Richard Leakey

Category: Furadan, Maasai Mara, Poisoning of predators | Date: Apr 08 2009 | By: richardleakey

FMC Corporation’s withdrawal of Furadan from Kenya and their commitment to buy back the entire remaining product is a welcome gesture of commitment from the Philadelphia-based pesticide manufacture, WildlifeDirect has said. WildlifeDirect’s Chairman, Dr Richard Leakey, who has been calling for a ban on this lethal chemical following lion poisonings in the Masai Mara Reserve over a year ago, says it is encouraging that FMC has finally taken action to prevent further poisoning of wildlife using this highly potent pesticide.

FMC announced the withdrawal and the commencement of the buy-back programme following the airing of a documentary on CBS’s 60 Minutes show on Sunday 29 March 2009 in which was reported that the death of some 75 lions had been linked to Furadan poisoning in the Masai Mara.

Although lion poisoning may have prompted FMC’s rapid response, the misuse of Furadan threatens a variety of other species including large predators which are particularly susceptible such as, hyenas, jackals, leopards and others that are considered pests, as well as numerous birds and fish species that are killed with Furadan for human consumption. This practice poses a serious human health threat since the pesticide’s active ingredients, carbofurans, are dangerous to humans.  Ingestion of tiny amounts of these compounds can cause paralysis and even death.

Dr Richard Leakey, world renowned for having led the efforts that brought down the massive poaching of elephants in the mid-1980s, has been at the centre of the campaign for the withdrawal of Furadan in Kenya. In response to the announcement from FMC he said,

“I am delighted at the swift response from FMC which is a promising sign of corporate responsibility. WildlifeDirect is looking forward to working with FMC as well as other stakeholders to ensure that this deadly chemical no longer poses a threat to wildlife in Africa”.

Dr Leakey refers to the action by FMC to withdraw this poison of choice for herders, fishermen and bird hunters, as a victory feather to be added to WildlifeDirect’s cap.

Several Kenyan scientists working closely with WildlifeDirect have been studying the use of carbofuran in the various wildlife poisoning applications. Dino Martins, a PhD scholar at Harvard University has written a report on the use of carbofuran for fishing in Lake Victoria. The tragedy is double, poisoned fish are sold for human consumption and given away to HIV-AIDS orphans.  Martin Odino, based at Nature Kenya, has been conducting a long term investigation on the use of Furadan to poison wild birds in Bunyala rice growing region since February 2009. Odino has documented alarming numbers of poisoned birds of several species in this area that he calls ‘a Furadan hotspot’. He predicts that Furadan use could have devastating effects on Kenya’s wetland birds’ diversity in the near future.

As a follow-up to their announcement, FMC representatives will be visiting Kenya to, amongst other things, ensure that the Furadan Buy-Back Program is working effectively. The buy-back program will be implemented in Kenya by the local distributor, Juanco SPS.

WildlifeDirect welcomes the invitation to work with FMC with whom they will be meeting during their visit to Kenya in the coming days.

Tags: , FMC, Furadan, Masai Mara, richard leakey, WildlifeDirect

No responses yet

Category: Politics, climate change | Date: Mar 26 2009 | By: admin

You may have heard about the raging controversy regarding a massive dam that is under construction on the Omo River in Ethiopia. It is called the Gilgel Gibe III dam and it has a wall that will soar 240 metres high - this is the tallest of its type anywhere in the world. It will hold back a reservoir 150 kilometres long.

The Ethiopians say that they need this dam as it will provide 1800 megawatts of electricity. That will more than double the country’s current generating capacity in one hit, and according to their Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, it will solve a national energy crisis.He says they can’t afford not to have Gilgel Gibe III. He also claims that it will enable the country to store water and regulate the flooding downstream in the Omo River.

This new dam will produce far more electricity than the country is capable of consuming, most will be exported to neighbours like Sudan and Kenya.

I think that this project is fatally flawed in terms of its logic, in terms of its thoroughness, in terms of its conclusions.

It looks to me like the Environmental Impact Assessment was an inside job that has come up with the results that they were looking for to get the initial funding for this dam.

I and the Environmental Resources Group believe that rather than being beneficial to the river valley as the Ethiopian government say, the dam will produce a broad range of negative effects, some of which would be catastrophic to both the environment and the indigenous communities living downstream.

