• Africa: Mangroves to Feed Shrimp Aquaculture
• Congo, Democratic Republic: Pygmies stand up to World Bank logging development
• Kenya: The Maasai Stand up to IUCN Displacement Attempts from their Forest
• South Africa: FSC Certification of Industrial Timber Plantations

LOCAL STRUGGLES AND NEWS

- Africa: Mangroves to Feed Shrimp Aquaculture

According to the United Nations Environment Programme, 38% of Africa’s coastline and 68% of its marine protected areas are under threat from unregulated development. Of concern are poorly-planned or regulated shrimp farming operations.

Relatively little shrimp farming took place in Africa until the early 1990s, but the continent represents a potential new frontier for the industry and large mangrove areas are being targeted by developers, drawn by rich natural resources, cheap labour and low land prices. African shrimps are valuable due to their good quality, compared to the rather small Asian shrimps.

The current shrimp production in Africa is around 106,000 tons, and though 29 African countries are shrimp producers, just a few are involved in the global market: Nigeria, with 20,500 tons per year, Madagascar with 17,000 tons in large scale aquaculture farms, and Morocco, with 13,000 tons. In Mozambique, large-scale shrimp farms are reported to be planned near Maputo (7,500 ha), Beira (19,500 ha) and Quelimane (6,000 ha). Shrimp farms also operate in a variety of coastal and inland zones in Guinea, Gambia, Eritrea, Egypt, South Africa, the Seychelles and Kenya. In Gabon, the company Amerger is finalizing a shrimp farm with a potential production of 2,000 tons per year, while in Quelimane, Mozambique, the French-financed company Aquapesca built a pilot-scale shrimp hatchery and farm (20 ha).

Three biologically-rich and culturally important large river deltas are among areas that have been targeted for new aquaculture developments: the Niger Delta, the Tana Delta and the Rufiji Delta.

The Niger Delta. Nigeria’s mangrove forests are the largest in Africa and the third largest in the world. Local communities rely on the forests for building materials and food, and it is estimated that 60% of fish caught between the Gulf of Guinea and Angola breed in the mangroves of the Niger Delta. Industrial shrimp farming supported by the Nigerian Government has been proposed in the delta.

The Tana Delta is the largest wetland ecosystem in Kenya, comprising riverine forests, mangroves, flood plains and grasslands. The company Coastal Aquaculture Limited (CA) was allocated land in the Tana Delta in the early 1990s in order to develop shrimp farms. However, the local communities also claimed ancestral rights to the land. Following widespread protest, the Kenyan government used a Presidential decree and stopped the project. Litigation between CA Ltd and the government was unresolved, and the company is now reportedly lobbying the new government in order to restart the project and develop shrimp farms.

The Rufiji Delta contains the largest estuarine mangrove forest on the east coast of Africa and is of considerable economic and conservation importance. In the late 1990s, the African Fishing Company (AFC, run by an Irish arms dealer, R. J. Nolan) planned the world’s largest shrimp farming project in the delta. The project, a 10,000 ha shrimp farm, was to take up a 19,000 ha site, inclusive of feed plant, hatchery, processing plant, etc, in the largest continuous block of mangrove in East Africa (53,000 ha). The project was endorsed by the government in 1998 in a deal that also allowed Nolan to import over half a million dollars worth of arms into Tanzania annually. However, a review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) found it to contain substantial errors, omissions and misrepresentations, including suppressed risks of the project. Thirty-three thousand people resided in the proposed area in 19 registered villages and scattered sub-villages – the EIA claimed that the area was virtually uninhabited. Following widespread opposition to the project by local communities, environmental organisations and academics, and as a result of legal action by villagers with support from the Lawyers Environmental Action Team and Professor Issa Shivji, this proposal was eventually rejected and the AFC went into liquidation in August 2001. A moratorium was declared on all commercial aquaculture in Tanzania until the government has established proper guidelines. It was also declared that aquaculture should not be conducted in ecologically sensitive areas such as mangroves.

The “forests of the sea” are facing hard times worldwide, harassed by vested interests and fast-profit returns. It appears that only the strong resistance of those aware of mangrove’s invaluable richness –particularly the local people who depend on them-- will guarantee their survival.

