting China’s administration and law enforcement on Ivory trade.

2. Being fully aware of the Kenyan side’s concern on wildlife protection, the Chinese Embassy in Kenya has made every effort to educate the Chinese nationals not to engage in trade and transportation of ivory and its products. We have posters against ivory smuggling in our visa chamber. The embassy issues notices to the Chinese nationals in Kenya from time to time to remind them of the importance of this issue. The ambassador raises this issue many times during functions held by the local Chinese communities. The embassy has direct communications with the Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS) on the protection of wildlife and how to contain the smuggling of ivories.

The embassy is proud to say that our measures are effective. Up to now, the embassy has not been contacted by the local police or KWS on poaching or smuggling committed by Chinese nationals based in Kenya.

3. The embassy feels sorry that there were several Chinese nationals found in possession of ivories in JKIA. Actually they all came from other African countries and were in Kenya for transit. They bought ivory products like bangles and necklaces from certain African countries as souvenirs that are available openly in the local market. Many of them are first time tourists to Africa, and are not familiar with international practices on ivory. They are actually distinct from smugglers we normally talk about. Anyway, they violated the Kenyan law out of ignorance and they have learnt their lessons.

4. However, the misdeeds by some individuals can not be interpreted as activities of the whole nation. We can not accept the groundless accusations by some NGOs that Chinese are behind the poachers. Actually, the embassy has approached the relevant NGO for further evidence or information in August 2008 when we first read the accusations and the embassy is yet to get them until now.

The position of the Chinese government on ivory trade is clear. We are open, sincere, and ready to work with relevant parties to address such issues in a manner that is objective and fair.

3 responses so far

Category: National Parks and protected areas, WildlifeDirect news | Date: Feb 27 2009 | By: baraza

Sarah Chamblis of Princeton university spent ten days with me on an ecology and conservation field course through The Great Rift Valley.  apart from mothering a rescued baby ostrich, she also wrote a couple of guest blog posts for us.

Enjoy and please encourage her with your comments.

Paula.

Lake Bogoria and Conservation Challenges

Our first day out, Paula Kuhumbu introduced us to William Kimosop, the senior warden of Lake Bogoria National Reserve.  William is somewhat of a visionary of community-driven conservation, and he has worked for over twenty years to help those living in the areas around Lake Bogoria to understand the long-term value of their natural resources.  He encourages them to harvest resources like firewood and lake salt at low, sustainable levels by assuring them that the real profits from these items will come from the tourism they bring.

To deliver on this promise, William is trying hard to attract more visitors to the area.   To this end, he has planned and organized the construction of a tourist information center located along the highway, just a few meters from the equator.  We visited the site to see the progress they’ve made, and at this stage it looks good.  The main information office itself is a round, two-story cement building, and the site also includes a classroom and an outdoor platform with a 10-foot statue of a globe ringed prominently by the equator.  It is all appealing and modern-looking, and has real potential to attract visitors.  It still needs some polishing touches, though– for example, it doesn’t yet have power.  But, as William noted with a laugh as we walked away from the building, he would have to harass his boss for funding.  The project, it seems, is running short on money.

This does not spell doom for the development of the center, however: William has a plan.  He will try contacting multinational energy-producing companies and asking if they would like to be the tourism center’s corporate sponsor.  In return for providing the building with solar panels, they would receive an advertising space near the tourist center main building.

In some respects, seeking sponsorship from large corporations is a nice solution.  It seems like a win for the energy companies; in the US, at least, I have seen many attempts by big oil to work the “we’re pushing for alternative energy strategies” angle.  Being able to claim sponsorship of clean energy for eco-tourism in a developing country, all for the cost of a few solar panels and some posters– how could they pass up that opportunity?   And for community members, in order to move from subsistence farming to a profitable tourism-based business, they need capital.  Micro-finance organizations have been stepping up to provide that capital, but for some projects it might be easier to look to corporate donations.  If a company is willing to give materials in return for only public recognition, why bother with applying for a loan to buy those materials, especially since you would then need to worry about repaying the loan?

