NEMA Blunders on Tana Delta
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
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.
Tags: EIA, NEMA, Sugar, Tana Delta
Still no respite for Tana Delta
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.
Divided by Sugar
Category: Kenya, Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands, Wildlife | Date: May 28 2008 | By: thewaterhole
Our wetlands team consisting of EAWLS and the Kenya Wetlands Forum (KWF) members came in from the field the other day after attending NEMA’s public hearings on the Tana Integrated Sugar Project (TISP) between 6 and 8 May 2007, and a monitoring trip to the Lake Jipe Projects Cluster in Taita-Taveta District on 12 to 17 May 2008. I will tell you what happened at the Delta first since this is a hot topic. Forgive the bad pictures.
As I have mentioned before, NEMA held 3 public hearings on the TISP on 6, 7 and 8 May 2008. The hearings - I have since learnt - were held at Danisa and Golbanti villages in Tana River District and at Witu Trading Center in Lamu District.
Our team consisting of EAWLS Deputy Director, Hadley Becha, George Wamukoya and Jael Ludeki of CREEL, Willy sabila of the Kenya Lands Alliance (KLA), and Phylis Gichuhi, Mary Nyumu and Benson Vidambu of EAWLS was accompanied by Bardale Tapata (KWS Honorary Warden) and Ali Shekue, the chair of Coast Fisher Folk Association.
On Monday, 5 May the team converged at Malindi and strategized on their onslaught at the project proponent and the EIA lead agencies. They also met with community leaders to gauge their preparedness for the big days to come. Some 2 weeks earlier, the KLA had performed a pre-hearing community sensitisation and preparation at Danisa Village and the Monday meeting was thus used to tie up some loose ends.
NEMA Director for Compliance and Enforcement addressing the crowd
The next day was NEMA the first day of the hearing. The gods must have been mad at NEMA since that morning a heavy downpour bathed Danisa village - the first venue - with a vengeance causing a lengthy delay in the commencement of the hearings. Just when the rain had stopped and the meeting started, a large group of pro-sugar folk inundated the village grounds. They were carrying sugarcane stalks that they were planting all over the place while chanting pro-sugar songs. The commotion disrupted the meeting and angered the pastoralists who proceeded to stage a walk-out from the meeting.
Pro-sugar youth standing in floodwater after the downpour
NEMA was on the verge of calling off the meeting but carried on until, after two agonising hours, the pastoralists started trickling back into the village square. This time though - much to the chagrin of the pro-sugar folk - they came in the company of a large contingent of sheep, goats and cattle. A stifling blanket of tension descended upon an already overcast day.
Pastoralists bring in the livestock in retaliation
Hell-bent on fulfilling their legal obligation - pursuant to Regulation 22 of the EIA/EA Regulations of 2003 - NEMA doggedly carried on with the hearings amidst much heckling and shoving.
Both pro- and anti-sugar groups presented their perspectives, opinions and positions. Clearly - in the assessment of our team - those opposed to the project presented a strong case while the pro-sugar group monotonously went on about employment creation and infrastructure development.
The anti-sugar group clearly presented their concern over land tenure and ownership rights, loss of life supporting and livelihood systems (mostly for pastoralists and fisher folk), forceful relocation, loss of wildlife and other biodiversity and water resources, salt water intrusion, loss of pasture lands, pollution, potential for volatile conflict between resource users, and human wildlife conflict among other concerns.
The meeting at Danisa was the most explosive although the other two meetings were not without their fair share of theatrics. I will update you on what went on at Golbanti and Witu in the next post.
Shenanigans at the Delta
Category: Community, Kenya, Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands, Wildlife | Date: May 08 2008 | By: admin
Yesterday was the second day of the NEMA public hearings at the Tana Delta and as expected the villagers turned out in large numbers to voice their concerns. It is important, however, to note that not all villagers are against the Tana Integrated Sugar Project.
Take the events of yesterday for instance. Pastoralists came out with their goats and sheep to the meeting and carrying placards and uprooted sugarcane. They were not just going to use their voice to talk down the project. They were going to show the experts that their livestock is in danger. There was quite a fiasco when they started chanting protests and planting and uprooting sugarcane stalks (it looked quite comical on TV, i might say). Apparently, based on a report in the Daily Nation newspaper, they pulled the same stunts on the first day of the protest (Tuesday) much to the chagrin of the crop farmers.