Article based on information from: EJF. 2004. “Farming The Sea, Costing The Earth: Why We Must Green The Blue Revolution”, Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK, http://www.ejfoundation.org/pdfs/farming_the_sea.pdf ; “Crevettes: la ruée vers l’or rose d’Afrique”, Yolande S. Kouamé, 17/04/2003, http://www.rfi.fr/fichiers/MFI/EconomieDeveloppement/968.asp

---

top

- Congo, Democratic Republic: Pygmies stand up to World Bank logging development

Together with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Bank is supporting the development of comprehensive new forestry laws in the Congo, as well as the 'zoning' of the country's entire forest area which would imply the logging of some 60 million hectares of tropical forest. More than 100 environment, development and human rights groups had challenged in February of this year those projects (see WRM Bulletin Nº 80).

This process has been debated for some time. In February and March 2003 we had already published evidence disseminated by activist Karl Ammann, who disclosed how an Aide Memoire of the World Bank was actually the World Bank’s advise on how to reactivate the forestry sector (see WRM Bulletins Nº 67 and 68) in order for the DRC to become the first timber producer in Africa. The World Bank has been thus laying the grounds for the development of industrial logging in the country.

However, this wouldn’t go without impacts. According to the Bank's own estimates, as many as 35 million of the Congo's 50 million people depend on the forests for their very survival. All those people could see their livelihood undermined at the best, or even destroyed.

On last July 8, one of the potentially most affected groups --the 'Pygmy' peoples-- put their case directly to World Bank President James Wolfensohn requesting him to halt plans that could unleash a wave of destruction on the rainforests where they live. This action took place during a video conference organised by the Rainforest Foundation UK, which is also challenging the Bank's plans for a massive increase in industrial logging in the Congo.

This wouldn’t be the first case for the World Bank disrupting the life of ‘Pygmies’: in Cameroon, the Bagyeli --one of the many different ‘Pygmy’ peoples-- are threatened by a World Bank-sponsored oil pipeline which is to be built through their land. The ‘Pygmy’ are forest dwellers, and know the forest, its plants and its animals intimately. They live by hunting animals such as antelopes, pigs and monkeys, fishing, and gathering honey, wild yams, berries and other plants. They are seeing their rainforest homes threatened by logging, and are being driven out by settlers. In some places they have been evicted and their land has been designated as national parks.

“You must not forget that the lives of indigenous peoples depend on the forest,” Adolphine Muley of the Congolese Union of Indigenous Women (UEFA) told the World Bank President. “For a ‘Pygmy’ to talk of forest exploitation is to talk of reinforcing misery and poverty. You must put strategies in place so that the ‘Pygmy’ peoples are not damaged by the system that you are developing.”

Article based on information from: “Congo ‘Pygmies’ meet with World Bank President”, Press Release of the Rainforest Foundation, 8 July 2004, http://www.rainforestfoundation.org.uk , sent by Simon Counsell, E-mail: SimonC@rainforestuk.com ; “Tribes & People Groups. Pygmies”, The Africa Guide, http://www.africaguide.com/culture/tribes/pygmies.htm

---

top

- Kenya: The Maasai Stand up to IUCN Displacement Attempts from their Forest

Way back in 1994, a group of NGO people –among whom the current WRM coordinator- were invited by the Maasai to visit a forest which they were struggling to save from tourism "development". As a means of providing international support to the struggle, an article was written and widely disseminated in November that year in Third World Network's magazine "Resurgence" (available at http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/9412/0140.html). That struggle is still ongoing, but a new actor has appeared in scene -the IUCN- and what follows provides a detailed description of the situation as it now stands and on how the local people feel about it.

The Naimina Enkiyio Forest, one of the few remaining indigenous forests in Kenya, is situated in Loita, in the south of the country, about 300 kilometers southwest of the country’s capital Nairobi. The forest ecosystem is considered a shrine by the estimated 40,000 Maasai of the Purko and Loita clans, since it is an important natural resource which has a long history of use by them. The Loita pastoralists consider the forest as alive, and responsive in many ways to their physical, spiritual and cultural needs. It serves as an important dry season grazing zone as well as a source for numerous rivers and is home to a wide array of fauna and flora ranging from elephants to rare bird and plant species. Particular trees are regarded as sacred. The many valuable forest-based products include products derived directly from trees (medicine, edible fruits and seeds, honey, and poles) as well as water, grass for livestock, and other plants. The Maasai see the forest as their responsibility and its sustainable use as a must.

