We all know that with the end of December quickly approaching, Santa is busy getting everything set for his worldwide tour. Tim Allen’s, erm, Kris Kringle’s boots are mighty big, but the carbon footprint he leaves behind is even bigger. Ethical Ocean took a look at Santa’s environmental impact, and tried to see if they could help him run a slightly more eco-friendly operation.
Image courtesy of NRDC
When it comes to global warming, humans have certainly felt the effects, and this year more than ever. With one weather disaster after another hammering the globe (there were a dozen in the U.S. alone that topped the billion-dollar mark for damages), there’s no denying that the natural course of the climate has been altered due to the many greenhouse gas emissions we spew into the air courtesy of industry and transport. And the results of our pollution are not only affecting us, but also the many species of wildlife that call this planet home. The question is: how is our negligent attitude towards the protection of the environment affecting wild animals?
It has been a bad year for rhinos in South Africa. Many more got killed than in 2010, the 333 toll of which was described with words like “shocking” and “outrageous”. Most thought it couldn’t get worse.
It’s got much worse. The tally for 2011 is at least 433. It could end up being higher, for even as the year drew to a close, reports kept coming in of more dead rhinos found with gruesome wounds or just stumps left where their horns had been.
• Friday, December 2 – two white rhinos found shot in a private park in a mountainous region north of Johannesburg;
• Saturday, December 3 – a black rhino found shot in the far north of South Africa near the border crossing into Zimbabwe;
• Wednesday, December 7 – four white rhinos found killed in private reserves just outside the western boundary of South Africa’s flagship Kruger National Park, with the one victim’s calf so badly injured that it had to be put down;
• Friday, December 9 – the carcasses of five rhinos are found inside Kruger National Park, not far from one of its southern gates;
• Monday, December 12 – a report appears on the front page of newspapers on a gruesome mutilation of a rhino bull and cow in a private reserve in the far south of South Africa. They were darted and had their horns hacked off with a machete. Both could be revived by having antidotes administered, but the cow had to have her unborn calf aborted. The owner told of how he found one of his female staff members crying and hugging the debilitated cow where she lay crumpled under a bush. The use of the specialized drug, called M99, or etorphine, to incapacitate the animals, has once more raised suspicions about the possible involvement of veterinarians or people connected to the service.
• Tuesday, December 13 – a suspected poacher was arrested after he got wounded in a fire-fight in Kruger National Park with park rangers and soldiers. Two other suspects escaped across the border into Mozambique. Four fresh rhino horns were recovered.
The rising toll confirms a trend that is all the more alarming when considering that only 13 rhinos got poached in 2007. The 2011 spike in killings happened despite a multi-pronged strategy devised last year, involving park rangers, the police and the defense force, the prosecuting authorities and even revenue and customs services.
In Kruger National Park, a special unit of soldiers was deployed in the beginning of the year to patrol the park’s 250-mile (400 km) border with Mozambique, which has become the main springboard for poaching sorties across the South African border.
Despite the increased security presence, 244 rhinos were killed in Kruger National Park, which is home to about 10,000 to 12,000 white rhinos and about 500 black rhinos.
Ken Maggs, head of the park’s anti-poaching unit, says 21 poachers were killed in skirmishes with park rangers and the soldiers, and 78 were arrested.
“Unfortunately, the fatalities are a by-product of the value being put on rhino horn. The poachers come into the park armed with hunting rifles and assault weapons. We operate under the legal prescription of arrest, not to shoot to kill, but the poachers come prepared to fight. They switch tactics, such as coming in by night rather than by day. And in the dark, you need to make split-second decisions, or risk leaving your family without a father,” Maggs explained.
He says he is an optimist and is sure the situation will be turned round. But, he adds, it cannot be a single-tool solution. It has to be a whole toolbox, and the bigger the better.
Maggs was appointed head of the National Wildlife Crime Reaction Unit that was set up last year as an umbrella body to co-ordinate efforts between various state bodies and private reserve owners in the fight against the rhino killings.