The farmers, as I have said before, are largely supportive of the project. They are looking at the opportunity to supply sugarcane to the sugar factory as out-growers. About 10,000 acres of land has been promised to them under the out-grower scheme. The EAWLS and other conservationists are however gaining ground in their campaign to get the support of this crucial group. They have been providing factual information about the irreparable harm that this project could visit on the Delta.
The out-grower scheme and the said 20,000 jobs that the project has promised are being used as bait to lure the community to accept it. Project proponents know that it does not stand a chance in environmental terms and they are therefore employing cheap tactics - in the guise of socio-economic benefits - to lure the local people into their trap. It would be important to note that a sugar project in Ramisi (in Kwale District further south) also in the Kenya coast is not doing very well either. How dumb can people be? If Ramisi didn’t work, how do hey expect Tana to work?
Maybe an excerpt from an article published in the Sunday Standard a year ago will tell you how Ramisi fares these days:
Piles of concrete rubble spread for hundreds of metres, accentuated by large pillars sticking out as if in defiant mockery. Giant rats, baboons and monkeys fight for the wild berries growing in the compound, and a plantation of blooming cashew nut trees and coconut palms may be harvested by any passer-by.
Ramisi has been dead since 1987 (in the end, i think nature won). By the way, almost all state sugar plants have had to be bailed out by the government at one point or the other after digging themselves into a financial rut. Now they tell us the Tana Sugar will flourish.
The pastoralists are of course not amused. They are more than 20,000 hectares of their seasonal grazing land. They say that their animals will die when the dry season comes. From an environmental perspective, pastoralism is more eco-friendly and that would explain why we are sympathetic to the pastoralists cause. The Masai Mara is among the most spectacular wildlife areas because - on the large part - the Maasai are pastoralists. Somebody convince me that growing wheat (which is the ideal crop for the area) in the Mara - if it came to that - would make more economic sense than tourism and I will call him/her a blatant liar.
The environmentalists who are following the proceedings down at the Delta are using all opportunities to fight this monster both for the sake of the environment and for the sake of the community. Although crop farmers may see the immediate economic benefits, they need to be told that environmental damage arising from the project will in the long run affect the productivity of their land. Their yields of food-crops will definitely decline.
Today is the last day of the hearings and in two weeks NEMA will make a decision on whether the project is to be given a clean bill of environmental health or not
Lets wait and see.
Tana Sugar: It’s Illegal & Uneconomical, says new study
Category: Community, Kenya, Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands | Date: May 05 2008 | By: admin
As NEMA gears up for the three public hearings on the proposed Tana Integrated Sugar Project, a new report by Nature Kenya has revealed that not only will the project contravene some laws, but it also does not make economic sence.
According to Nature Kenya, Mumias Sugar Company (project proponent) says that they will be making KShs 151-million (US$ 2.5-million) each year for the next 20 years. This figure, however is incorrect since they have not factored in such costs as fees for water use, compensation for lost livelihoods, chemical pollution and loss of tourism and wildlife which would give the true cost of the project. The report says that if these costs were included, the project would make as little as US$ 790,000 per annum. This according to them is a total waste of a rich resource that already makes US$ 60-million from tourism, farming (livestock), fisheries and other incomes.
In light of this report, Nature Kenya strongly recommends that the project be abandoned altogether. We hope with such convincing evidence against the project, the TISP will not be allowed to go on. We hope that Nature Kenya will join our own Wetlands team right now headed for the Delta to try and convince NEMA that the project cant go on when the public hearings start tomorrow (May 6).
A summary of key issues discussed in the report can be found here
The Flocks of Tana Delta
Category: Birds, Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands, Wildlife | Date: Apr 10 2008 | By: admin
The Water Hole was yesterday morning informed that the Technical Assessment Committee (TAC) on the proposed Tana Delta Sugar Project’s EIA has finalized its work and handed its report to the NEMA’s Director General (DG), Dr Muusya Mwinzi. The DG is also reported to have said that he is looking at the TAC report and will make his decision in the next few days. The KWF – who informed The Water Hole about this development has however urged ALL people concerned to be vigilant since they are informed that the TAC’s recommendation may not very good.