Even if the science is in dispute - this is reason enough to invoke the precautionary principle and stop the project before it is too late because if the Ethiopian government is wrong, those communities living along the lower Omo River Valley all the way down into neighbouring Kenya will pay a heavy price. I believe that one immediate consequence will be the aggravation  of armed conflict in a war over the shrinking natural resources.

What do you think, should Ethiopia be allowed to go ahead despite the concerns of down stream environmental and social impacts affecting over 500,000 people and Lake Turkana in Kenya?

Tags: Ethiopia, Gilgel Gibe III, Kenya, Lake Turkana, Omo River, war, water

2 responses so far

Category: climate change | Date: Mar 15 2009 | By: admin

Climate Stabilization Seminar

(03/12/2009)    A conference organized by a group of women focusing on climate stability and global warming will take place at Stony Brook Southampton between March 27 and 29. Organized by Women’s Initiatives for a Sustainable Earth, a New York State nonprofit organization, the conference will focus on “Mobilizing for Climate Stability: One Conversation at a Time.”

The cost is $165 per person for those who buy tickets before Sunday, or $225 thereafter. Students can attend for $100, and pairs of students can purchase tickets at a discount, for $165.

The conference includes lectures by environmental experts, morning yoga sessions, live music, film, and food. A dinner supported by Stony Brook University’s Center for Food, Wine, and Culture will cost an additional $22 per person, or $12 for persons under the age of 21.

Among the keynote speakers will be Margaret Wheatley, founder of the Berkana Institute, Harriet Fulbright, president of the Fulbright Center, Richard Leakey, a wildlife conservationist, paleoanthropologist, and founder of Wildlife Direct, and Sarah Newkirk, the director of coastal conservation at the Nature Conservancy on Long Island. Entertainment will be provided by Katherine Buckell, a singer-songwriter from Australia, Jane Comfort and Company, a dance theater company based in Manhattan, and Rha Goddess, a hip-hop artist and poet.

Conference organizers noted that “women control 85 percent of consumer spending,” and suggested that helping them to collaborate across New York State would be key to mobilizing toward climate stability. According to a press release, the conference entailed six months of planning, and over 400 people are expected to attend. Organizations that plan to contribute to the conference include the Nature Conservancy, the Peconic Land Trust, Group for the East End, and many others.

Registration will begin at 6:30 p.m. on March 27, and the event wraps up at 1:15 p.m. on March 29 with music, dancing and song. To purchase tickets or view the itinerary, those interested can visit sowise.org.      K.M.

Tags: climate change, Climate stabilization, conservation, environment, richard leakey, Stony Brook University

No responses yet

Category: Oceans, climate change | Date: Feb 03 2009 | By: richardleakey

I returned to Kenya last week after a short but truly memorable trip to the South Shetland Islands and the Antarctic Peninsular.  I traveled from Argentina, the port of Ushuaia, across the Drake Passage and returned by the same route after a week in the islands and the peninsular.  The sea was “bumpy” and not everyone would enjoy the crossing but the destination was quite awesome and one of the best experiences in my life.

The viewing of whales, orcas, various seals, penguins and of course the incredible ice formations was a wonderful way to spend a week.  My interest went further and I was especially interested to see what I could related to glacial retreat and the effects of climate change generally in the southern landscape, usually considered to be the coldest place on our planet.

I was shown evidence where, in the past 10 years, the glacier front had receded several hundred meters, where inlets and small bays were free of ice now during summer but which never were so before.  Records from one of the research stations on the peninsular showed an increase of the mean summer temperatures of 2.5˚C.  Penguin species such as the Adelie were moving further south and warmer climate species were appearing for the first time.  There is no doubt that significant and rapid changes are taking place.

The other alarming information I obtained was that the Krill (the essential base of the food chain for the vertebrate fauna) are also being depleted.  Whilst climate change and its effect on ice flows and pack ice have a major bearing on this, there is today massive fishing for krill by Japan.  I was told that new techniques for extracting krill at a far greater tonnage were now having devastating effects on the population density.  This will have an additional impact upon the survival of other biodiversity further up the food chain.

I wonder if anyone reading this has detailed information.  Are we seeing a different but perhaps a more sinister onslaught against sea mammals and birds in the Antarctic?  If so, should the alarm not be raised?  The over use of any species can have far reaching impacts on species survival across a broad spectrum.

