Baraza

Category: Africa, Climate change, Forests, Masai Mara, Mau Forest Complex, conservation, drought | Date: Nov 17 2009 | By: Maina

Kenya just recently went through the most devastating drought in decades. It is believed that in some parts of the country, this drought was made worse by forest destruction and the resultant drying of rivers. The most dramatic case of rivers drying was experienced in the areas which source their water from the Mau Forest Complex. The Mau is the largest continuous forest area in East Africa and is the source of many rivers including the Mara River, which runs through, and is the lifeline, of Kenya’s most celebrated wildlife conservation area - the Masai Mara National Reserve.

The Mau Complex in Kenya (Map: BBC News)

For years, the Mau has suffered severe destruction as land hungry Kenyans invade the forest, sometimes with government consent and fraudulently issued legal land ownership documents. According to the BBC “During the past 15 years, more than 100,000 hectares - one quarter of the protected forest reserve - had been settled and cleared.” About 20,000 families had settled in the forest.

In the last few years, the government has been working on the removal of these illegal settlers from this forest complex which is the largest of the country’s 5 most important ‘water towers’. Now it seems that the government is succeeding, but it has not been - as usual -without its fair share of politics. Of course, where voters are concerned, the politicians will take sides depending on which block of the electorate they want to align themselves with.

That said, the first batch of illegal settlers started leaving the forest a couple of days ago. This, in environmental terms is good as the government has promissed to plant 100-million trees to replace those felled by the settlers. It is a good start but it will definitely take decades before the rivers of the Mau can once again flow as they did before the 1990s.

This eviction however introduces a sad humanitarian crisis since many of the evictees have nowhere else to go. Many have resigned to a life of squalor on the outskirts of the forest, along major roads. The government says it has plans to resettle those who are genuinely homeless in the same fashion it is assisting the IDPs who resulted from the violent fallout from the disputed 2007 presidential elections. We however know how these things work.

To really know how the government is likely to deal with this huge humanitarian burden, you just need to reflect back to the case of evictees that came from the Mount Kenya Forest. This particular group had been living in the forest when the colonial government demarcated the forest reserve in 1950. In 1989 however, they were evicted after they started encroaching further into the forest. Since then, they stayed by the roadside until July 2009 when they were allocated land in Laikipia area north of Mount Kenya. They had been on the roadside for 20 years.

Is the eviction of 20,000 humans out of the forest a good thing? I would say yes. They need to get out so that the work of rehabilitating the forest can start in earnest. But, the government should act with haste to find alternative agricultural land to settle these people so that they can once again engage in economic activities that help in building the nation.

Evictees cannot be allowed to go back to the Mau. That would make matters worse. They should not be relocated to another protected area. There are still large tracts of land owned by a few rich Kenyans. Such land is lying idle and underutilized despite the fact that it is in prime agricultural areas. The government should force these greedy landowners to sell this land and use it to settle the landless.

Tags: Climate change, eviction, forest, Kenya, land, Masai Mara, Mau Forest Complex, Mount kenya, tree planting

No responses yet

Category: Africa, Blog Action Day, Climate change, wildlife | Date: Oct 15 2009 | By: Maina

This is my view of how climate change will affect wildlife - Maina

When world leaders discuss climate change, the picture that is in their minds is of people caught in drought and floods, melting snow and icecaps in the mountain ranges and polar regions, and the polar bear. Well, that is not the worst case scenario. Less obvious wildlife (as compared to the polar bear) will suffer too – and perhaps more than humans.

You see human kind – as a species – will survive this rapid change in climate better than wildlife. Humans, in short, will survive. But some non-human inhabitants of mother Earth will not. It’s a given that wild species of animals and plants survived the beginning and end of the Ice Age, but they did so naturally. The climate change then was not as rapid as the climate change we are witnessing today. We all know the reason why – humans had not invented the steam engine, hadn’t discovered coal and petroleum and industrialisation was not even a seed in the little mind our ancient ancestors.

Now greenhouse gas emissions and an opulent consumerism has renderd the natural systems weak and the pace at which global warming and other climate change factors are progressing is mind boggling – and wildlife cannot keep abreast.

Take the example of trees. In mountain ranges, there is a nice tiered arrangement of different dominant species of plants. From lowland forest trees to upland, bamboo, alpine glades, tundra etc. Two problems arise here. 1) Assuming the vegetation belts can quickly stay at pace with temperature rise, they will push each other up the mountain until they all have nowhere else to go then they go extinct. 2) In reality, they cannot keep up the pace so they will die on the way up.