The poaching and rhino-horn smuggling, he explains, are operated at several levels, and each requires different types of expertise. It is a complex network which, tragically, even extends into wildlife-protection organizations and veterinary circles.
At the ground level there are the poachers who mostly come from nearby communities and who have the local knowledge about where their targets are and how best to get to them. It is the field operatives, the rangers and police and soldiers, who have to deal with them.
At the next level are the recruiters, who find the poachers and pay them. This second and also the third level ensure that the booty gets moved as quickly as possible to the smuggling rings, which at the next level see that the horns reach the market countries, mostly China and Vietnam.
While each category presents its own challenges, requiring particular sets of expertise to deal with, there is also a fifth category of intervention needed. This is at the highest political and diplomatic level to ensure that the support structures and legal framework are in place also to deal with the problem both in the neighboring countries from which the assaults are made and the far-away countries in which the rhino horns end up.
“Unfortunately, there are still too many people who think of the target as just a rhino and therefore of such killings as simply another wildlife crime. It should in fact be seen as organized crime and get treated in the same way as gun-running, armed robbery, heists and hijacking. It is not surprising that, considering the odds of getting caught or killed when committing those other crimes, more and more criminals are getting into the rhino-poaching business,” says Maggs.
Already there is close co-operation between South Africa’s parks authorities, the police, the military and the prosecuting authorities. But Maggs believes the situation can only be properly addressed if the co-operation gets extended to Mozambique’s police and military. That, however, requires intervention at government level.
Dr David Mabunda, chief executive of South African National Parks, indicated that the next big step in the unfolding strategy may well be to get such co-operation going between the security forces of the two countries. He suggested South African Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe and the national minister of environmental affairs, Edna Molewa, were due to have talks with the Mozambican government.
“In 95 percent of the cases – no, even more – Mozambicans are involved in the poaching. Many return in body bags. We don’t boast about killing people. Our purpose is to arrest them, also to gather information. They should know the risk by now, but still they keep coming and the gangs keep multiplying.
“The answer should come through joint operations between the South African and Mozambican security forces. Their Limpopo National Park (which forms part of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park with Kruger National Park) is supposed to serve as a buffer. It isn’t, and we need to talk to them about it,” he said.
As for the market-end of the brutal trade, he said South Africa’s Presidency and the country’s department of international relations were discussing the rhino question with China and Vietnam and he believed progress was being made.
WWF’s African Rhino Program co-ordinator, Dr Joseph Okori, has also called for more coordinated international efforts. He said last month: “Vietnam should follow South Africa’s example and start sending poachers, traders, smugglers and sellers to jail. In order to save rhinos from extinction, the criminal syndicates operating between South Africa and Vietnam must be uncovered and shut down for good.”
How can we secure a future for the people living on the front line of climate change? In Eastern Africa, environmental scientist Katharine Cross is helping to safeguard water resources that are becoming more and more unpredictable.
Climate change is already taking its toll in Eastern Africa. Even the snow caps of the iconic Mount Kilimanjaro are receding and are projected to disappear by 2025. In many areas, increasing populations and an ever-increasing demand for water are leading to conflicts over resources.
Katharine’s expertise as an environmental scientist, particularly in groundwater and river basin management, is being put to good use in the region. She and her colleagues are involved in a variety of projects across Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique and Kenya which focus on strengthening institutions to better manage water resources between the different users such as farmers, hydropower companies and pastoralists.
They identify ways to adapt to climate change impacts which can include finding alternative sources of livelihood, rehabilitating river banks and improving dialogue between users to share water resources more equally. The aim is to make sure there is enough water in the region’s rivers to service all needs, as well as sustain the natural environment.
| “I have always been interested in environmental issues, having studied environmental biology and environmental engineering and worked in the environmental consulting field on remediating soil and groundwater in contaminated sites. And I’ve always enjoyed outdoor activities such as hiking and skiing,” says Katharine.”
