The tenth  meeting of Contracting Parties of the Convention on Wetlands (COP 10) will be held in South Korea in October, 2008. During the conference there will be an exhibition of children’s art to celebrate our cultural diversity and supportive role of wetlands. Each party state to the convention has been invited to present art work created by children aged between 5-18 years interpreting the COP 10 theme: Healthy Wetlands, Healthy People. The winning pictures will be exhibited at the conference center and will be open to the public as well as COP 10 participants. After the conference all pictures will be the property of National Museums of Kenya and will be exclusively used to raise awareness about wetlands in Kenya.

The East African Wild Life Society, National Museums of Kenya, Kenya Wildlife Service and Wildlife Clubs of Kenya are working together in organizing the competion and selecting the winning pictures, which will be displayed in Korea.

We are kindly appealing for donations of the following items laptops, binoculars, digital cameras, medals, book vouchers and trips to Ramsar sites and Game Parks so that we can reward the children who come up with the best paintings for putting in their efforts towards this worthy cause that will go a long way in conserving our wetlands

Share This

Read on.

LAKE NATRON CONSULTATIVE GROUP

Press Statement

Nairobi, 10th July 2008

THE GROUP FAULTS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION’S POSITION
OVER THE PROPOSED LAKE NATRON SODA ASH PROJECT

The Lake Natron Consultative Group (The Group) takes note of the statement by the
National Development Corporation (NDC), the co-investor with Tata Chemicals Ltd
(TLC), insisting that the Lake Natron Soda Ash Project will go ahead.

We also take note of the statement that The Group is responsible for the woes now
facing the soda ash project, especially what NDC termed “negative publicity”.

Further, the assertion that NDC is concerned about the environment and has
responded by shifting the project site (32 kms away) and commissioned a new
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and Integrated Management
Planning process for the Ramsar site, is taken note of. NDC’s statement also stated that
the soda ash project will not harm the lesser flamingos, the local people and
biodiversity in general.

The Group’s Response

The Lake Natron Consultative Group would like to state as follows:

a. The statement by NDC goes counter to the recent announcement by Tata
Chemicals Ltd that it has withdrawn the project as originally conceptualized.
Quoted in The Hindustan Times of India, the TCL Managing Director Mr Homi
Khusrokhan said:

“The Company is not in a position to take a view with regard to
resumption ‘till it has a chance to examine the final approved Ramsar
Management Plan currently under preparation for Lake Natron.” The
Hindustan Times story titled Green Groups halt Tata Plant in
Tanzania also quoted Mr Khusrokhan saying, “…the original
Environment and Social Impact Assessment…..should be treated as
withdrawn)

It would appear that the NDC issued the statement on its own behalf and not on
behalf of TCL. So, is the NDC on its own?

b. The NDC is not in a position to determine the fate of the proposed project since it is
also a player in the process. According to Tanzanian laws, the Minister for
Environment in the Vice President’s Office has the final word. So far, Hon Dr
Batilda Buriani has demonstrated fairness and objectivity with regard to this issue
and we highly commend her for this.

c. The woes now facing the proposed soda ash project are largely attributable to
NDC. As a government agency working with Tata Chemicals Ltd, the NDC failed to
advice the government on the need to follow the due process as prescribed by
Tanzanian laws. AT the same time NDC failed to defend the soda ash project in all
the stakeholder meetings held to discuss the issue.

NDC did not insist that all the necessary information and data (such as feasibility
and cost-benefit analysis) be in place before coming out in public on the project.
The result was the disaster that was the Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA) report, which was faulted by the Technical Advisory Committee
of the National Environmental Management Council (NEMC) on 2nd November
2007 and was overwhelmingly rejected during the public hearing on 23rd January
2008. Stakeholders further rejected the project during the Ramsar Advisory
Mission (RAM) in February and the World Bank meeting on 30th April 2008 in Dar
es Salaam.

d. The NDC did not demand that an Integrated Management Plan (IMP) for the
Ramsar site be developed before floating the soda ash proposal. This contravened
the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance of which
Tanzania is a signatory. Instead, the investor decided to put the cart before the
horse.

