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: Uncategorized | Date: Sep 29 2009 | By: paula

A recent report by BBC reporter James Morgan on the impact of the destruction of Kenya’s Mau Forest has been making waves in Kenya. This well researched article highlights the causes of the forest destruction (bad policies), and it’s impacts (rivers, farming, climate and conflict). The current Kenya Government is trying to undo the damage caused by the previous regime and rich cronies  - ironically these people starting with the former president who have destroyed a national asset and caused untold suffering in the short and long term, will actually be compensated in cash. This policy of rewarding wrong doers has angered Kenyans intensely and the situation on the ground is very volatile.

High in the hills of Kenya’s Mau forest, some 20,000 families are facing eviction from their farms - accused of contributing to an ecological disaster which has crippled the country.

The authorities are to start the process of removing them any day now. Farmers will be asked to surrender their title deeds for inspection.

If their documents are genuine, they have a chance of being resettled, or compensated.

If not, they will simply be told to go.

Mau forest is Kenya’s largest water tower - it stores rain during the wet seasons and pumps it out during the dry months.

But during the last 15 years, more than 100,000 hectares - one quarter of the protected forest reserve - have been settled and cleared.

Tearing out the trees at the heart of Kenya has triggered a cascade of drought and despair in the surrounding valleys.

The rivers that flow from the forest are drying up.

And as they disappear, so too have Kenya’s harvests, its cattle farms, its hydro-electricity, its tea industry, its lakes and even its famous wildlife parks.

The finger of blame is being pointed at the settlers in Mau. And the solution, according to a special task force appointed by Prime Minister Raila Odinga, is to uproot the invaders and replant the trees.

Of 20,000 families living in the forest, they estimate that perhaps as few as 1,962 have genuine title deeds.

Civil conflict

“We must act now - before the entire ecosystem is irreversibly damaged,” said Mr Odinga.

“We are looking at securing the livelihoods and economies of millions of Africans who directly and indirectly depend on the ecosystem.”

The prime minister was speaking at the United Nations - appealing for donations of 7.6bn shillings ($100m; £63.5m) to “rehabilitate” Kenya’s water supply.

If he does not act, he foresees a struggle for water and land which could escalate into a bloody civil conflict.

Because in the valleys downstream of Mau forest, farmers like Peter Ole Nkolia are running out of water, cattle, and patience.

“Those people up there need to just move,” says Mr Nkolia, as he stands by the carcass of a dead cow.

“If the destruction of Mau shall continue I can assure you that a lot of people will suffer.

“What you are going to see here in Narok is just the skeletons of cattle - and maybe people.”

Worse still, the water from Mau quenches thirst far beyond Kenya. Its rivers feed Tanzania’s Serengeti and keep the fishermen of Lake Victoria afloat.

When you consider that Lake Victoria is the source of the Nile, you begin to grasp the scale of the crisis the Kenyan government is facing.

“This is no longer a Kenyan problem,” said Mr Odinga. “Tanzania and Egypt are feeling the heat from the Mau.

“And the implications go beyond the environment. This has the potential to create insecurity as people squabble over dwindling resources.”

‘Buffer zone’

Chopping down the tree cover in Mau has removed a natural “pump” which keeps the ecosystem alive.

“It rains a lot in Kenya - but only in the rainy seasons. Then you have four long months with not a drop,” explains Christian Lambrechts, from the Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

“So you need a buffer zone - a way to ration the rain water and release it slowly into the rivers in the dry season. That buffer is the forest.

“If you remove this ecosystem, you reduce the moisture reservoir. Which means that in the dry season… ‘Hakuna maji’. No water.”

When the rains in Kenya stop falling, the 12 rivers which stem from the Mau forest are the lifeline for about 10 million people.

And this year in Kenya, the rains failed badly.

Narok county - the breadbasket of Kenya - was a barren dustbowl in April, the wettest month of the year. The government declared a “national emergency” with 10 million Kenyans facing starvation.

Cattle keeled over and died, in their millions. And as the drought worsened, Kenyan government was forced to bail out farmers by slaughtering their weak animals for just 8,000 shillings ($105; £65) a head.

In western Kenya, the tea plantations of James Finlay, which feed on the rivers of western Mau, have seen their yields cut to 80%. And the town of Kericho experienced water rationing for the first time in a generation.

Trouble in paradise

Wildlife tourism - another pillar of Kenya’s economy - is wilting in the heat.

Lake Nakuru, the birdwatcher’s paradise, is disappearing. The rivers that feed it have run dry. They come from Mau.

And in the Masai Mara, the river which hosts the world famous “crossing of the wildebeest” has fallen to its lowest ever level.

Water scarcity has brought wild animals and farmers into conflict. Deaths, injuries and compensation claims are at record highs in Narok, according to the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS).

The fuse for all these disasters was lit in Mau.

“The Mau, in a sense, is the hen that lays the golden eggs,” says Paul Udoto, of KWS.

“The eggs are Lake Nakuru, the Masai Mara, the tea plantations… the farming that is being done by pastoralists.

“Once you destroy the centre - the hen - that is the Mau - then by necessity you have to lose the golden eggs.”

Frequent droughts

But can deforestation really be to blame for all these catastrophes?

After all, there have always been cyclical droughts in Kenya.

The trouble is that these droughts are becoming more frequent, more severe and less predictable. Particularly since 2001 - the year when 60,000 hectares of Mau were allocated to settlers and cleared.

“At a time when the climate in Kenya is becoming drier, that is when you need to boost your ecosystem - to help it to absorb the impact of climate variability,” says Mr Lambrechts.

“Go in the opposite direction, and you are going to feel those impacts much bigger. That is what we are currently feeling.”

Mr Lambrechts is one of 30 officials recruited to the task force by Prime Minister Odinga.