The great Savannahs of Africa may look indestructible – but they are not. We are increasingly seeing irregular rain patterns which is disrupting vegetation growth resulting in mass deaths of the massive herds of charismatic and much loved large herbivores, and their attending predators iconically represented by lions, cheetah, leopard and the like.

In Kenya recently, prolonged drought – and we can not rule out the effects of climate change as the cause – first killed livestock, then pushed the livestock into wildlife habitats, then killed the wildlife. Now Kenya is – ironically – waiting for El Nino rains to settle in so that it can save people, their livestock and wildlife. But the El Nino could be made more severe by the effects of climate change. So more people, livestock and wildlife will die. Iregi Mwenja, a Kenyan bushmeat researcher posted pictures of the onset of the El Nino rains in Voi today. One of the casualties of the big water was a masai goat that died in the floods.

That is a look on the extreme weather conditions that climate change is making worse. The silent increase in temperature will have the most devastating impact on wildlife as habitats change. According to the BBC:

It is estimated 20-30% of plant and animal species will be at increased extinction if the temperature rises by more than 1.5 – 2.5C. Less snow in winter, warmer temperatures in summer and more winter rain will affect wildlife across the board. Sea level rises will reduce land area in some countries, which will instantly affect vegetation which is currently used for homes and foods by animals.

In Africa, most of traditional dispersal area for wildlife is now occupied by humans as population increases exponentially. When climate change takes full effect, wildlife will attempt to move to these areas and human-wildlife conflict will escallate. The result is that wildlife will be killed. From another perspective, humans, with the effects of climate change on their heels, will invade wildlife protection areas, killing wildlife to create room for themselves, and their ravenous progeny.

Lest you tell me that the earth is man’s home, and we don’t need the wildlife, let me remind you the intricate balance between biological  systems, including bacteria! and the physical (rock) earth. The scientific author, Edward O Wilson, in his book “The Future of Life” talks of the earths biological system as a layer of living matter so thin you cannot see it sideways from space but absolutely neccessary for overall integrity of the planet as a whole (including energy flows). So there you have it: Without the biological system, there is no earth. Or in a language that you will understand, without the biological matter of old that became fossilized millenia ago, we would not have oil or coal = no fuel = no cars = no industrialization.

It is time to act. Our first wave of action is no doubt massive adjustment to our consumption patterns in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This, if dully practiced, could slow down climate change. Talk, write, chant, wave placards at or do what you do best, but make your leader act on climate change. Tell them that when they get to Copenhagen on 7-18 December 2009, they have to come up with a climate deal that saves us and wildlife. And go over to TckTckTck and join the more than 2 million ‘planet earthians’ tell the world leaders that you are ready for a climate deal that works.

It is said that climate change is inevitable, but the pace will have to slow down. Climate change has occurred before, but not at this pace. Let us all change the way we live, slow climate change and give the other inhabitants of this planet a chance to take on climate change at their own pace. We cannot make them adapt at our pace…they were not made that way.

Let’s slow climate change. Lets save our wildlife.

Tags: Africa, Blog Action Day, Climate change, emission, environment, extinction, global warming, greenhouse gas, wildlife

5 responses so far

Category: Climate change | Date: Oct 15 2009 | By: paula

Dear all, I invited readers and friends to contribute their thoughts on Climate change in the run up to Copenhagen from 6th - 8th December - only 52 days away. It may not surprise many of you that our first guest blogger is Sheryl who writes  her own fantastic blog Not Honey: Please don’t tap on the glass.

Climate change decision must include commitment to slow and stop population growth

No one likes to talk about human overpopulation as the number one
crisis facing our planet. Most environmentalists and wildlife
protectors don’t like to talk about it. There’s the idea that having
as many kids as you want is a God-given right and mentioning that
“right” as a cause for climate change and planetary destruction irks
many people.

That silence is deadly. Here the world waits for the U.S. to take the
lead on climate change and the best we can do is a useless
cap-and-trade bill that has no chance of actually limiting greenhouse
gas emissions. There are too many loopholes, including the
“offsets” that industry insists they must have, and no clear plan for just how
many credits for emissions the big polluters can buy. Not included at
all in this bill are greenhouse gases from farms, which emit
35-40 percent of all methane emissions, “(which have 23 times the
global warming potential of carbon dioxide), 65 percent of nitrous
oxide (which is 320 times as warming as carbon dioxide) and 64 percent
of ammonia, which contributes to acid rain” according to the 2006 UN
report “Livestock’s Long Shadow.”