To be credited, however, is the new Minister for Environment (Hon Dr Batilda
Burhani) who issued an order on 1st May 2008 that no further project processes
touching on the soda ash project will be allowed until the Integrated
Management Plan for Lake Natron is developed and approved. It is therefore
belated for NDC to state that it would ensure that an IMP is done.

e. The statement by NDC on the impacts of the proposed project are contrary a
document developed by its own consultants. The ESIA Report explains in detail the
negative social and ecological impacts of the project, which include impacts on
flamingos, impacts on pastoral livelihoods, tourism and pressure on natural
resources (including firewood and water). It also mentions positive impacts among
them 150 permanent jobs and 2,000 casual ones and “millions of US dollars” to the
Tanzanian economy. The new “perspectives” on these issues by NDC are therefore
not tenable unless backed by new studies.

f. Strong opposition to the soda ash project has come from Tanzanians of all walks of
life, professionals and the donor community. In addition, local communities at
Pinyiny, Ngare Sero, Matali, Gelai, Kitumbeine and other villages around Lake
Natron have said “No”.

These local people are not environmentalists but poor people who are worried
about the negative impacts of the project on their sources of livelihoods (e.g
ecotourism, pastoralism). They are also worried about being displaced from their
land and a trampling of their rights. The claim that so many million US $ will be
pumped to the national economy has little relevance to the local people.

g. The Group has stated before that shifting the factory site 32 kms away does not
necessarily mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed project. If anything, it is
likely to spread the impacts over a wider area thus leaving a huge ecological
footprint on the landscape. Critically important, the raw material will still be
removed from Lake Natron using a complex grid of pipes and pumps. The
negative impacts on the Lesser Flamingos and other forms of biodiversity that
depend on the lake are therefore not likely to change.

h. Finally, The Group would not to like to see the Kenyan soda ash mining experience
replayed in Tanzania. In spite of being in operation for over 100 years, soda ash
mining at Lake Magadi in Kenya has not benefited the local community.
Government reports (CBS 2003) show that Magadi Division is one of the poorest in
Kajiado District and in the country, in spite of the massive investment by Magadi
Soda Company (which has now been acquired by Tata Chemicals Ltd).

To the contrary, the Magadi Soda ash project has caused displacement of local
communities from their land, environmental degradation, poor health and now an
acute shortage of fresh water after the construction of the second plant. Until
recently, the company paid 10 Kenyan cents for 1 tonne of the soda ash raw
material (1 US $ = 60 Ksh and 1 Ksh = 100 cents). This was reviewed to Ksh 26 per
tonne in a new land lease that was opposed by the local community but extended
by the government in controversial circumstances

i. As The Group, we shall continue to engage in a debate founded on facts
regarding this issue. We owe it to the local community, the global community and
future generations to ensure that the resources at Lake Natron are not jeopardised
by development that is not sustainable. Tata Chemicals Ltd seems to be in
agreement with this. We now ask the National Development Corporation to do
the same.

In conclusion, The Group would like to urge the Minister of natural Resources and
Tourism and the Minister of Environment in Tanzania, to ensure that no further
processes related to the proposed soda ash project are undertaken before the
Integrated Management Plan for the Lake Natron Ramsar site is completed.

The plan should be preceded by detailed studies, including the ecology and
breeding behaviour of the lesser flamingos and cost benefit analysis.

ENDS

For more details contact:

Ken Mwathe
Coordinator, Lake Natron Consultative Group

BirdLife International,
Africa Partnership Secretariat,
ICIPE Campus, Kasarani Road,
P.O Box 3502 – 00100 Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 8562246/8562490
Fax +254 20 8562259
Office cell +254 734 600905 or +254 722 200238
Personal Cell +254 733 926191