Their report, published in July, set out in painstaking detail how more than 100,000 hectares - one quarter of the entire forest reserve - was parcelled up and cleared for settlement.

Almost 20,000 land parcels were “excised” by the governments of Daniel arap Moi and Mwai Kibaki, and handed out to farmers - which helped to boost the two presidents’ popularity in the run-up to elections.

At the time, much of these excised land parcels were promised to Ogiek peoples, the original forest dwellers. But the title deeds ended up largely in the hands of local officials and incoming settlers.

Map showing three types of settlement within the Mau forest reserve: (i) Land excised and allocated to settlers by government (ii) Trust land which was adjudicated to indigenous forest peoples (iii) Land which was encroached or illegally purchased

Meanwhile, in the southern Maasai Mau forest, almost 2,000 plots were illegally purchased within the protected forest reserve, with the help of local officials.

Plots known as “group ranches” were expanded, subdivided and then sold on to third parties, unaware that their new title deeds may be “irregular” or “bogus”.

Finally, large chunks of the forest were simply occupied and squatted - “encroached” to use the official terminology - by settlers with no title claim whatsoever.

Political tightrope

The task force insists that almost all of these settlers and land owners should leave the forest as soon as possible.

But how many deserve compensation? This is a political tightrope for Prime Minister Odinga.

The task force has promised that each family will have their claim heard on a “case-to-case basis”.

All holders of “genuine” title deeds will be compensated - perhaps even those high-ranking public officials who are named by the task force as having received land via irregular means.

A search for new land to resettle farmers is underway, but is already provoking controversy.

“I hope when they go to the World Bank they won’t get any money,” says Professor Wangari Maathai, the Nobel Laureate and environmental campaigner.

“The only reason why we are being held hostage with the Mau is because people who were in power want to be compensated.”

Double-whammy

But perhaps the biggest challenge of all facing Kenya is the ecological one - the co-ordinated replanting of 100,000 hectares of indigenous forest.

It will take decades to restore the canopy - years in which Kenyans will continue to suffer from the double-whammy of local land degradation and global climate change.

Yet among environmentalists there is some relief that, at last, Kenya has woken up to a disaster that has been brewing for decades.

Countless warnings have gone unheeded, as Ms Maathai can testify.

“I keep telling people, let us not cut trees irresponsibly… especially the forested mountains,” she says.

“Because if you destroy the forests, the rivers will stop flowing and the rains will become irregular and the crops will fail and you will die of hunger and starvation.

“Now the problem is, people don’t make those linkages.”

In Kenya this year, everyone is making those linkages.

Tags: BBC, Climate change, deforestation, forest, Kenya, Lake Nakuru, Maasai, Mara, Masai Mara, Mau Forest, Serengeti, wildlifedirect

7 responses so far

Category: Forests, bushmeat, poaching, wildlife trade | Date: Nov 17 2008 | By: Maina

A US geneticist from the University of Arizona is planning to use DNA testing to study the roaring bushmeat trade in west Africa with a view of identifying “species that can be harvested sustainably”.

According to a report on KTar.com, the geneticist, Hans-Werner Herrmann, will analyze the bushmeat at village markets, track how it got there and study how the information could be used to better manage affected wildlife populations. He hopes that finding species that can be hunted sustainably will curtail poaching and halt wildlife decimation particularly in African forests.

According to Herrmann, rural Africans are driven into bushmeat hunting and trade by extreme poverty and he cannot just say it is bad to hunt without answering the poverty question.

Roughly 1 million tonnes of bushmeat are harvested in the badly ravaged African forests. a CIFOR report that Dr Richard Leakey felt had erred in its recommendations says that 80% of proteins and fats in rural Africans’ diets come from bushmeat. This is a big problem and solutions to bushmeat hunting need to be found before all wildlife becomes extinct.

The study will involve African researchers in Cameroon taking DNA samples from bushmeat in the markets, and sending it to Arizona for analysis and identification. They will then track how the meat got to the market and study how the information can be used to help in management of the affected wildlife populations.

How useful this study will be is subject to debate. Particularly, when they find wildlife species that they perceive to be “bushmeat viable”, does it mean that they will recommend legalization of bushmeat hunting? Perhaps we need this research to prove that there is no way bushmeat can be harvested sustainably.

There are three things that make sustainable hunting virtualy impossible: one, there is not enough wildlife, two, there are too many humans on the planet, and three, our African governments have problems implementing anti-poaching legislation. To me, these are the fundamental questions: not whether wildlife can be harvested sustainably.

Perhaps the researchers - who by the way have applied for a $1-million from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) for the study - should use these funds to find out how we can prevent the malignant human population growth from overrunning the planet and all wild things that live in it. Better still, these funds could be used to find alternatives sources of protein and income (poverty reduction) for the rural poor in Africa. Alternatives that are not bushmeat.

For wildlife populations to recover, and to avoid imminent mass extinctions, all manner of wildlife trade needs to be stopped - at the very least, as a precaution. We don’t really understand wildlife population dynamics that well to sustainably use it. We haven’t yet fathomed the complex interaction between humans and wildlife to say that we are in control of hunting and trade.

We know a few things though. One, bushmeat hunting has already resulted in the empty forest syndrome, where the forest vegetation is relatively intact but no wild animals live there. Two, governments have good legislation intended to control bushmeat poaching but implementation is weak. Three, losing our wildlife is not good for the planet.

With these truths in mind, perhaps what we need is to stop all human-centric arguments that perpetuate eating of wildlife and start focusing on finding ways to improve wildlife’s welfare.

Tags: Africa, bushmeat, CIFOR, DNA, extinction, forest, hunting, richard leakey, UNEP, University of Arizona, wildlife, wildlife trade

8 responses so far