Tags: , Adelie Penguin, Antarctic, climate change, Japan, Krill fishing, Oceans

7 responses so far

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Dec 10 2008 | By: admin

Dear Friends,

Earlier this year we partnered with National Geographic to tell our story. We  hope you enjoy this video and will feel inspired to support conservaiton through WildlifeDirect. Let us know what you think.

Tags: National Geographic, richard leakey, Video, WildlfeDirect, wildlife

2 responses so far

Category: Forests, Mathews Range, climate change | Date: Dec 06 2008 | By: richardleakey

There is great concern about an ongoing post-doctoral research project carried out by Luca Borghesio, a student from the University of Illinois at Chicago, which is clear cutting substantially large plots of indigenous trees in the Mathews Range.  Mathews Range, also known as the Lenkiyio Hills, is a range of mountains about 150 km long, in the Laikipia District of the Rift Valley Province in northern Kenya, 50 km north of Isiolo Town.

“Approximately 234 mature indigenous trees have been cut down” says Helen Douglas-Dufresne of the Milgis Trust in her blog  “Nine plots of 60-metre diameter have been cleared and 11 more have been marked for clearing”, she adds.

Utter dismay: Community members assessing the destruction

Douglas-Dufresne, other conservationists and the local community in the area worry that this “wanton destruction in the name of research” could have detrimental effects on the overall health of the forest and the environmental services it provides to the otherwise arid plains below the Mathews. They are also irked by the reported secrecy with which the research is being conducted.

Adding his concern, renowned Kenyan conservationist, and Chairman of WildlifeDirect, Dr Richard Leakey said, “I have learned of the research project that involves cutting of trees on a number of plots in the Mathews where we have one of the last remaining pristine forest in Kenya and I find it disturbing”. “I would urge that this project be suspended and that there be a full public discussion of what is being done and why and for whose benefit”, adds Dr Leakey.

The researcher, a tropical forest ecologist, explains – rather ambiguously – in an email to Douglas-Dufresne, that his research is neither covert nor wanton destruction but a study on how human activities, particularly those of the nomadic communities who live adjacent to, and utilize, the Mathews forests, can help conservation.

The big ones: Big trees cut down for research

Of his hypothesis that traditional nomadic activities can help conservation, he draws parallels with the community livestock grazing programme that begun at Lewa conservancy, acknowledging that carefully planned grazing can benefit both people and conservation . He portends that the same might be true in forest areas. How this is linked to chopping down mature indigenous trees does not come out convincingly in his explanation.

When asked about this notion, Dr Richard Leakey said “I find it very hard to believe that cutting so much wood can possibly be justified in the current time when deforestation and climate change are of such concern”. “Kenyan forests [which cover only 2% of the land against a recommended global standard of 12%] should not be destroyed without an extremely good reason and academic research could hardly justify what is happening in the Mathews Range”, he adds.

Ecosystem services: The Mathews is a source of water for the community

The researcher says that he cleared 10 plots of 12m diameter adding up to about 4,521 square meters – about an acre - in the 300km2 forest and therefore in his view it would have no significant effect on the entire ecosystem. The Milgis Trust however has produced pictures indicate that the areas are much larger than this. The ruffled local elders have indeed come to Douglas-Dufresne to seek advice on what to do about the felling of the large trees.

Some weeks back, the community had come into the study plots and evicted the researcher. Reportedly, the researcher paid KShs 100,000 (about US$ 1,300) to some local leaders and was smuggled back into his study area. He however denies this saying that what he paid is the normal government fees that any researcher is required to pay for permits to conduct research.

The Kenya Forest Service, the government body charged with the responsibility of looking after Kenya’s forests, has not been very cooperative and Douglas-Dufresne has not had much success trying to have them stop this project.

Dr Leakey, who sees this as another of those corrupt deals where the local community is being taken for a ride asks for a transparent process. He wonders who did the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for this project to go ahead and asks if the public know of its existence.

“I would encourage readers of this blog to get in touch with the University of Illinois and express concern so that we may put a stop to this destruction which the local community are equally opposed to”, he concludes.

Tags: climate change, community, deforestation, destruction, Dr Richard Leakey, forest, forest ecology, Kenya, Mathews Range, Milgis Trust, research, trees

6 responses so far

Category: Elephants, ivory, trade | Date: Nov 05 2008 | By: richardleakey

I am deeply concerned about the ongoing one-off ivory auction that started on 28 October in Namibia and ends on Wednesday, 6 November 2008 in South Africa.