However, there are definitely some drawbacks I can see.  For one, part of the tourist appeal of Kenya is the idea that it is a natural setting that resists the advertising and corporate branding so prevalent in industrialized countries.  Smacking a multinational corporate logo on a tourist center might greatly decrease its appeal.  This idea falls flat when you see how many shops and roadside stands are already plastered with Coca Cola branding; Kenya is far from untouched by ads.  Buildings painted in garish colors like the bright pink of Zain or the lime green of Safaricom are already everywhere.  Suggesting that Kenyan tourism should avoid selling out may be a blind denial of the forces of globalization.

Safaricom store

The second danger I see is the possibility that a sponsor corporation will take far more from recipient organizations than they expect.  If companies agree to provide solar panels but ask for more than just a corner of the tourism office, what is William Kimosop to do?  He is not naive, but he can’t afford to hire a team of lawyers to negotiate on behalf of the community conservation effort.  Lake Bogoria has lost out to corporations before, although in that case it was due to confusion between KWS and the National Council for Science and Technology, and had little to do with the local council that is in charge of managing Lake Bogoria National Reserve.

But if the visitor’s center never gets off the ground and the communities don’t profit from tourism the way they were expecting, conservation in the area might be in real trouble.   I do hope that the tourist center gets its sponsor, but I really hope that they get a fair deal.

Sarah with the Baby Ostrich

No responses yet

Category: Climate change | Date: Feb 26 2009 | By: baraza

Hi chaps. Paula here. As I left my favourite supermarket with my shopping in a cotton bag I reflected on the insulted expressions of the checkout staff at my insistence that nothing is bagged in plastic. I noticed that I was the only shopper using cotton bags and turning down plastic. Living a plastic neutral in Kenya is practically impossible - everything is wrapped in the stuff!  There is hardly any recycling. Clearly there is very little awareness in Kenya about plastics, the relationship with carbon emissions, and global climate change. At WildlifeDirect we have made a conscious decision to tackle climate change as a direct threat to wildlife.

Although there is enormous amounts of scientific information available globally, not much seems to trickle down to ordinary every day people - making it tough for us to make personal decisions and be accountable for our individual footprints.

It’s depressing

The latest reports submitted at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science suggest that “Sustainable” isn’t sustainable. It isn’t even achievable, according to several scientists. According to them, so much carbon has been emitted during the last eight years that we may be teetering on the verge of a carbon tipping point. Yes, things are worse than earlier predicted by the IPCC, we have gone so far now that carbon neutrality isn’t an option anymore, if we are to save the planet, then we need to go carbon negative.

Here are 5 reasons why you should be Very Afraid

1.      Sea levels are rising faster and faster, and the sea thought to be responsible for absorbing a quarter of human generated carbon dioxide is not absorbing as much as predicted as the top layers of water are essentially saturated.

2.      Now the carbon rich sea waters are becoming acidic and this is killing off corals which in turn is leading to fish declines. It’s not just less protein for people, fish drink water and excrete calcium carbonate - thus playing a key role in marine carbon sequestration. One prediction is that climate-warmed seas would lead to fewer fish and a net decrease in calcium carbonate”.

3.      Global warming could trigger massive marine “dead zones” persisting for thousands of years.

4.     Although one study suggests that a fifth of the worlds carbon is soaked up by tropical forests, some forests do the opposite and emit carbon. Eg. Canadian forests where the interaction between drought, logging, beetles, milder winters and fire have reversed a 1.2 million square miles of carbon sink into a net carbon emitter.

5.      The race for biofuels has made things worse through increased slash & burn farming in the tropics. One scientist described it as “effectively burning rain forests in our gas tanks,”

 We need to find ways to educate our people and drive change in behaviour.

My committment is to make and give awaya cotton bags to 50 people this year (with relevant eco and political messages). I have estimated that if used correctly cotton bags will save 15,000 plastic bags. Hopefully the message will be contagious…if you aer in Nairobi and want one of my bags (made largely of recycled cotton) just let me know and I’ll get a couple to you.

What do you do to reduce your footprint and spreading the effect?

5 responses so far

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Feb 26 2009 | By: baraza

Folks, its Paula again.