Food production for an exploding human population is a major source of
global warming pollution. There is talk now among wildlife protectors
about designating more wildlife parks and reserves for agriculture and
animal farming. Dr. Richard Leakey, noted anthropologist, wildlife
protector, and head of WildlifeDirect, in an interview for
“Kenya Imagine” said the following:

“Population growth is, as far as I am concerned, is
probably the single most worrying factor for the planet. We can look
at a farm, we can look at a national park – we can say the carrying
capacity of that area is “x.” If we look at the planet, the carrying
capacity for our planet has been exceeded. This planet has too many
people on it. How we address this I don’t know. But I am certain if we
don’t address it, many of the good efforts being made to cut carbon
dioxide emissions and to find alternative sources of energy won’t have
the desired effect. It has got to be linked and conceptualised in a
way that stabilises the human population and ultimately brings the
numbers down.”

Iregi Mwenja, a researcher on WildlifeDirect, has posted more than once about
the threat to wildlife from a growing human population. Recently, he
posted:

“With the population of the world at 9 billion in
2050, we may have 370 million people facing famine
worldwide. FAO says more land is needed to increase food production by
70 percent in 2050. In a country like Kenya where land is scarce now
and famine is the order of the day, the situation will be grave
serious in 40 years time when human population will have grown to over
60 million people. We may be forced to sacrifice some land in our
protected areas to feed this overblown human population! If you don’t
want to contribute to this catastrophe, let us limit the number of
kids per couple to 2. Please read the BBC NEWS
article below for more details on the FAO report.”

Read that again: Food production must increase 70 percent over
the next 40 years to feed the growing human population. What
does that mean?

More factory farms and far more greenhouse gas emissions promoting
global climate change than can be regulated or capped-and-traded. The
BBC story states that “Climate change, involving floods and droughts,
will affect food production.” Climate change is already having a
devastating affect on food production and vice versa.
Thousands of farmers in India have committed suicide because of crop failures
due to drought. Deforestation in the Amazon to make room for
cattle farms and soybean farms to FEED THE CATTLE has caused the loss
of more than 150,000 square kilometers of rainforest in Brazil between 2000-2008.
Loss of forests in the Democratic Republic of Congo is putting
gorillas at risk of extinction, which will put humans at risk of
extinction, too.

How’s that? How can the loss of a fellow Great Ape species have
anything to do with human survival? Turns
out that gorilla dung is a major component in forest growth. We
need rainforests to turn carbon dioxide into clean air and to deter
the greenhouse effect. Gorillas, according to Ian Redmond, the UN
ambassador for the Year of the Gorilla, “are herbivores, feeding on
fruit and plants. The digested food, as it passes through their
systems, helps seeds to germinate. … The full extent of the
gorillas’ role in propagation is unclear. But Redmond said a number of
plant species could not flourish without them, or wild elephants, the
other large mammal crucial in germination.” The gorillas “caught up in
the region’s civil wars, preyed on by poachers, and crowded out of
their homes by mining and logging industries - are already endangered
across Africa. …But Redmond’s argument could help give the animals a
new level of protection.” Economists have suggested spending $15
billion on reforestation as a “cheap” way of cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.

“Redmond said gorillas were crucial in maintaining the lifecycle of
the rainforests in the Congo basin. The forests themselves suck up
more than 1bn tonnes of carbon every year.”

“This is what the species are for. They are not ornaments. They are
not just interesting things to study. They are part of an ecosystem,”
he said.”

We are the only species of Great Apes on this planet who seem not to
know their place in an ecosystem. If we continue to allow human
populations to grow and crowd out all the wildlife until they’re all
extinct, and use up all the forests until they’re gone … what will
we have left? A planet full of nothing but humans and a ruined
environment that can no longer support life.

“It is only if you bring numbers down that we will be able to find a
way for resource utilisation per capita to increase. It is the only
way you are going to deal with poverty and unless you deal with
poverty, the situation can only spiral downwards. This is a massive
problem and the solutions are not simply condoms versus draconian
measures such as one child per family. It has to be looked at in
different countries in different ways. I think there has to be a
commitment everywhere to slow and stop population growth. I do believe
that we have been set back a long way by the opposition to family
planning that is being shown by some of the religious groups and by
some of the more conservative governments such as the current US
administration.” - Richard Leakey, in an interview published during
the Bush Administration

–
NotHoney@gmail.com
http://nothoney.com
“… a vegan driving a Hummer contributes less to greenhouse gas
emissions than a meat-eater riding a bicycle.”–Capt. Watson

Thank you Sheryl!