But now, a plan by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) may entail the Maasai’s displacement from the Naimina Enkiyio forest. This is not the first time that IUCN projects displace them from their traditional lands. A similar IUCN project in Ngorongoro in the 1980s forced Maasai to move out of the area to pave the way for the development of a national park.

"[The British] moved us from Nairobi and Nakuru [in the early 1900s], but we shall fight current attempts to move us from Naimina Enkiyio," declared an angry Loita elder during a June 7 demonstration which gathered one thousand Maasai to oppose what they see as a takeover of the management of the 33,000 hectare forest in Kenya’s Narok district. According to reports sent to the Centre for Minority Rights Development (CEMIRIDE), violence erupted when police allegedly fired shots into the crowd of protesters and injured a number of Maasai.

By supporting the takeover, the Narok County administration would be contradicting its October 2002 statement which granted Loita and Purko Maasai the right to conserve, protect, control, preserve, and own the Naimina Enkiyio forest. However, the future of the Naimina Enkiyio forest has been debated since 1995 when the Narok County Council tried to gazette the area for tourism. Despite legal opposition from the Loita Maasai, this case has yet to be resolved.

IUCN regional representative Eldad Tukahirwa says the objective of the project is to reduce Maasai dependency on the forest by developing their livestock and "building their conscience on the value of the forest." Tukahirwa said the project proposal was based on "a year and a half of consultations with the community."

But those opposed to the plan argue that consultations were inadequate. While pro-IUCN stakeholders are well-represented in the proposed management body for the forest, the Loita/Purko support groups “Loita Concerned Residents” and “Forest Morans” (young Maasai men) have been left out. They allege that the Narok County Council has supported the IUCN because of the $2.6 million earmarked for the project.

Regarding the IUCN’s stated intent to provide technical support to a forest management team selected by the Loita/Purko community and IUCN, Vincent Ole Ntekerei, spokesman for the Forest Morans and Loita Concerned Citizens, asserts, "Naimina Enkiyio is one of the few ungazzetted forests in Kenya, solely managed by the Maasai for centuries and therefore there is nothing new we would be learning from IUCN."

The resistance opposed by the Maasai may have rendered fruits. The permanent secretary in the Office of the President in charge of Provincial Administration, Mr Dave Mwangi, ordered the Narok DC, Mr John Egesa, to halt the project until complaints raised by the Maasai community are addressed. What would that mean remains to be seen.

Article based on information from: “Loita and Purko Maasai resist IUCN plans for the Naimina Enkiyio Forest”, Michael Ole Tiampati, sent by Cultural Survival Weekly Indigenous News, June 25, 2004, E-mail: news@cs.org ; “Kenya: Contentious Forest Plan Halted”, East African Standard, June 25, 2004, Forests.org, http://forests.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=33023 ; “Loita project of integrated forest conservation and management (preparatory phase)”, http://www.unesco.org/most/bpik9.htm

---

top

- South Africa: FSC Certification of Industrial Timber Plantations

The environment pressure network Geasphere has charged the international Forest Stewardship Council with acting irresponsibly in certifying the massive spread of Industrial Timber Plantations (ITPs) in South Africa.

ITPs come at a massive cost to the natural and social environment, and these costs have not been quantified, says Philip Owen of Geasphere, in an open letter to the chair of the Forest Stewardship Council, David Nahwegabouw.

"Certifying South African Industrial Timber Plantations with a ‘green label’ is irresponsible and undermines your credibility," Owen charged, in an earlier letter to FSC board members.

He asks the FSC chair why FSC board members, after visiting South Africa and seeing the ITPs for themselves, did not even respond to Geasphere's letter in April, which proposed a series of steps the FSC could take. "...Please tell us if you don't agree that we have legitimate cause for concern; and if FSC could be the vehicle to instigate the drastic changes needed to move towards sustainably managed plantations."

The open letter outlines the way timber plantations have damaged the environment in general, and in specific cases. It points out that timber plantations are established in the rare high rainfall areas, primarily grassland. These are some of the most floristically diverse areas of this country. In South Africa, millions of hectares of primary grassland, savannah grassland and pockets of indigenous forests have disappeared beneath this sea of alien monoculture.

South Africa’s most threatened bird species, Rudd's Lark, has been most severely affected by destruction of its high rainfall grassland habitat while South Africa’s most threatened antelope species, the Oribi, can also trace its demise to loss of the same grassland habitat.