Before you enjoy the photos below please consider helping WildlifeDirect by searching using Goodsearch and make WildlifeDirect Inc your charity …it costs you nothing and we really need the money - it can raise10 cts for every search made using Goodsearch and has already raised over $100 for WildlifeDirect.

Thank you

These are some of my photos from at Lake Baringo during a ten day ecology field trip through the Great Rift Valley with Princeton University Undergraduates.

Lake Baringo is one of the few  fresh water lakes in the Great Rift Valley. It is a spectacular lake  surrounded by the towering escarpments and cliffs of the Great Rift Valley. It’s an important bird area with over 400 bird species recorded there.  We saw 45 in one morning!

Il Chamus fisherman on Lake Baringo in a boat (or is it a raft?) that has been used unmodified for thousands of years. This is one of a handful of tribes in the world that still use this form of transport. Related to the Masai, the Il Chamus have broken a sacred taboo by eating fish! The Masai don’t touch them!

African Fish Eagle, looks like the American Bald Eagle doesn’t it?

Another spectacular bird, the Goliath Heron.

Hippos!!!

Il  Chamus lady (also known as the Njemps) - is this where body piercing started?

What a good reason to get up at 6.30 am!

Watch this space for more from the alkaline lakes of Bogoria, forests and more wild people, places and animals.

Hope you enjoyed them!

Tags: fishermen, Great Rift Valley, il Chamus, Kenya, Lake Baringo, Njemps, wildlifedirect

3 responses so far

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Feb 26 2009 | By: baraza

I am back from an exciting ten day conservation field course with three Princeton Undergraduates.  One of their assignments was to write a blog post about an issue in the spectacular site that is being protected by the local community near Lake Baringo in the Great Rift Valley.

Here is Sam Borchard’s first entry - enjoy and feel free to comment

Paula.

Adventuring in Baringo

Lake Baringo is full of captivating experiences – a quick boat ride around the lake will bring you within 30 feet of hippos, goliath herons, crocodiles, African fish eagles, and hundreds of other bird species.  Leave the shore and head to the Reptile Museum and you can see some of the most deadly snakes in the world (and hold some of the most adorable baby turtles in existence).  Yet the most exciting thing I saw during my trip wasn’t the animals or the lake itself, it was the 8km cliff line that overlooked the western shore.

 Massive 8km Cliff Line

As an enthusiastic rock climber peering up from the base of this colossal stone wall I could feel my heart race with excitement.  According to a member of the Kenyan Mountaineering Club I’d met the night before the large majority of the routes were unclimbed, just begging for a first ascent.  Visions of future trips with friends, of climbing and naming routes that future generations would look upon as classics, of writing guidebooks and starting a tourism-based guiding service rushed through my head.

The potential was incredible, but after calming down a bit I was forced to think a bit more about what the reality would entail.  How would the establishment of a climbing culture affect the environment here?  What would happen to the rock hyraxes who make their homes in the cliff cracks?  Or the birds that nest there?  Even with a strong “Leave No Trace” ethic physical impacts would be felt through erosion and wear at the base of the cliffs, not to mention the large number of chalked up cracks and ledges that would stay brightly visible through the dry season.  Is the creation of a climbing culture here worth the cost to the environment?

Personally I lean towards yes.  I believe that there is a compromise to be found between the goals of preservation and utilization of these areas.  While a full scale commercial climbing operation may be out of the question, completely eliminating it is in many ways just as extreme.  A small, properly managed climbing operation could certainly coexist with the wildlife in the area, while also offering visitors the opportunity to interact with the environment in a unique way.  Allowing activities like climbing (or boating, mountain biking, etc.) strengthens people’s connection to nature, which is the most important long term driver of conservation.  And while my dreams of becoming Lake Baringo’s climbing pioneer are a bit farfetched, who knows what the future may bring?

 Sam and a woman from local Turkana community

No responses yet

Category: WildlifeDirect news, enforcement, wildlife trade | Date: Feb 25 2009 | By: baraza

Hello everyone, its Paula here. I read with shock a report in the East African  that the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife has published a new Bill that allows culling of wildlife which is described as “the killing of “excess” wildlife”

Whatever that means - how will it be defined?