Please leave Sheryl a comment here and if you would like to contribute your thoughts on a blog just write to me paula@wildlifedirect.org.

Tags: Blog Action Day, cattle, Climate change, Gorillas, Ian Redmond, not honey, richard leakey, vegan, wildlife, wildlifedirect

4 responses so far

Category: Africa, Climate change | Date: Oct 12 2009 | By: paula

 It’s hard to ignore the tension as the world hold it’s collective breath for the outcome of a meeting in Copenhagen on December 9-12 when the parties of

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meet for the last time on government level before the Kyoto climate agreement must be renewed (In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes and global warming expires).  Governmental representatives from 170 countries are expected to convene at the Bella Center as well as over 8000 others from governmental representatives, NGO’s, journalists and concerned people.

This is a HUGE issue. The conclusion of the meeting will be the Copenhagen Protocol to prevent global warming and climate changes. It will affect you and me and all generations to come, very directly.

Floods in the Philippines - proof of climate change?

It’s not just me that is worried. A survey of world wide views on global warming polled 4,400 citizens of 38 countries revealed that 91% thought the climate situation very urgent. It is a huge relief that the human race is finally aware that there is a climate problem.

 The way I see it there are two HUGE issues.  

Should the worlds economies focus primarily on

1.   Emissions reductions ie. Kick the carbon addiction

or

2.     Climate change adaptation Ie. Find a way to live with climate change

According to the World Wide views on global warming 58% of citizens of industrial nations believe that between green house gas emissions should be reduced by 25 – 50%.

At the Copenhagen ClimateCouncil earlier this year, the president of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon said “We know that the safest way of reducing climate risks is to reduce emissions. We know that taking early action makes good business sense. And we know the cost of inaction will be much bigger that the cost of inaction now”.

But yet fewer people from developing nations though that they should face the same emissions reductions. The problem is that if low income countries agree to lower gas emissions they will be unable to develop at a desirable pace or to the standards they aspire to. They also cannot afford the cost of climate change adaptations.

But Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UN Environment Program Executive Director says that cutting green house gases will not be enough. And Prof. Lučka Kajfež Bogataj from the University of Ljubljana agrees with him. On the Climate Thinkers Blog she says that the problem may be worse than we think “Deep down some of the scientists believe that we will soon be surprised to learn that the global climate change impact has been under estimated and that we will recognize that the climate change cost is even higher than was estimated”.

So my question is this. Do we humans really have the will to deal with climate change?

Well there’s a lot of shouting and yelling going on and activists are screaming for governments to agree to emissions controls.It feels good and people are being asked to make personal commitments to reduce their carbonf ootprint by 10%.

But do we really comprehend the scale of personal sacrifices that are needed for us to avert the consequences of climate change?

In this list what would you be willing to do?

1. Live in cold houses through the winter
2. Forgo air conditioning in the summer
3. Sell your car and use only public means or walk to get about
4. Eat much much less,
5. Be a vegan
6. Never travel on holiday again

Let’s face it, we are addicted to comfort – kicking the carbon habit = suffering. It aint gonna happen, most humans aren’t masochists.

As one very smart person said to me yesterday “we are constantly seeking to earn more so that we can live more comfortably, Americans will not change their way of life for climate change. Nor will they respond to the impacts of climate change which are already affecting poor countries“. The American who said this to me is a teenager. That scares me.

I am currently in Boston where it’s very cold outside and it’s toasty warm indoors – so warm that it’s delicious. I just don’t see people agreeing to be cold – it’s dangerous for our bodies and makes us grouchy.

Grouchy angry people are unpleasant to be around, but hungry starving people are dangerous

From what I’ve seen in Africa, I personally believe that the impacts of climate change will lead to civil conflicts, wars, and genocide.

Imagine what its like being a parstoralist in Northern Kenya where it has not rained for 3 years. Your cattle are starving and dying all around you. All your wealth could be gone in days unless you find grass and water. Your children are sickly and dying too – you watch them go for days with out eating. They don’t complain. Your wife is dehydrated, she cannot even produce tears when the youngest dies. You bury him in a shallow grave, you are too weak to dig any deeper. The sun is burning your skin but there is no shade, you are weak but you must keep moving in search of grass to keep the few emaciated cattle alive. You don’t care that you are in other peoples land, that they are armed and have threatened to kill you. You know that there will be a bloody battle so you carry a gun and you are ready to use it. You have armed your children and your wife too. This is a life or death struggle, you will do anything to stay alive and feed your family.