Industrial Timber Plantations are of fast growing, high yielding, evergreen species, and consume vast quantities of the scarce water resources. Many springs have become bone dry since whole catchments were planted over with high impact ITPs. There are reports that with ready access to water, a mature eucalyptus tree can use upwards of 500 litres of water daily. There are also reports that in some areas where ITPs have been established, the water table has dropped as much as 36 metres.

Philip Owen adds: "It is sad to see how we people lose touch with the reality of our relationship with mother earth. We substitute her bounty with row upon row of monotony, smothering the life-force in the soils. As we steal from this soil, we must remember that in truth, money does not make the world go round."

He concludes: "On April 23, 2004 I wrote to the FSC board of directors and others who attended a FSC stakeholders meeting in Sabie, South Africa. Unfortunately, there has been no attempt from any of the FSC representatives to respond to our concerns. I copy this (slightly revised) letter below. I ask that you consider the statements and tell us if you don't agree that we have legitimate cause for concern; and if FSC could be the vehicle to instigate the drastic changes needed to move towards sustainably managed plantations."

This was the text of the earlier letter, to the members of the FSC Board and others: "After your recent visit to South Africa, and having seen the industrial timber plantations, you must be wondering how a million hectares of these alien plantations can possibly carry the FSC label, and how 80 per cent of South Africa’s high impact timber industry could have been certified within such a short period of time.

We are greatly concerned that, by certifying industrial timber plantations, the FSC is in effect misleading consumers who choose to buy products which has been produced in an environmentally sound manner.

I have no doubt that FSC contributes to better forest management and the protection of forest systems world wide, but we feel strongly that certifying South African Industrial Timber Plantations with a ‘green label’ is irresponsible and undermines your credibility. It is not responsible to promote the protection of one biome (indigenous forests) even when this sometimes occurs at the expense of others, especially grassland. Is one more important than the other?

The true costs associated with industrial timber plantations, including loss of biodiversity resources and services provided by grassland (such as flood prevention and carbon sequestration) have never been quantified, so we are unable to make informed decisions about the extent to which the industry itself can be called responsible.

I support Wally Menne of the TimberWatch Coalition when he writes: “there is a need to establish the legitimacy of existing certifications in South Africa, and to urgently undertake an immediate and complete review and reassessment of such certified plantations”.

The FSC should:

* Suspend certification issued to industrial plantations until such time as a national FSC initiative has developed criteria and standards applicable to local conditions which promote the protection of grassland and other natural / semi-natural areas.

* Incorporate certification standards applicable to Industrial Timber Plantations, designed to facilitate a change towards organic, diversity-based, agro-forestry practices in an effort to maximize soil micro-life.

* Not consider certifying any monoculture plantations established post 1994 in any natural area, so as to ensure the FSC does not contribute to the destruction of other more threatened biomes, such as grassland.

* Follow through on your promise to review principle 10.

It is clear that FSC Principle 10 does not contribute much to the principle of ‘sustainability’ -- as surely it should. For example, diversity of species is encouraged, but it would only contribute to increased biological activity if the diversity is encouraged within plantation compartments. Principle 10 in fact, endorses the destructive and unsustainable industrial timber plantation model, and needs to be revised urgently. The proposed notion of stretching FSC certification even further, beyond industrial timber plantations to certify savanna game reserves is to say the least, ludicrous. It begs the question whether the FSC label has become first and foremost, a commodity to be sold to anyone willing to pay for it?

Certification can contribute towards better plantation management, most notably aiding the local regulating authorities in executing their mandate. However, it would appear from viewing the unsatisfactory impacts that still exist on the ground in many or most of the plantations that bear the FSC label, that the standard is not rigorous enough and that there are significant shortcomings with it.

Invasive alien plant control is a critical issue within the ‘forestry’ sector. How has the invasive alien plant situation in FSC certified timber plantations changed since certification? Is weed control measures functional, (are there more weeds? or less weeds?) and do you have statistical data to provide proof? Please supply me with relevant data, if available to yourselves."

The letter to board members concluded: "By certifying Industrial Timber Plantations as responsible forests, the FSC is undermining the work done by concerned individuals, communities and environmental organisations such as the World Rainforest Movement, FASE, TimberWatch Coalition, GEASPHERE and others."

For more information contact Philip Owen , E-mail: owen@soft.co.za , http://www.geasphere.co.za