If this bill is passed in parliament, which is supposed to happen soon, the law will allow individuals to sell animals on their ranches.

There is an excess of white rhino on some private ranches… should they be culled or will the new law allow ranchers to own these animals and sell them (currently all wild animals are property of the state).

The new law will also split the role of wildlife management between the Kenya Wildlife Service, a Wildlife Department and the Kenya Wildlife Authority.

The Kenya Wildlife Service is a monolithic bureaucracy as it is and overlaps with Forestry and Fisheries permits makes corruption permits a daily issue. I suspect that with three wildlife authorities in place, things will quickly turn into a nightmare when one has three authorities.

Any Kenyan who has tried to get an environmental audit done here will agree that

1. We don’t have the technical capacity to manage all these authorities

2. More authorities leads to more corruption

3. The government  does not have the funds to create and staff two new authorities - and besides, KWS is over staffed as it is.

Having worked at KWS early on (it was set up by Richard Leakey and it worked quit well under his leadership) before I feel strongly about the issues that this bill is trying to address …wildlife on private land is disappearing fast because it is a liability, eating crops, threatening people and property, while generating nothing (the election crisis did that to us).  Meanwhile the bushmeat trade is escalating, and since one can’t raise game meat, cattle and goat rearing is increasing and devastating the landscapes leading to famines and frequent conflict with wildlife at grazing sites and watering holes.

The East African article states :

“The Bill proposes that the Wildlife Authority be similar to the Wildlife Division of Tanzania, which is said to subsist on revenues earned from issuing permits for different forms of wildlife use.

To raise its own income, the Wildlife Division of Tanzania has been increasing hunting quotas arbitrarily and sometimes in disregard of the state of wildlife population in the country”.

How do you deal with migratory wildlife on private land?

That’s what we all fear will happen here.

I don’t know what the answer is  for wildlife in Kenya but I am have a strong gut response as I suspect that this bill will benefit the Elite and some politicians. What do you think? Am I being too harsh? Please take the poll on the right

Tags: endangered species, KWS, richard leakey, wildlife, wildlifedirect

3 responses so far

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Feb 24 2009 | By: Maina

It is a difficult time for everyone given the economic issues that we are yet to resolve. It is therefore encouraging to see that despite these hard times, you are still giving to conservation. We know our bloggers have been thanking you for your donations, but we want to thank you again.

Then there are those who have been donating towards our core costs. The costs that we incur to keep WildlifeDirect running. The costs that we incur while enabling you to give to the conservation projects at the frontline. Although your names may not appear on the “Donations Received” column in our blogs, we appreciate you.

Today I want to thank Kyra P, Teresa B, Pilar H, Voice O, Robin L and William C who have maintained their monthly donations thus giving regular support for our operations. I also wish to thank Olivier L, Nicholas B, Jeanne F, Carole R, Marta N, Kathleen D, Loren P, Ronald M and Annette L for their one-time donations during the months of January and February 2009.

Thank You!

No responses yet

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Feb 24 2009 | By: baraza

Dear Friends,

Wildlife Direct is doing a great and fantastic job as  people like us, who
are living in remote areas and struggling with wildlife issues, are given
the opportunity to share our good and bad experience. Our NGO wasn’t very
known before and has progressed a lot thanks to the opportunity Wildlife
Direct offered us.

So, if Wildlife Direct is in trouble it means that our blog is in trouble
too and that the chimps of the JACK Refuge will no longer have the
possibility to ask for help nor tell the world about the horrible things
their species are going through in the DRC. We must help Wildlife Direct to
continue what it has started. Please, help them continue the good job!

Thank you for the help you can provide

Kind regards,

Roxane

JACK 

Tags: appeal, chimpanzee, endangered species, JACK, WidlifeDirect

No responses yet

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Feb 20 2009 | By: Maina

South Africa’s Pretoria-based Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, in a move to limit the number of White Rhinos being shot by hunters has declared an immediate moratorium on the number of these animals that any one hunter can kill in a year. Henceforth, any one hunter will be allowed only one rhino per year.

