The Water Hole

Category: Uncategorized | Date: Jun 30 2008 | By: thewaterhole

Let me first thank Sheryl and Louise for their comments. You are both right that ‘the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing’. It is disturbing to see that the Kenya government has ignored some very informed protests and have refused to learn from examples in other countries - such as the one mentioned by Sheryl. Clearly, we have seen the developed countries use up their natural resources only to realize their mistakes and try to repair the damage. Should the developing world follow this route? My guess is NO. We cant make the same mistake while all the warning signs are in the open for all to see.

Speaking of which, environmental lobbyists haven’t given up. As I said in my previous post, the conservationists held a press conference last Wednessday (25 June 2008) and there was resounding response from the major local and some international media houses.

I recieved today an email from one of the organizers of the conference, Serah Munguti of Nature Kenya, and I thought it wise to share important information contained in it with you.

The following publicity resulted from the Press conference held yesterday:

National electronic coverage on Wednesday 25^th June 2008:

• NTV 7 O’clock news;
• KTN 9 O’clock Business news;
• KBC 9 O’clock Business news;
• Citizen TV 9 O’clock Business News;
• KBC 11 O’clock late night news;
• Citizen 11 O’clock late night news;
• Kiss FM 7pm news bulletin;
• Kiss FM 8pm news bulletin;
• Classic FM 7pm news bulletin;
• Classic FM 8pm news bulletin

Print media coverage 26 June 2008:

• The Standard page 27;
• Business Daily page 7;
• Nairobi Star page 12

In addition to this extensive coverage on the local print and electronic media the following action has also beeen taken

• Wetlands International issued a press release calling on the Kenya Government to reverse its decision on the Sugar plantation project in the Tana Wetlands.
• Pollmans Tours & Safaris , a national tour operator, has send concerns (documents) to Robert Hepworth of the UN Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals-African, European and West Asian waterbirds programme (CMS/AEWA) for action. He will also engage the tourism industry through the Kenya Association of Tour Operators to mobilize action against TISP.
• Nature Kenya and the BirdLife Africa Partnership are putting together an international petition from BirdLife Africa Partners from 22 countries on the basis of the international significance of the Tana River Delta Important Bird Area.
• A Rocha Kenya has also set up a Tana River Delta website, http://tanariverdelta.org/tana/welcome.html. for those who have information that they wish to share in this campaign (for this website) you can contact colin.jackson@arocha.org or to advocacy@naturekenya.org

The way forward
The conveners of this press conference have resolved to:

• Carry out in-depth media interviews and write opinion articles for media
• Engage international development agencies and foreign missions and embassies in Kenya
• Engage the EU market that buys 40% of Mumias sugar
• Engage indigenous peoples organisations to protest against the human rights issues of TISP

For the Record
Mumias Sugar Company (MSC) Ltd. and Tana and Athi River Development Authority (TARDA), in a planned private joint venture, are proposing to turn 20,000 hectares of the mostly pristine Tana River Delta into sugarcane plantations. The main features of the Tana Integrated Sugar Project (TISP) are: 16,000 ha of irrigated sugarcane production through estate; 4,000 ha of outgrower systems; water supply to the project; a sugar factory and power co-generation facility of up to 34 megawatts capacity; an ethanol production plant; and livestock supporting activities, including fisheries. On 11 June 2008 Kenya’s National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) approved the project’s EIA. Environmental organisations are opposed to NEMA’s decision citing the impact of the project on the Tana Delta’s ecology, biodiversity and local people’s livelihoods.

Share This

One response so far

Category: Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands, Wildlife | Date: Jun 25 2008 | By: thewaterhole

As some of you may already be aware, NEMA already issued an EIA certificate for the proposed sugacane project at the Tana Delta, effectively authrizing this controvercial and potentially devastating project. This caught conservationists unawares since they were - and remain - convinced that the evidence against the project is overwhelming. Now, today morning (Wednesday 25th June 2008), there was a press event at the Kenyatta International Conference Centre in Nairobi. As we await the report of what transpired in the meeting, here are a few links to how NEMA’s action was recieved by different organisations recently:

Shocking Decision - Wetlands International

Kenya Biofuel Plans

Tana Proposal

Ironically, the Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources organized a one-day workshop for stakeholders on the Tana and Athi Rivers basins at the Silver Springs Hotel on 18 June 2008, in which they were to discuss, among other things, identification of environmental problems, and constraints and strategies for the development of an action plan for the management of the two basins. While this was going on, NEMA, which is under the same ministry, was busy endorsing the most potentially devastating project for the Tana Delta. So we ask, who’s fooling who?