Sound fictional? It’s happening in Kenya right now watch this BBC video about drought conflict and elephants

The Copenhagen Treaty tries to address the immediate impact of climate change on developing nations and on page 122 it says

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

First let me tell you I HATE LEGALESE.

But what worries me more is that this language sounds like socialism and I’m afraid it is a red flag to the capitalists (who happen to currently rule planet earth). If you’ve been following the health care debate in USA you’ll know what I mean. Comments on the Coyote blog confirm my worst fears about lack of empathy by some American people towards other non Americdans. All I can say is that these people frighten me.

It’s hard not to feel despair for the planet.  I feel especially pained because climate change is affecting me. Kenyans are dying of starvation in a drought caused largely to climate change yet the countries that are mostly responsible for the climate change have not responded adequately to appeals and the WHO warns that only 10% of required food is available to feed 10 million starving people. I feel powerless to do anything to save my people. I know that suffering is already fueling conflicts.

Maybe it’s just me but I get the feeling that the countries attending the Copenhagen meeting are doing so with heavy hearts, the decisions at hand are very tough and will necessarily be painful. It’s as if to survive we have to chop off our limbs – otherwise we will slowly boil, and everything will be affected, oceans, soil, water, people, the air we breathe, wildlife and nature in general..

I’ve met many young people who believe it’s too late, we’re too greedy, too slow and too selfish.

But we cannot despair, it paralyses us. We are the thinking ape, LETS THINK up some solutions!

You can Help us!

We are inviting 30 guest bloggers to give us their views, their experiences, and to share their 3 big ideas in the run up to Copenhagen.  If you would like to contribute please send me an email paula@wildlifedirect.org subject My Planet

For a great guide to Copenhagen visit the Climate Feedback Blog

Tags: Africa, Climate change, conflict, Copenhagen, flooding, Kenya, UNEP, wildlife, wildlifedirect

7 responses so far

Category: Africa, Climate change, In the News, Kenya, Lions, National Parks and protected areas, Rhinoceros, big cats, drought, national parks, richard leakey, tourism, wildlife, wildlifedirect | Date: Sep 05 2009 | By: admin

In a previous story about cattle dying in the Nairobi Park We have been going purple in the face trying to raise awareness about the public health, ecological and economic threat facing Kenya as a consequence of uncontrolled movements of cattle during the current drought.

This is Dauti Kahura  story published in today’s East African Standard

A week ago, a man died of anthrax in Nyeri after eating infected cow meat. A week earlier, although not reported, two rhinos from Nairobi National Park died of anthrax. The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) confirmed the cause of deaths.

The death of the man should raise the red flag. There is great fear that some of the meat being sold in and around Kitengela and Ongata Rongai butcheries could be contaminated with anthrax, foot and mouth and east coast fever. Investigations by The Standard on Saturday revealed that sick and dying cattle are slaughtered on the roadsides and expose nearby communities to outbreaks.

Temporary bomas

Last week, five kilometres into Masai Lodge Road in Ongata Rongai where herders have set up temporary bomas, The Standard on Saturday team found sickly cattle being slaughtered for distribution to neighbouring butcheries.

Mr Rolf Schmid, a restaurateur who has lived in the area for almost two decades, raised the alarm.

“My first instinct was to contact the Ministry of Health and veterinary officials to come and witness the slaughter of dying cattle,” he said.

The Ministry of Public Health officers and vets from Kajiado concur that some of the cattle appeared sickly although not all were emaciated. The Government health officials, who sought anonymity because they are not authorised to be quoted, confirmed that the animals pose danger.

Due to drought, Maasai herders drive the cattle up to the city and many of them are kept in bomas along Mombasa Road. Tens of thousands of cattle that have been migrating from Loitokitok, Tsavo West, Kibwezi, Sultan Hamud and Kajiado are also being held in bomas on the northern and southern sides of the Nairobi National Park.

By day, these cattle are hosted on the local ranches around the park and by night driven inside it for grazing. Early this week, The Standard on Saturday observed hundreds of cattle being driven into the park on the southern end from the Masai Lodge Road. Tired and exhausted, they walked in a profile, with some not completing the journey.

herding in parks

According to a KWS senior warden, herders have been cutting the fence to allow large numbers of cattle into the park. KWS impounded 1,000 cattle and when the herders came for them the next day, they said some of the animals belong to “well connected Kenyans”.