It will be very sad for the Tana Delta should the DG decide to give a clean bill to the development in line with this recommendation (which, as I have said, is suspect). It is unimaginable how dangerous this move can be. How much alteration to the ecosystem it will cause. How much biodiversity will be lost.
Perhaps a glance at a small fraction of what might be lost due to changes in the ecological system can inform you of the magnitude of the problem.
During the past Easter weekend, our good friend (and member of the SWARA Editorial Committee), Fleur Ng’weno was part of a Kenya Museum Society outing to the Tana Delta. During this short period, Fleur was treated to a feast of biodiversity that is both unique and astonishing.
“We stayed in Kipini, where I could observe the birds roosting on the sandbanks on the south bank of River Tana.” wrote Fleur in an email to the Kenya BirdsNet email network. During a boat ride up the Tana River she got to Hippo Lake. This is a wide part of the river in which hundreds of hippos congregate. The Hippo Lake area is surrounded by seasonally flooded grasslands. During the visit, although the ground was mainly dry, the grasslands were teeming with huge flocks of birds.
During that single outing, Fleur and friends observed – on the sandbanks and mudflats at the river mouth – and estimated 400 Glossy Ibis, 400 Sooty Gulls, 2000 White-winged Terns and small numbers of terns (Gull-billed, Caspian, Lesser Crested, Roseate and Saunders’s)
Along the river banks and in the seasonally flooded grasslands they observed significant flocks of other birds including roughly 2000 Cattle Egrets, 100 Common Squacco Herons, 200 Yellow-billed Storks, 400 Spur-winged Plovers, 200 Collared Pratincoles and a group of 20 African Skimmers
They were also treated to gathering of scavengers at a carcass near Hippo Lake, consisting of about 2 Hooded Vultures, 6 African White-backed Vultures, 6 Rüppell’s Griffon Vultures and 2 Lappet-faced Vultures.
Carmine Bee-eaters were virtually everywhere.
“These brief observations confirm that the Tana River Delta is an extremely important area for large congregations of African and migratory waterbirds”, says Fleur in her e-mail
Fleur has offered to give me more comprehensive lists of birds found in the Delta which I hope to share with you in consequent blog posts.
As you can all see, we should not lose the Delta. Its too important.
Tana Sugar: The intrigues
Category: Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands, Wildlife | Date: Mar 13 2008 | By: admin
I thank all those who posted comments on my post on the Tana Sugar project yesterday. I am encouraged to see that we all would like to keep the Delta environmentally safe. I understand also that we might seem to be against ‘development’ and improving people’s livelihoods but I personally do not see how hiving off 20,000 ha of prime wetland will not affect the entire ecosystem. All I have heard about plantations suggests otherwise. Maybe there is a way that I don’t know of.
I just spoke to Peter Odhiambo, our Wetlands Programme Coordinator who’s also the point man at the Kenya Wetlands Forum (KWF) Secretariat and his opinion is that the comments that the government officers made during their visits are their own opinions. He sees a possibility that NEMA is committed to follow the law regarding environmental consequences of development projects. He is however suspicious as to the composition of the 10-man Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that is reviewing the comments made against the EIA for the project, and of the fact that NEMA has kept the list away from the public eye.
He however revealed the names of half the team. These names were mentioned in a meeting on 29 February that a team representing the EAWLS/KWF held with NEMA. They include:
1. Prof R Mbuvi of the University of Nairobi (Chair)
2. Dr Njoka of the University of Nairobi
3. Mr Charles Mbara of the University of Nairobi
4. Mr Phillip Wandera of the Catholic University of East Africa, and
5. Anne Macharia of NEMA (Secretary)
Paula, in her comment to yesterdays post, asked who the experts were and I believe with this list your question is half answered. And Paula, I don’t know why KWS is doing an aerial survey. I believe that a full ecosystem (for the area consists of various wetland and forest habitats) assessment should be conducted by field biologists, wetlands experts and others and be weighted against the EIA report before any decision about the fate of the project is made.
What are our bargaining chips? We (EAWLS and KWF) have already submitted our comments to NEMA concerning the inadequacy of the EIA. We have even helped the local people (who mostly fear for the loss of their grazing lands) put their concerns on paper and present them to NEMA. At the moment I am not in possession of scientific reports that have shown the interdependence of the various habitats in keeping the Delta healthy. These would be quite weighty bargaining chips to use. I believe others may have research reports of this kind. Those who may be able to procure such should send them to the KWF.