I am yet to get information about the outcome of that meeting but you can rest assured that I will keep you in the loop.

Share This

Tags: EIA, NEMA, Sugar, Tana Delta

3 responses so far

Category: Community, Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands, Wildlife | Date: Jun 06 2008 | By: thewaterhole

New information has been coming in about the outcome of the NEMA-organized public hearings on the Tana Delta Integrated Sugar Project (TISP). At one point it had become apparent that the EIA for the sugar project had been okayed but a quick follow-up on this information by our wetlands team proved that that was not the case. The truth is that the EIA report has neither been okeyed nor rejected. NEMA has however written to the project proponents so that they can address the pertinent issues that emerged before, during and after the public hearings.

I told you about the happenings during the first public hearing of the project’s EIA at Danisa Village, Tana River and promised to tell you about the other two meetings. Well the proceedings were not so much different in these villages but the sideshows were unique in each meeting.

At Golbanti in Tana River District, the start of the hearings was relatively calm and orderly but it was not long before the ‘circus came to town’. Trouble started when – after the EIA lead expert made his presentation – the local level network of the EAWLS/KWF team asked some very hard questions for which neither the EIA lead expert nor the Mumias/TARDA officials had answers.

These dancers had been hired to sing about the ‘good’ of the project

This is said to have irked the Tana River District Commissioner (DC) who then accused the EAWLS team and particularly our Deputy Director, Hadley Becha, and George Wamukoya of CREEL, of inciting the local leaders. He is reported to have ordered law enforcement officers to ‘contain’ the two. It is at this point that the pro-sugar villagers mobbed around our Land Rover intending to heckle and intimidate our team. The team stood firm. The anti-sugar villagers dared the police to lay a hand on any member of the team (including driver, Benson Vidambu) and ‘the meeting would be over’. The aggressors retreated on hearing this allowing the meeting to proceed albeit with each side of the sugar divide twitching with tension.

When the Kenya Lands Alliance rep took the microphone, he stripped the proposed project bare by his convincing presentation. “It was lethal” said Hadley, “even the pro-sugar group applauded”. This and the Tana River County Council’s argument must have dented the proponents’ hopes of getting the all important go ahead to a painfully significantly scale.

On the next day of the hearing, NEMA went to Witu Trading Center in Lamu District where some 600 hectares of deltaic land are targeted for conversion into sugarcane plantations by the proponents.

On their way to Witu, our team overtook a lorry belonging to TARDA (complete with the characteristic blue parastatal registration plates) full of hecklers they had ‘imported’ from Kipini.

The TARDA lorry ready to pick up its human cargo

This was atrocious and when our team got to Witu they quickly met with the area’s leadership to debrief them on this and other concerns. It was no surprise therefore that the moderator of the hearings decreed – at the start of the hearings – that only Witu residents would be allowed to make presentations.

The human cargo scrambles for standing room in the lorry

Once the meeting was underway pertinent issues were raised. Importantly, the Lamu County Council had not been officially informed of the proponents’ intention to use the 600 ha land. Concerns were raised about the loss of grazing land and livelihoods for the pastoralists and fisher folk of Didawaride, Moa and other villages further afield. There was also mention of impending corruption and dishonesty as had been witnessed by a previous attempt to grow sugarcane in the area by a ‘MAT International’.

The residents pointed out that the EIA presentation only gave the positives of the project and nobody was telling them about the negative impacts of the project. At some point – while taking the heat from Hadley – the EIA lead expert could be seen to be telling lies and half-truths.

Now the public hearings are done and it emerged clearly that the EIA study was deficient and it failed to address very important issues. Although the push among the political class is for the project to get the go ahead for the sake of ‘development’ in the area, NEMA could not totally ignore the concerns raised.

In this regard, NEMA has written to the project proponents asking them to address the issues raised among them biodiversity, water balance and land ownership. It is until these questions have been answered that NEMA will make their final decision. It is to be noted however, that the EIA report has not yet been rejected.

Conservationists are now regrouping to forge a way forward given what we know up to this point in time. You can be assured that although some battles have been won, the war is still on.

Share This

No responses yet