Due to severe drought and exhaustion of grazing fields, Nairobi National Park is the only location in city with ample grazing field.

But now it is also massively threatened with decimation. More worrying is the fact that the wild animals are also at great risk of being infected with diseases. KWS officials say some antelopes have been infected with foot and mouth.

Tags: anthrax, cattle, Dauti Kahura, Lion, Lions, LIvestock, Nairobi Park, rhino, wildlifedirect

2 responses so far

Category: Africa, Climate change, drought, national parks, wildlife, wildlifedirect | Date: Aug 24 2009 | By: paula

In a meeting this weekend with the warden of Nairobi National Park, Mr. Michael Wanjau of KWS and some other government officials as well as residents of the area, it was revealed that tens of thousands of cattle are grazing in the Nairobi National Park as a result of the ongoing devastating drought.

Mr Wanjau admitted that the numbers of cattle in the park has reached record levels. So weak from walking hundreds of kilometers in search of grazing, many do not make it.

Some herders are cutting the fence of the park to let cattle in. Some are being herded across rivers.

The southern part of Nairobi park is littered with cattle carcasses and vultures, hyenas and lions have eaten their fill.

Out on the staging grounds in Kitengela adjacent to the park where cattle are gathering, hundreds are dying and nobody is removing carcasses. The Kenya Meat Commission tried to buy up the herds for Ksh 8,000 per cow (about 100$) but herders have refused to sell, they say they are hoping for rain.

Some dead and dying cattle are being butchred on the roadsides which poses a horrific public health situation. The Ministry of Health is being informed as I write this blog post.

Many cows affected by foot and mouth disease simply cannot walk anymore like this calf. She lay down by one of the entrances to KWS and just died right there. It broke my heart that no one would touch her or put her out of her misery for fear of whatever disease she was suffering from.

The meeting on Saturday felt that the situation is a crisis and are demanding that the governmetn conduct compulsoray purchase of cattle to avert a public health and environmental disaster. But it is being whispered that these cattle are owned by rich and powerful Kenyans, a challenge that few Kenyans are willing to take head on.

Technorati : Nairobi National Park, cattle, disease, drought, wildlife, wildlifedirect, zoonosis

Tags: cattle, disease, drought, nairobi national Park, wildlife, wildlifedirect, zoonosis

2 responses so far

Category: Climate change, Emergencies, Kenya, Lions, Poisoning wildlife, drought, national parks, poaching, wildlifedirect | Date: Aug 17 2009 | By: paula

A race against time

Published in the East African Standard

By Dauti Kahura

Conservationists and wildlife experts have sounded alarm bells over declining numbers of wildlife, which contributes 70 per cent of the country’s tourism earnings.

“What is happening with the wildlife is worse than the degradation of the Mau complex,” says Dr Joseph Ogutu, an ecologist with the International Livestock Research Institute (Ilri) based in Nairobi. “The decline of wildlife is real and frightening and we need to act fast,” he says.

Ogutu says the decline is in the protected and non-protected areas. Protected areas are the national parks and game reserves while the non-protected ones are pastoral lands and group ranches that surround parks and reserves. Two weeks ago, a conference in Beijing, China heard that the number of wildlife in East Africa is being depleted.

Dr Paula Kahumbu of Wildlife Direct, who attended the conference, says Kenya’s wildlife is at greater risk of eradication.

The country loses between four and five per cent of its wildlife annually. The Department of Remote Sensing and Resource Surveys (DRSRS), a Government department formerly known as Kenya Rangeland Ecological Monitoring Unit, says wildlife has declined by more than a third over the last 25 years.

Kenya has 23 parks, which fall directly under the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and 26 national reserves, which are under the district administration.

The country also has the largest bio-diversity of large animals in the world. Masai Mara has the largest concentration of wildlife and hosts 25 per cent of the national total, underscoring its importance.

With this resource under threat, conservationists say the Government should use all means to preserve it. Ogutu, who has been doing research in the Mara ecosystem since 1989, says drought, changing land use, climate change and poaching are a threat to the resource.

“KWS is in denial of what’s happening,” says Ogutu.

KWS’ TAKE

He says the organisation is only present in the national parks and the game reserves but absent at the group and private ranches. The unprotected areas hold about 65 per cent of the total wildlife and hence hold the key to the future. KWS has refuted claims of wildlife decline. Corporate Communications Manager Paul Udoto says KWS cannot conclusively say whether the animals are decreasing or increasingly generally. Udoto says one could only talk of specific species.