I have spent many years looking at issues of elephant conservation and ivory trade and played a major role in successfully eliminating the massive ivory poaching that characterized what is considered the darkest period for African elephants in Kenya in the late 1980s, I believe that auctioning the ivory stockpiles would cause poaching to increase particularly in the central, eastern and western African elephant range states where poaching is not yet properly controlled.

Namibia auctioned its 9 tons of ivory on Tuesday, 28 October raising $1.2-million. Zimbabwe and Botswana have also auctioned their ivory to the exclusive Chinese and Japanese buyers making $480,000 and $1.1-million respectively. On 6 November, South Africa will auction the largest cache of ivory – 51 tons – to conclude this controversial sale. According to the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the parties to the auction, the funds generated from this sale will be channeled directly into conservation. I am skeptical and wonder if there is a way of knowing whether these funds will actually help conservation.

The entry of China into the legal trade is also a cause of concern for me. It is hard to believe that a country which in 2002 scored only 5.6 out of 100 points in the CITES Elephant Trade Information Systems (ETIS) ranking – which ranks countries on how effectively they tackle illegal ivory – could have scored 63 points this year. China has admitted loosing track of 120 tons of ivory from the government’s official stockpiles in the past 12 years.

Recently, Kenya saw the successful conviction of Chinese nationals accused of smuggling ivory that appears to have originated from 22 out of the 37 African elephant range states. The entry of China – the destination for most of the illegal ivory – is an ill advised move that will only serve to open up the illegal ivory markets.

Reports already indicate that poaching is increasing in most parts of Africa. The Kenya Wildlife Service – Kenya’s official wildlife authority – has reported that poaching is increasing in key elephant zones. Central and west Africa have also witnessed escalating poaching in recent times. The Democratic Republic of Congo, caught up in a complex civil strife, has become a haven for poachers.

Although CITES secretary-general Willem Wijnstekers says that southern African states have everything under control, it cannot be true for Zimbabwe. Reports by bloggers at WildlifeDirect.org and on independent media show that Zimbabwe is experiencing an unprecedented decimation of wildlife. Reports indicate that Zimbabwe may have lost up to 80% of its wildlife. There is reason to believe that a large percentage of this wildlife consists of elephants.

As the hammer falls for the last time in South Africa on Thursday, we cannot in any way say that this is a victory for conservation. It is indeed a great disservice to conservation.

I categorically denounce this auction and call on CITES to rethink how they run endangered species affairs. It should not be lost to CITES that they exist to protect the endangered species against trade malpractices, not to serve partisan interests that work against the species.

Tags: China, CITES, ivory, ivory stockpiles, Japan, Namibia, poaching, South Africa, southern Africa, wildlife trade, Zimbabwe

10 responses so far

Category: Bonobos, Enforcement, Forests, Special guests, bushmeat | Date: Oct 22 2008 | By: richardleakey

Dr Paula Kahumbu interviewed Dr Terese Hart, a friend of Dr Richard Leakey, who has been on expedition in the forests around the Tshuapa, Lomami and Lualaba Rivers (TL2) in the Democratic Republic of Congo since May 2007 in search of bonobos. Paula asked her about her experience with the bushmeat trade in the Central African Rainforest.

Bringing home the bacon (picture (c) bonoboincongo.com)

1. In your opinion, what are the three greatest threats to forest wildlife in the Central African Rainforest?

The three threats that I think outweigh others are:

a.  bushmeat hunting

b.  ivory hunting

c.  loss of habitat

In the area where we are working, loss of habitat is not yet an issue, only hunting.   Habitat loss is associated with high human population and increasingly with logging and agricultural expansion. These have not yet reached the forested swath explored by our TL2 project of more than 60,000 sq. km running south-north through central D.R. Congo.  This forest area follows the Lomami watershed but reaches into the valleys of the Congo on the east and the upper Tshuapa on the west.  Through the entire area there is no road that can support even four-wheel drive vehicles.  Bushmeat hunting for distant markets has nevertheless become the main revenue source in isolated villages.  Trade in bushmeat is lucrative enough to bring buyers long distances to these outposts.  The wild meat they buy is smoked and dried.  The profit they gain is from markets hundreds of km distant to which they send their meat by foot, bicycle, and dugout.