Photo from Esculapio at Wikimedia Commons

While South Africa has the largest population of White Rhinoceros, Ceratotherium simum, in the world, it is still depressing that they should continue to be hunted, either legally or illegally. According to a report appearing on Bloomberg.com on 18 February 2009, South Africa will not only limit the number of rhinos hunted - as opposed to the previous no-limit arrangement - but will also place a moratoruim on trading in rhino horn and other products.

There are two subspecies of white rhino, the Southern White Rhinoceros, Ceratotherium simum simum, and the Nothern White Rhinoceros, Ceratotherium simum cottoni. Of these, the southern subspecies is the most numerous of the 5 recorded rhino species (i.e. more numerous that the black rhino, Sumatran rhino, and others). The northern white rhino is, in contrast, among the most endangered magafauna in the planet. Only 4 individuals have been recorded in the wild, in Garamba National Park in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Some 9 individuals exist in captivity around the world thus bringing the total global population of this subspecies to a measly 13 individuals.

South Africa has had the most successful run in restoring the population of the southern type. Picture this, in the late 19th century, hunting had reduced the population of this rhino that once roamed the bushveld areas of southern Africa south of the Zambezi river to near extinction. The entire global population had been reduced to around 20 individuals.

Intense and expensive conservation measures which included strict protection and translocations ensured that as of 31 December 2007, there were 17,480 individuals of this subspecies. This is indeed success of unsurmountable proportions - especially in the realm of megafaunal conservation.

The white rhino is classified as Near Threatened in the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species of 2008 which is a status of lower risk than, say, Endangered but hither than Vulnerable or of Least Concern in the IUCN scheme of classifying levels of endangerment of species. The white rhino is listed in this cartegory because despite its growing population due to the continued poaching threat and high illegal demand for rhino horn.

South Africa has been able to grow the population of this sub-species almost single handedly even with the limited hunting that they allow. How would the situation have been without hunting? It is said that only ’surplus’ males, which would otherwise have been on pastures that would better be used by breeding populations, or which would fight and kill other rhino, are hunted.

I don’t suppose that South Africa really needs the hunting fee - which averages at $27,250 per animal - to fund its rhino conservation budget. There are other means of generating these funds. A good example is the live auction that they organize every once in a while. Since 1968, when South Africa opened rhino hunting, 860 have been shot. While this is a significant number and it is hard to know what impact these animals would have had on the entire population had they not been shot, I imagine that the ‘conservation’ dollars that they raised are insignificant in the general scheme of things.

This looks like the excuse the Japanese and others give for whaling. They call it research whaling but it all ends up in peoples guts. New thinking is obviously needed now that wildlife the world over is generally declining. Those populations that are on the increase, such as the southern white rhino, should be allowed to flourish. The ’surplus’ males and any other populations that cant be housed in South Africa should instead be sold to other states in the rhino’s former range. They should not be shot.

What do you think?

4 responses so far

Category: Forests, WildlifeDirect news | Date: Feb 20 2009 | By: baraza

Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park

The WildlifeDirect team then went to Bwindi Impenetrable National Park on the way to Rwanda.  This involved a bus trip to Kabale in Uganda then we took a cab to Bwindi a ride of about 2 hours.  We arrived there at around six in the evening.  The road there was being repaired and it was basically a smooth trip.  The scenery was amazing to say the least.

The Parks Boundary

We got there in the evening at around five in the evening, hoping to see the famed gorillas but we weren’t in luck as we were told that to actually see the gorillas we would have to go deep into the park so we had to settle for giant earthworms.

 Giant Earthworm

At the park is The Institute of Tropical Forest Conservation who are about to join our blog network.  We met Doug, Miriam and Joel who treated us to a sumptous dinner where we combined work and some food.  Daniel who is a field assistant regaled us with stories of his gorilla tracking excursions.  As conversations went on Enoch, Doug and Joel found out that they’d all worked in Papua New Guinea but at different times.

Bwindi is very cold and dark at night and it really lives to its name ‘Impenetrable Forest’.  Nights there are filled with animal sounds some eerie others normal, so we tucked in and prepared ourselves for the next leg of the journey that would take to Rwanda.

Tags: Bwindi, ITFC, MacArthur Foundation, wildlifedirect

2 responses so far