Ogutu lists the most affected parks as Masai Mara Game Reserve, an area that covers 5,600sq km, Tsavo East and West, Meru National Park, Nairobi National Park, which includes the Athi Kaputiei ecosystem. Lake Nakuru National Park has also been affected. The Athi Kaputiei, for instance, had one of the most spectacular migrations of wildebeest after Mara but the migration has all but fizzled. At the height of the migration, the animals ranged between 10,000-15,000 in the early 1990s.

“Today, it would be a spectacle if you spotted 300 wildebeests,” says Ogutu.

The situation at the Nairobi National Park, the only park within a 10km radius of a metropolis in the world, is severe. This is because of the drying up of its only permanent river, Athi River.

“Many crocodiles, hippos and fish have died,” says Ogutu. Poaching has also been cited as one of greatest factors leading to the decline. Richard Leakey, who is the founding director of KWS, says poaching could be on an unprecedented scale perhaps not experienced since the days of Wildlife Conservation and Management Department, the KWS predecessor.

“When former President Moi asked me 1989 to redirect the conservation of wildlife, poaching was rampant,” recalls Leakey.

He says black and white rhinos have been lost in large numbers in the protected and unprotected areas and KWS does not know the exact number of the species so it cannot quantify the loss. Leakey believes rangers could be abetting poaching. KWS senior wardens who sought anonymity concurred.

“Our rangers have become demoralised and demotivated, it is true they are abetting the wildlife poaching especially the big mammals like elephants and the rhino, said a senior warden at the KWS headquarters.

Human Intrusion

Tsavo East and West national parks have one third of the total number of all the elephants in the country. There are currently 38,000 elephants. Although the numbers have been on the increase, about 400 elephants are lost yearly, says Leakey.

Another major crisis that is threatening the existence of wildlife is the cattle incursion in the parks. Udoto concedes KWS is aware livestock owners are encroaching on the parks to the detriment of wildlife.

In the Nairobi National Park, it is estimated about 20,000 cows graze there at night.

Some livestock owners claim to pay Sh10 per cow to the rangers to be allowed into the park. Besides depleting food resources, livestock could carry diseases that are harmful to the wildlife.

Technorati : East African Standard, KWS, Kenya wildlife service, drought, kenya, lion, poaching, wildlife

Tags: drought, East African Standard, Kenya, Kenya Wildlife Service, KWS, Lion, poaching, wildlife

No responses yet

Category: Climate change, Emergency appeals, Mau Forest Complex, elephants, national parks | Date: Aug 03 2009 | By: admin

Today Wangari Maathai wrote a thought provoking article warning all of us in Kenya that the water shortages, power black outs and crop failures that we are feeling now are payment for our disrespect towards the Mau Forest  - our most important water tower.

She argues that the destruction of Kenya’s Mau Forest Complex has come about as a result of years of mismanagement (planting of monocultures and abuse of shamba system) as well as corrupt practices that led to encroachment, land grabbing and illegal logging by politicians and their friends. It irks us that these were the very people we entrusted to protect it.

“These destructive practices greatly reduced the forest cover and the “environmental services” it renders us, which we take for granted.” She states. Indeed, Kenya is facing one of the worst droughts in living history. Rivers have dried up, hydro power schemes have shut down, and vegetation cannot survive in the dry earth. Starving animals have reduced the landscape to a dustbowl in many places, now livestock and wildlife are dying in droves.

Professor Maathai reminds us that environmental services including the control of rainfall patterns, conservation of rainwater in underground water reservoirs and wetlands, conserving biodiversity, controlling water flow and therefore soil conservation and serving as a carbon sink and thereby reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide have all been compromised. And this she says, is why we are suffering today.

Maathai is right that we must be pay for the environmental damage we cause. But she is wrong that the destruction of the Mau is the sole cause of this devastating drought. Climatologists are warning that this situation is much greater than the destruction of the Mau Forests. The failure of the rains this year and high temperatures are not due to local causes, these are signs of a global phenomenon the El Nino. They have sent out an alarm that we are facing an El Nino year. This devastating climatic aberration is associated with rising sea temperatures.

The situation is bad and is getting worse. In February the Kenyan Government declared a state of emergency saying that 10 million people may face hunger and starvation after a poor harvest, crop failure, a lack of rain and rising food prices.  According to predictions, the hot dry spell will be followed by windy storms and heavy rains after September and this could go on until February. The punishment will therefore be prolonged, with failing crops, and devastating floods.