2. How serious are these threats – are any species in danger of extinction? 

Yes, there is an increasing danger.  Where snare trapping is used, bushmeat hunting empties these forests of antelope, pig, okapi and buffalo.  Where shotguns are used, the primates are principal targets.  Frequently both methods are used. Were the abundance of these animals to be mapped, large halos of empty forest would become visible around market centers such as Kisangani, Ikela, Lomela and Kindu.  These rings of silence are growing.  When the areas of local extinction coalesce, the process becomes difficult if not impossible to reverse.  In the TL2 area, bonobos are endangered.  In the east, Grauer’s gorillas are endangered. Both are endemic to D.R. Congo.

Elephant hunting occurs separately from bushmeat commerce.   Forest elephants have been decimated with military arms, mainly AK 47s that became abundant in D.R. Congo during the war period of the 1990s and early 2000s.  Ivory hunting has occurred in waves.  The result is that thousands of elephants were slaughtered in the Lomami watershed alone.  Their remains are piles of large slow-decaying bones scattered throughout the forest.  The living population is concentrated around a single tributary of the Lomami midway between the major export markets of Kindu and Kisangani.  Similar Elephant decimation happened during the war period in all Congo’s major wilderness forests: the Ituri, Maiko, Uele, ….

3. How much bushmeat is being harvested from these forests annually (can you estimate the gross amount, number of animals and number of species?)

We cannot now make an estimate but should have good evaluations of offtake from a number of areas next year.  At this point our information is from measures of hunting effort rather than hunting success and bushmeat transport to market.  It is important to point out, however, that all areas with consistent hunting for the bushmeat trade have decreasing, often rapidly decreasing,  populations of wild animals.

In interviews with villagers it is clear that areas around even the smallest settlements have been largely hunted out.  In villages more than 200 km south of Opala (remote!) people are  already saying that the animals are no longer close to the village.  They must walk several days into the forest to  hunt successfully.   There is no forest so remote in Central Africa that it has not been subject to at least some bushmeat hunting.

4. Could bushmeat harvesting be conducted on a sustainable basis?  Why? 

Some species would survive continuous hunting but only with enforced regulation (hunting seasons, no – hunting areas, tax on bushmeat transport and sale) before commercial hunting can exist in a “sustainable” manner. Sustainable here means without local extinction.  Regulation does of course have to accept a certain level of depletion.   If hunting regulation is too difficult to enforce then the best single option is to create a no-hunting zone or protected area.  This has rather simple and absolute restrictions but would best be policed in collaboration with local people.

Controlling the people who actually profit most from the bushmeat trade will be difficult. The profit is minimal for the villagers who are the hunters that actually kill the animals, butcher and dry the carcasses.  The real profit is at the next level up, the buyers.  They buy for little and resell at a large mark up.  They have no attachment to the forest.  The result is that the forests are emptied with no improvement in local living conditions.  Villages that have long depended on hunting for protein in their own diets are left impoverished.  Bushmeat hunting has become a large industry in the wake of Congo’s war and in response to the concomitant loss of jobs.   However this form of commerce is mining a temporary resource and will bring only a transitory source of wealth to a middle-income group while impoverishing the poorest.  The result is food insecurity for those rural communities most dependent on hunting.

5. What do you think would be the most appropriate way to manage human need for protein and still assure conservation of wild species?

There needs to be large scale animal husbandry and pisciculture projects close to all centers of population.  Domestic meat needs to cost significantly less than bushmeat, which is not now the case.   In Kindu beef sells for 4000 to 4500 FC the kilo (about 8.5 dollars/kg).   A dried monkey sells for significantly less per kilo. A dried bonobo is only 50$.

There needs to be a variety of domestic meats:  pork, beef, chicken, and possibly other small animals such as rabbit.  The domestic meat industry, particularly beef, was seriously compromised by the war and it still has not recovered.

Urban people will move away from bushmeat as a subsistence item if it begins to cost significantly more than domestic meat.  Bushmeat may still be a prized food item, but levels of demand will decrease.

Follow Dr Hart’s expedition here

Tags: Africa, animals, bonobo, bushmeat, central Africa, DRC, extinction, Forests, hunting, Kisangani, Lomami, Lualaba, richard leakey, trade, Tshuapa, wildlife

5 responses so far

Category: Enforcement, Forests, Gorillas, bushmeat | Date: Sep 19 2008 | By: richardleakey

I am incredulous that the Centre of International Forestry Research (CIFOR) would suggest bushmeat hunting be legalized, giving the local people the task of policing themselves. This position shows remarkable naïveté and totally fails to understand the realities on the ground. A hungry population is never going to practice conservation of food, especially where it can be had free from the forest.