“But it was by undertaking development work with Engineers without Borders in Bolivia and Ghana that I became exposed to the need to invest in the environment to ensure improved health and access to resources by communities.” |
Through close collaboration with IUCN’s Drylands Programme, the Water and Wetlands Programme for which Katharine works uses an integrated approach which considers aspects such as rangeland management within water catchment areas. This means working with governments and communities to plan how water resources are used and shared within a catchment and beyond to the wider ecosystem.
| “What we’re helping to set up, and what the government is trying to formalize, are water associations made up of farmers, pastoralists and government representatives. The demand comes from the community and solutions come from local residents themselves,” explains Katharine. |
Change takes time, especially when it involves changing the way natural resources are managed and governed. IUCN has worked for many years in the Pangani River Basin which is shared between Kenya and Tanzania and momentum is building.
| “Slowly people are understanding the impact their use of water has on other people within the basin. For example, in Tanzania, people on the slopes of Kilimanjaro are extracting amounts of water which result in shortages in the dry, lowland areas. The forums that have been created and strengthened allow opportunities for these different users to negotiate over allocation and reduce conflicts,” says Katharine.
“There are many challenges ahead such as securing the long term investment needed to change people’s behaviour and attitude towards sharing water. “People generally believe that water is a god-given gift and that there is no need to pay for abstraction. But in order to manage the basin, resources are required.” |
Katharine says the highlights of her work include working with governments in various countries and being able to influence the way water resources are managed and really helping people cope with climate change in practical ways.
Many of the lessons and best practices from different projects are being applied by the government, specifically in Tanzania and Uganda, in other river basins, and they are also being scaled-up to other projects where IUCN is involved in the wider Eastern and Southern Africa region.
| “It’s a great pleasure for me to work with such a dedicated team of IUCN staff who are implementing projects on the ground. They are extremely professional and achieve results despite high work pressures and often challenging circumstances.” |
[Full report can be downloaded here]
Last year on 10th & 11th September 2010 a fly over of Hwange National Park (HNP) revealed increased mining activity inand around the Sinamatella area. In addition to the mining carried out by Hwange Colliery Company Limited there are now at least 3 other coal mining developments, two adjoining HNP and one actually within the Park.
This mining activity is of grave concern. The associated building of roads and increased human activity is bound to lead to an increase in poaching as the area is opened up, access becomes easier, and there are more people in the area to carry out the poaching and to buy the poached meat.
Further Sinamatella is a rhino intensive protection zone (IPZ). The survival of rhino throughout southern Africa is in doubt due to the ongoing slaughter of these animals for their horn. The IPZs have proved successful but it will be extremely difficult for the Parks & Wildlife Management Authority (PWMA) to monitor and protect the rhino in the Sinamatella IPZ with all the additional traffic and activity resulting from these various mining operations both within the IPZ and on its boundaries.
Of even greater concern is the total devastation of large tracts of land in what until recently was a wilderness area. Whilst wildlife populations may recover, or be reintroduced, if poaching can be brought under control, it may not be possible to restore the wildlife once the habitat has been destroyed.
According to the Parks and Wild Life Act no one may mine within a national park unless they have a written agreement signed by the Minister of Environment and Tourism. To date it has not been established if any of the three mines has such an agreement. Before any of these developments began an environmental impact assessment (EIA) should have been completed – and the Environmental Management Policy requires this to be done.
With this in mind the Provincial Environmental Manager (PEM) Matabeleland North & Bulawayo provinces, Mrs Mpofu Sesu said she was not aware of any new mining developments taking place in the Sinamatella area nor was she able to find a record of any EIAs having been done. The PEM subsequently visited the area but only managed to find one of the mines (see Mine 1 below).