As in 1964 we could see the death of 90% of the countries livestock. Wildlife is equally badly affected. We have been receiving heart wrenching reports of elephants, hippos, and wildebeest deaths in Amboseli, Masai Mara, Tsavo and Laikipia.

While the government deals with the humanitarian crisis, we must not forget the wildlife.

Cynthia Moss has just written to ask us to urgently help raise $10,000 towards saving elephants in Amboseli. Iain Douglas-Hamilton of Save the Elephants has also reported the ravages of the drought on elephants in Samburu. William Knocker has been writing about the situation in Nairobi National Park.With so many livestock herders inside the parks now it is essential that we help with law enforcement until the drought breaks.

This appeal is to ask you to help us save wildlife during the drought

Until the rains break we must protect the wildlife as best we can in Amboseli, Masai Mara, Laikipia and Samburu. Please contribute whatever you can to help us keep rangers in the field during this especially difficult time. Meanwhile, we will keep you updated as the situation develops.

Paula

Tags: conservation, El Nino, Kenya, LIvestock, parks, wildlife, wildlifedirect

3 responses so far

Category: Climate change | Date: Mar 23 2009 | By: admin

While Tata Motors today rolls out the first of the worlds cheapest car, the Nano, at $1,980 a piece, it will enable poorer citizens in developing countries to move to four wheels for the first time. It will be a  monumental celebration of Indian leadership in innovation- particularly at a time when many Western car manufacturers are facing economic crises

You’ll agree with me, it’s an adorable little car. But the celebration may be dampened if not completely drenched by environmentalists who are crying murder.

The release of Tata Nano has been hyped up so much that it is probably the most anticipated car in world history, after all, it’s the first time in history, the worlds poor will be able to afford a car.

Millions of Indians will fulfil their dreams of car ownership, and most importantly, safe transportation which indeed was one of the main motivations of Tata Motors Chairman Rtan Tata, for making this new safe family car.

But despite Tata Nano being India’s pride and joy in technology and innovation, criticism and controversies abounds about the environmental and social impacts of this car. Greenpeace have released a video criticizing Tata for it’s impacts on turtles.

Because of it’s afordability, this cheap car will lead to a reliance on cars and not mass transport. This will lead to more cars on the road and therefore more pollution and congestion in a nation that is already suffering severely from both. One of India’s most prominent scientists, Sunita Narain of the Center for Science and Environment (CSE), has called for the Tata Nano to be “taxed like crazy”. Another prominent environmentalist, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, with Al Gore) claims that he is “having nightmares” about the Tata Nano.

American scientists are also outspoken. “This car promises to be an environmental disaster of substantial proportions,” says Daniel Esty, an environmental expert at Yale.

Tata however responds that the Tata Nano will get about 20 kilometers per liter of gasoline (50 miles per gallon) and will meet stringent European emissions standards that have yet to be adopted in India - check out this table. If this is true, then the Nano will pollute less than the two-wheelers it is intended to replace and get roughly the same gas mileage as the Maruti models. The Nano’s catalytic converter will reduce most pollutants by about 80 percent. Environmentalists predict that Indians will not maintain their cars in tip top shape and therfore the catalytic convertors will fail. When this happens, emmissions of pollutants could shoot up fivefold.  Note that exhaust emissions standards regulate the particles that make up smog, not emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide which the EU does not currently regulate.

When it comes to carbon the story is worse. CO₂ escapes catalytic converters completely. Since the Nano will replace motor scooters and motorbikes, which get about 54 kilometers to the liter, much more fuel will be burned and therefore increasing carbon emissions. According to Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, “Every new purchase of this vehicle is increasing fuel use per passenger by a factor of two to seven, depending on how many people are in the car,” says Sperling. That doesn’t even account for a decline in fuel efficiency if the cars are not maintained well.

These doomsday predictions bother me deeply. I don’t think that any of us really have the moral standing to criticize Indians for wanting safe family cars, particularly if the vehicles meet the highest Western emissions standards. Some observers feel that the environmental criticisms  smack of hypocrisy.

At the same time, the release of hundreds of thousands of these cars onto  Indian markets will undoubtably affect the climate change - nobody has done the projections yet on the scale of the impac but some environmentalists believe that the consequences will be far reaching if not disastrous.

I would love to consider the argument from both sides by asking you all a question. If you could, would you buy a Nano?

Tags: Climate change, global emissions, green peace, Nano, Tata, Turtles, wildlifedirect

9 responses so far

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