CIFOR argues that since up to 80% of the rural households in central and western Africa already depend on bushmeat for their daily protein requirements then a blanket ban on the trade would endanger both humans and wildlife. They call for regulated but legal uptake of wildlife protein. Maybe, but just how can this be done?

There are no mechanisms to regulate this even with the best legislation. Past experience with forest products, poppies, ivory and charcoal are all legitimate examples of failures of communities to police themselves.

Commercial bushmeat hunting has become the most significant immediate threat to the future of wildlife in Africa and around the world. It has already resulted in widespread local extinctions in Asia and Africa. Elephant, gorilla, chimpanzee and other primates have already been wiped out of several regions. Smaller animals such as duikers, porcupine, bush pig, pangolin, monitor lizard and guinea fowl are rapidly becoming locally extinct in these regions. Legalizing this multi-billion trade will not help the wildlife. It will instead exterminate what remains, species that we are working so hard to preserve.

For instance, there are only 300 Cross River Gorillas left in the world. They are found only in Cameroun and Nigeria. If we give poachers the right to hunt these gorillas, it will take them a very short time to wipe out the entire population. Dr Anthony L. Rose, together with investigative wildlife photographer, Karl Ammann have carried out research in West Africa and estimate that in one year poachers will harvest US$2-billion worth of wildlife from the great ape regions. Part of this haul will include 8,000 endangered great apes. If the slaughter continues at this pace, then the remaining wild apes in Africa will be gone within as little as fifteen years.

This threat to wildlife is indeed a crisis because it is rapidly expanding to countries and species which were previously not at risk, largely due to an increase in commercial logging, with an infrastructure of roads and trucks that links forests and hunters to cities and consumers. The argument is that these people are poor and need both the protein and the income.
I do not personally dispute the tragedy of the poor but allowing them to hunt and encouraging a process that will result in exploitation of wildlife will not alleviate their poverty. Why don’t people encourage the rearing of chickens, fish or cane rats to alleviate their protein deficiency? This will bring development and a better and healthier existence.

If I should continue to use the example of primates, there is evidence that conserving primates, rather than eating them, will actually enhance food availability for humans. African scientist operating in the Taï region of Côte-d’Ivoire, for instance, found that seven species of monkeys used about 75 species of plants as a source of fruit, of which 25 were also used by local human inhabitants for various purposes. Now, monkeys are well known seed dispersal agents and they will spread the seeds of these plants that are important to humans. If there are no monkeys, then the chance of survival of such food plants is reduced.

There is a good reason to believe that some very dangerous diseases are haboured in wild animals and eating such animal – or handling them as you would handle food – could provoke new and terrible epidemics among these communities and at the global arena. We have all heard of at least one or more of these diseases: Ebola fever, Hantavirus disease, Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and other diseases noted for their high human fatality per case rates. These and other diseases of wildlife pose increasing challenges for the health of humans already. Do we want to further complicate this problem?

I know that many people are poor and that is why I put forward this question: should we allow people to steal on a sustainable basis, taking a little from the bank on a daily basis as well as robbing everyone of the money they have worked hard for? This will not resolve poverty, nor will allowing people to take protein from the wild as is being proposed in the CIFOR report.

I don’t see any sensible person calling for the legalization of narcotics just because it is the poor who grow poppies and other raw materials. Instead, more resources are being allocated to fight this vice and to educate the public.

I totally disagree with the recommendation of legalizing bushmeat and believe that alternatives for food production and poverty alleviation exist and should be explored.

Tags: Africa, bushmeat, CIFOR, extinction, Forests, hunting, IUCN, Karl Ammann, richard leakey, west Africa, wildlife

15 responses so far

Category: climate change | Date: Jul 03 2008 | By: admin

I recently did an interview with Dipesh Pabari of Sukuma Kenya. I’m reproducing it here to get your comments.