Mine 1. along Hwange-Sinamatella road
This mine is located outside HNP about 10km from Hwange town along the road leading to Sinamatella. The mining is apparently being done by a company called Makomo Resources.
Mine 2 – at the Chawato Springs
This mine is at Chawato Springs, an area frequented by game, immediately adjacent to the HNP boundary and Sinamatella IPZ, and within the Deka Safari Area.
Mine 3 – near Bumbusi
These mining operations are a threat not only to Zimbabwe’s wildlife but also to its cultural and archeological resources. This mine between Sinamatella and Bumbusi camp is within a few kilometers of the Bumbusi Ruins, which is a national monument. In addition to the stone ruins, where Late Stone Age tools have been found, there are unusual sandstone engravings. In recent years National Museums and Monuments have undertaken an excavation in the area and it is believed there are many more archeological finds to be made – unless they are destroyed during bush clearing and mining.
The Environmental Management Authority (EMA), the Parks & Wildlife Management Authority and the mining companies themselves should be making public what development is planned, and what measures have been put in place to protect the environment.
Bushmeat hunting is one of the major threats to mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. Although widely discussed and recognized as an issues in Central and West Africa, a new study in mongabay.com’s open access journalTropical Conservation Sciencedescribes a pattern of bushmeat hunting that is also occurring in southern Africa. Interviewing 114 locals living adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe, Edson Gandiwa with Wageningen University found that the primary drivers of illegal hunting in the park were bushmeat and personal consumption (68 percent).
“Although law enforcement patrols attempt to control illegal hunting, the expected economic benefits from the sale of bushmeat, derived from wild animals, are far greater than the costs associated with a low probability of arrest and punitive fines; thus illegal hunting is a persistent, widespread problem for animal species conservation,” writes the author.
A quarter of all respondents had seen bushmeat or wild animal parts being sold in their village in the last six months. Most stated that bushmeat was hunted “as a source of protein to alleviate poverty.”
 Wire snares confiscated in Zimbabwe. Photo by: Patience Gandwina. |
Hunting was most often conducted with snares, while the use of dogs and bows-and-arrows came in second and third, respectively. Poisoning of big predators has also become a major issue.
“Poisoning, mostly using herbicides and pesticides, was reportedly used in revenge killings of large carnivores such as spotted hyenas and lions as a way to reduce livestock-carnivore conflicts,” the author writes, nothing that in one of the four villages surveyed, 38 percent of respondents listed poisoning as a hunting method. Overall 24 percent of respondents listed poisoning as a known method for hunting. S
Impala (Aepyceros melampus), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Burchell’s zebra (Equus quagga), and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) were the most popular targets of hunters. But 10 percent of respondents also reported the hunting of spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), leopards (Panthera pardus), and lions (Panthera leo).
In order to stem illegal hunting the author recommends more law enforcement with follow-through on punishments, environmental education and awareness, and better methods to reduce revenge killing of carnivores, including considering supplying “bushmeat from legal sources to affected communities.”
Read more:http://news.mongabay.com/2011/1211-hance_tcs_bushmeat_zim.html#ixzz1gPxQwC56
Image: Flickr/Simon_sees
DURBAN, South Africa—My share of the carbon dioxide my flight to Johannesburg emitted over 15 hours amounted to 1,391.3 kilograms, according to the helpful information provided by South African Airlines. Add a dollop of 53.8 kilograms of CO2 for the jet jaunt to Durban and you can see that the aviation industry—and theDurban climate talks—have an emissions problem.
In fact, flying now accounts for some 2 percent—and growing fast—of globalgreenhouse gas emissions, although the industry has pledged to stop that growth by 2020. According to the aviation industry, a full 80 percent of the roughly 650 million metric tons of CO2 annually emitted by aircraft are from those flying more than 1,500 kilometers (like my trip from New York City to Durban) for which there is no alternative mode of practical transport. And, given the energy density of kerosene, there really is no alternative to liquid fuel either—with the exception of lightweight solar-powered drones, electric planes cannot get off the ground. As for hydrogen, it is hard to carry enough of it and still have space for passengers, too.