Thank you Pechir (although I couldn’t trace your comments on Baraza) for the good work you are doing. Together we can ensure that the government sees the wisdom in keeping the Delta safe and should they proceed with the project, it is done in an environmentally viable way and that the plight of pastoralists is fully taken into account. That most ‘still wild’ areas of the world are to be found in pastoralists’ keep (e.g. the Mara) is itself a testimony that these people are good custodians of the natural world.
So, what next? For EAWLS and KWF, we are keeping track of all the steps of the process. As we await the outcome of the review of the comments on EIA, we still demand answers to some vexing questions that have remained unanswered.
This morning, Peter showed me a letter that our Executive Director, Mr Ali Kaka sent to Dr Mwinzi just before the latter went to the Delta over the weekend. The letter essentially voiced the concerns of EAWLS on the constitution of the TAC which I will explain in my next post. The EAWLS/KWF team of Hadley Becha, Dr George Wamukoya, Peter Odhiambo, Jael Ludeki and Rashida Suleiman had met with Mr B M Lang’wen, the Director for Compliance and Enforcement at NEMA. It was during this meeting that NEMA revealed the partial list of the TAC to us.
If you wish to write to the authorities, I suggest you write to Dr A Musya Mwinzi of NEMA on this address: Director General, NEMA, P O Box 67839, Nairobi, KENYA.
You can, in addition, help by donating to our campaigns fund.
Tana Sugar: Government baits locals
Category: Community, Sugar, Tana Delta, Wetlands, Wildlife | Date: Mar 12 2008 | By: admin
The Kenya Government is now using bait to diffuse local community protests to the proposal to convert some 20,000 hectares of the country’s prime wetland, Tana Delta wetlands, into a sugar plantation and the National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) seems to have swallowed its share of bait already. The national press reports that NEMA’s Director General, Dr. Muusya Mwinzi, had visited the residents of the Delta last weekend in a mission - according to us at the Water Hole - to regurgitate some of this bait.
Dr Mwinzi was not alone, he was part of the train that the Permanent Secretary (PS) for Finance, Mr Joseph Kinyua, and his Regional Development counterpart, Mr David Stower, had hauled down to the Delta. They had with them a full basket of bait.
‘Mr Finance’ promised the locals that the government would loan them money to purchase at least 15% of the stake in the project, they will become outgrowers, and own a stake in the sugar producing company. The outgrowers will have 4,000 hectares out of the 20,000 ha that the project will put under sugarcane. They were promissed that 20,000 jobs would come out of the project, which, in his view, will support the livelihoods of 3-million people.
The project, according to the EIA I discussed in my previous post, is economically viable but presents serious environmental consequences. Pastoralists, like i said, are the ones most opposed among the communities as they see a huge chunk of their livestock’s pasture dissappearing. The PS Finance dismissed the pastoralists protests as having arisen from ‘excitement’ following the announcement of the project. He openly ‘gave the nod’ to the project.
Dr Mwinzi on the other hand, not wanting to openly chorus the sentiments of the PS, said that the EIA report that stands between the idea and the actualisation of the project is being harmonised by considering the comments that the public submitted to Nema (see previous post). To try and appear serious, he announced that he had constituted a committee of 10 ‘experts’ to review the comments and harmonise them with the EIA report before NEMA can endorse the project. He supported this argument by announcing that the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) would conduct an aerial survey to scope the effect of the project on wildlife before NEMA can finalise the EIA.
We suspect that with such heavy government baiting, the environment is likely to loose. The Kenya Wetlands Forum and EAWLS will however continue to put pressure on NEMA not to give the project an environmental ‘clean bill’ since it is obvious that there will be irreversible environmental damage should the project proceed. We will continue working with our allies within the community and to try and marshall international support to stop this potentially harmful ‘development’.
We need all the support we can get.
-
100% of your donation, minus a small bank fee, will go to your intended purpose.
Donations made here are safe.
-
Donations Received
- Feb 1st Theresa S. USD50.00
- Nov 11th Charles T. USD50.00