How is climate change beginning to affect Kenya and East Africa as a whole?
There is a huge gap in our knowledge on the impact of climate change in East Africa. At the moment, very little research is being done that gives us a clear picture on the modelling of impacts in this sub-region on climate change. The general feeling is that we will see more dramatic droughts and more dramatic precipitation. Whether this will fall into the cycles we have grown accustomed to, or whether the monsoonal changes that will result in increased warming of the Indian Ocean will give us a totally different weather pattern, we don’t know. The expectation, however, is that some areas in Kenya will get more rain and other areas will get less rain on average and the periods of no rain may be extended and longer while the degree of rainfall may increase to the point where flooding, mudslides and that sort of a thing become a serious issue.

One of the things that is recognised and now fully understood is that the melting snows or ice in the Antarctic is going to affect currents and the increased temperature on the ocean surface is going to bring changes in the direction of the monsoons which do not have to shift very far to take more or less rain in a certain direction.

Have you noticed any drastic changes to the environment in the Turkana Basin over the years that you have been working there?
We know from accurate geological and archaeological records that for the past 8000 years, Lake Turkana has received 95% of its water from the Ethiopian Highlands down the Omo River. 8000/7000 years ago, Lake Turkana was about 300 ft higher than it is today. The drop in the level of is a direct correlation of less rainfall in the Ethiopian Highlands.

When I first went to work in Lake Turkana in the late 60’s, the lake level was about 50 to 60 feet higher than it is today. There is no major hydroelectric dams or major irrigation schemes on the Omo River or in the Ethiopian Highlands so I believe this has to reflect changing weather patterns. Whether the weather patterns are changing because of human impact or whether it is changing because of climate change on a larger scale is not clear. But the lake level in Turkana is directly related to the quantity of rainfall falling in the Ethiopian Highlands.

What do you think is the most important factor to immediately address in terms of tackling climate change?
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.

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.

What can we do as a country and regionally?
As to what Kenya can do, I would urge our researchers to look back at old records and try to draw up some picture of whether there are discernible trends. Are there are any indications that give us insight into sea level change? There is also bound to be a lot of anecdotal evidence from farmers and fishermen about seasons and when people plant crops. We need to be accumulating a great deal more local information. Looking at what happens in America, Europe or Australia isn’t going to give us the planning capacity that we need.

I believe we should also be addressing governance. We should be looking to the government to put in rules that focus on a number of things. First of all, planning for natural disasters that I think will begin to increase in frequency both from the sea with typhoons or cyclones; ocean surges; high tides and rising sea levels.
We also need to look into our planning rules such as where people are allowed to build or whether people should be clearing steep slopes in valleys that could lead to landslides. We should certainly be thinking about conservation of water; we should be thinking very carefully about how much water we can afford to waste. Can put water back into the aquifer as they do in Australia? I think we need to start thinking about government intervention in irrigation systems and the water off-take levels. We have some rules that can be improved upon as we are wasting so much water. Water harvesting is of particularly critical importance.

Water is currently such a scarce source for the majority of Kenyans. How are authorities to prepare for such drastic measures when we are already in such dire straits?
Authorities must prepare for climate change. Water is fundamental. This has to take into account not only the harvesting of water but also the recycling of water and adaptation of technologies that don’t lead to waste. Storm water, for example, could be harvested.

There are a number of things that can be done in the urban areas that would improve our life. Many of our urban water systems were put in place in the 50s and 60s. Most of the supplies are losing 50 to 70% to leakages. If you go to Lamu, the last official study suggested that 70% of the water from rain fed wells was simply leaking out of broken pipes.

If you drive along the highways in Nairobi where there are water pipes on the side, you will see many flower nurseries where people are planting flowers to sell. Their source of water is broken pipes – there are no springs on the road, those are just broken water systems. It is all over the country. We should fix these things. There is a lot we can do. But it will take time and it will take money and it needed to have started years ago.

We also need to participate in some of the global studies to give us a better indication on the likelihood of crop failure particularly how it would impact on small scale farmers. These are subsistence people who can move from a meagre existence to famine in a relatively small period of time. So I think there are a number of things that we could be doing to recognise that over the next fifty years, the Kenya we know will not be here. It would have changed very dramatically in terms of when the rain falls, how much falls, where people live, how people live, what they eat, how they grow their crops.

There are so many global movements that focus on reducing our carbon footprints. Do you think this is something that we should be concerned with in our region and in what particular area of life?
Although our output of carbon dioxide from transportation is relatively small, this is no reason not to be more serious about our carbon dioxide emissions. Much more should be done by urban authorities to insist on more efficient transportation such as vehicles that have better emission standards. If public transport is sufficiently reliable, many of us would not have to drive our cars to work. The condition of our roads and the fact that so many cars use the roads carrying only one or two people can all be avoided. This should be addressed. We could have commuter trains that carry large numbers in whom at the moment, travel in vehicles that only seat 14 people. This is highly inefficient.