That’s why the U.S. military, a slew of airline companies, Boeing and others have invested heavily in jet fuel made from plants—the oils provided by weedy camelina or hardy jatropha shrubs or even algae. The fuels have successfully passed all trials—even delivering more thrust per gallon—and have now entered regular commercial use in the U.S. and Europe, promising to cut CO2 emissions by 80 percent, albeit at a premium price. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is giving out $7.7 million in contracts to such jet biofuel–makers.
“Everybody wants a solution to oil,” says Jigar Shah, CEO of the Carbon War Room, an organization founded by Virgin Airlines founder Sir Richard Branson and others to combat climate change. “Aviation is where it’s going to come first.”
Unfortunately, there’s a problem. As much as ethanol from corn turns out to be a bad biofuel idea, the climate-friendly value of these bio-jet fuels depends largely on how they are produced. A fuel made from palm oil turns out to be worse for greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere than jet fuel refined from petroleum because it involves clearing rainforest or peatland. To help solve this problem, the Carbon War Room has launched RenewableJetFuels.org, which ranks all biofuel companies on sustainability, among other criteria.
“We need to ensure that these fuels are made in a way that doesn’t put pressure on ecosystems that are already stressed,” says Suzanne Hunt, who is leading the Carbon War Room’s aviation effort. “They must not put pressure on food security and we must make sure the greenhouse gas reductions are real and verified.”
Per the Carbon War Room’s main criteria of scalability (Can it be made in bulk?); sustainability (Can it be made with minimal environmental damage?); and economic viability (Can it be made at a profit?), the top five producers include: Lanzatech, SG Biofuels, AltAir, Solazyme and Sapphire—all of which have already provided biofuels to fly jets.
All of these fuels cost more than petroleum-based jet fuel. “For airlines, a third or more of the operating costs are fuel,” Hunt notes, arguing that locking in bio–jet fuel at a consistent price will help airlines hedge that cost. “The E.U. including aviation under the cap [of its emissions trading program] is a major incentive.”
But each would-be jet biofuel–maker faces other challenges as well. Solazyme can make lots of oil from its stressed algae grown in the dark and fed industrial-grade sugar, but the source of that sugar makes the ultimate fuels less sustainable. Sapphire wants to grow its algae in ponds, which will make it more sustainable but also much more costly to produce. AltAir does better by sourcing its bio–jet fuel from oil seed–bearing plants, like camelina, but that limits the amount that can be planted in rotation with food crops like wheat given constraints on the amount of land available for the latter.
SG Biofuels gets high marks in all respects from the Carbon War Room and relies on jatropha grown in Guatemala and other parts of Central and South America. This hardy plant seems ideal, given that it can resist droughts and grow on marginal lands, producing oily seeds. But the biofuel crop has already come in for criticism both because it is displacing cereals in other places where it is grown, such as Kenya and Tanzania, as well as requiring fertilizers to get good oil yields.
That leaves Lanzatech, which has a technology to turn synthesis gas derived from almost anything composed of hydrogen and carbon into fuels and chemicals. But, of course, that technology doesn’t have to use sustainably grown plants as a starting point. They can just as easily use other alternatives, like alcohol or coal. In fact, that is exactly what Lanzatech is attempting with Chinese coal mining company, the Yankuang Group.
Turning coal to motive fuel is something that South Africa’s SASOL has been doing for a long time. For years SASOL has been making jet fuel (and diesel for trucks and buses) out of coal. It is actually chemically the same fuel as that which is made from plants—synthetic paraffinic kerosene. Unfortunately, jet fuel derived from coal results in even more CO2 emissions, which makes it no alternative at all if the goal is to combat climate change.
As climate change rears its ugly head, agriculture is becoming harder and harder to sustain. A resident of Faza Island gives his story…