LAKE NATRON CONSULTATIVE GROUP INSTITUTIONS

1. East African Wildlife Society (EAWLS) www.eawildlife.org
2. Nature Kenya www.naturekenya.org
3. BirdLife Africa Partnership Secretariat www.birdlife.org
4. African Conservation Centre (ACC) www.conservationafrica.org
5. Youth For Conservation www.youthforconservation.org
6. South Rift Association of Landowners (SORALO)
7. Kenya Wetlands Forum (KWF) www.eawildlife.org
8. Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE)
www.cemiride.info
9. Kenya Community Based Tourism Network (KECOBAT)
10. Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI) www.elci.org
11. Centre for Education and Research in Environmental Law (CREEL)
12. Wildlife Clubs of Kenya (WCK) www.wildlifeclubskenya.wildlifedirect.org
13. Ethiopia Wildlife and Natural History Society (EWNHS)
14. Born Free Foundation www.bornfree.org
15. Uganda Wildlife Society
16. Nature Uganda www.natureuganda.org
17. Lawyers Environmental Action Team (LEAT), Tanzania www.leat.or.tz
18. Forum for Environment (Ethiopia) www.ffe-ethiopia.org
19. Horn of Africa - Regional Environment Centre/Network, Addis
Ababa University, Ethiopia www.hoarec.org
20. Djibouti Nature www.hobotraveler.com/na_djibouti-nature.php
21. The Heritage Society www.heritagesociety.org
22. Game Rangers Association of Africa www.gameranger.org
23. Maa Civil Society Forum
24. Lake Naivasha Riparian Association www.lakenaivasha.org
25. American Council For Wildlife Preservation
26. PIBI Biological Research Foundation
27. Kenya Alliance of Residents Association www.kara.or.ke
28. Kenya Water and Sanitation Network (KEWASNET)
29. Ecotourism Kenya www.ecotourismkenya.org
30. Ilkisongo Pastoralist Initiatives (IPI), Monduli & Longido Tanzania
31. Journalists Environmental Association of Tanzania (JET)
32. Miliru-Bushi Organization Kenya (MIBOK)
33. Wildlife for Sustainable Development, Ethiopia

4

Share This

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

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

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

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.

Share This

This issue of Swara has a mix of articles to suit each of our readers interests.

The cover story is about the Mountain Bongo written by ‘Bongoman’ Michael Prettejohn and others. This story - On the Trail of the Mountain Bongo - tells you how a wealth of new data, collected and analysed over the past four years, is shedding new light on the slow recovery of the bongo in Kenya. There is a stunning photographic ‘journey’ through A Revitalised Nairobi Park as well as the story of how Africa’s Newest Giant Sengi (Elephant-Shrew species), discovered in 2006 in the Udzungwa Mountains in Tanzania, has been formally described and named.

Then there is an interesting twist about the discovery and naming of a fascinating coecillian called The Kilima-Mrota in Kenya’s Taita Hills by Patrick Malonza and John Measey. Still on new findings, Stephen Spawls tells the story of Kenya’s newly described huge Ashe’s Spitting Cobra (Naja ashei) that has been causing ripples all over the world in his article, Quite an Eyeful. Then our editor, Gordon Boy, puts together the findings on the discovery of, From Madagascar: A New Giant Palm Genus. Botanist Len Newton sheds some light on Kenyan aloes in his article Will the True Aloe Vera Please Stand Up.

Our loyal ‘duduman’ Dino J Martins explains why harvester ants still have much to teach us about resource use and management in Due Diligence while Tony Church reveals a possible way forward for a Kenyan Ranch - Kedong Ranch: An Ecosystem in Peril - that has fallen on hard times. And speaking of hard times, Carol Hardman, in her article ‘Marine Masacre’ tells of a recent tragedy that highlights the wanton destruction of East African marine life.

Wilbur C Smith is asking whether ‘heli-tourism’ should be allowed in our national park in his article ‘Blade Slap’ on the Serengeti. These are conservation issues and Darcy Ogada - in her article Owl Rescue - tackles the conservation of these nocturnal birds by telling us of what could be the first successful captive rearing and release of wild owls by a community in Kenya.

Then there’s yours truly, going on about The Poison in Our Midst - where I tell our readers about the new findings of the investigations that are strengthening the case for a total ban in Kenya on the toxic pesticide Furadan.

There are the usual news items in the ‘Up Front’ section but this time - for the first time ever - is a collection by Wolfgang Thome called ‘Uganda Notes’ that is essentially a collection of newsy items of what is going on in Uganda’s conservation front.

This is not all, but you need to get your copy to know the rest. Just become a member of EAWLS and you get to enjoy this four times each year.

Technorati : Publications, Swara, Wildlife

Share This

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.

Share This

Just today I got an article by the Reuters news agencies which said that they National Development Corporation (NDC) still believes that the project will not harm the flamingos. This, they say, is because they have moved the proposed processing site to some 36 km away from the Lake. I dont know how this would help since the issue of concern for flamingos is the water quality and how it affects the micro-organisms that they feed on. But the NDC says that “By locating the factory away from the lake, we are going to make sure that we can co-exist with the flamingos,”.

The LNCG is very disturbed that Tata and NDC are still planning to go ahead with the project. I think you should read the article for youself. Just follow this link

Share This

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

Share This