We have to recognise that while we may not be a significant contributor to the global carbon dioxide totals; our small contribution of fumes that we are pumping into the air is taking its toll. In the mornings when there is no wind, you can see the brown, yellow smog over the city. This is going into our lungs and it is bound to have an effect over the long term. I don’t know what the statistics are but I know from conversations that I have had with medical authorities indicate that respiratory diseases are on the increase in this country.

The question of air transport and what it is going to do – well, we are already beginning to see questions as to whether countries that fly horticultural produce to markets across the world are in fact providing organic produce. The European markets may not accept six flights a night out of Nairobi airport with flowers and green beans. I think the destination markets are going to get tougher and tougher on nations such as ours.

What are your thoughts about the north-south carbon trading initiatives?
Carbon dioxide trading is an interesting idea and is certainly one that hasn’t been fully explored in Kenya. I think people should get a credit for retaining indigenous forest rather than simply being rewarded for replanting forests that they have cut down. I think that there are a lot of changes in the International Convention on what you can trade and how you can do it but I would think that biodiversity, indigenous forests as well as plantation forests could all lend themselves to development efforts in countries such as Kenya. We need to become much more familiar with what is possible and what can be done and I think you could see much of the reforestation necessary in this country for our timber needs, fuel and paper being financed through international funds. Sadly, many of us don’t have the capacity to access such schemes.
We in Kenya need to be conscious of the need for energy but rather than go the easy route and opt for dirty energy, we should start to demand that investors come here with the same criteria for development that exists in their own countries. There is no reason why foreign investors should make us continue to operate below standards in terms of emissions while they have been forced to clean up at home. But this takes a brave government; it takes a government that sees beyond its own lifetime. This is an institutional change that we have not seen here. It is where institutions and laws are supposed to operate irrespective of the party in power. This is something we certainly look forward to.

How do you realistically see us instilling such values as a nation when most people are so desperate to meet their daily needs?
The first issue is that there are far too many of us that are too poor. The vast majority of people aspire to a better standard of living and for them to have a better standard of living; they are going to have to have better access to resources. Whilst those resources are readily available, the wastage of those resources is not justified. What people need is justified but what people discard and waste and throw away is not. That is what people have to address.
We are certainly different from California, or France or Australia. Our electorate is generally not well informed. They are not likely to put environmental issues on the ballot. This comes later. By the same token, because our electorate are relatively straight forward, they will take all sorts of medicine given by leaders they trust. We have men and women who have had enough education to understand some of the dimensions of these problems and some of the relationships between problems and solutions and legislation. The Kenyan public would go along with a lot of measures without necessarily having to initiate it themselves. In a sense the government would say this is better for you. What worries me are long term events. For example, climate change and the impact it will have is simply not been given the attention it deserves by our leaders.
The question of whether or not the capacity of humans who are adaptive and clearly have shown remarkable abilities to live with a degrading environment, will get us through, is a question with little meaning. The fact is that the density of the human population on the planet and the needs of that population exceed the realistic resources that the planet can provide. If for example, we are living at the moment in Kenya with an average of 10-15 litres of water consumption per person per day (it is probably slightly less), but we are aspiring to a life that similar to the US where 200 litres a day is normal. Clearly the world has not got that kind of water to cope with such a demand on a global scale.

If in the context of where we are today, is there time?
Well, planet earth isn’t going to self destruct. What happens with planet earth is that species come, species go; extinctions happen, new species appear. It is too late now to prevent massive changes in the next 50 years. It is not too late to do things that will have positive effects a hundred years from now. If we are selfish, we will leave the planet in worse condition for those to come. If we are selfless then we will recognise that our older generation and the one before it left us in a mess which we now can’t get out of but we certainly can make sure that successive generations inhabit a world that is gradually recovering. That’s our choice.

I would also say that there this is a tendency in most parts of the world, and I don’t think it is any different in Kenya to say that it is up to God. If you leave it up to God, it is not going to do very well. It is not up to God: it is up to us. I don’t believe that if there is a God, God would say, destroy the planet the way you are doing. I think that is nonsense. If you are religious, then remember that God is generally thought to help those that help themselves.

5 responses so far