Document Actions
Kenya and the World Stand Against Plans for Second Port
Update February 2012
As Battle to Save Lamu Archipelago Moves to Courtroom, Indigenous People Need the Government of Kenya to Know that the Eyes of the International Community are Watching
In the ongoing battle to save one of East Africa’s most vibrant and diversity-rich coastal regions, local people are taking the lead. On Tuesday, February 24th, the local NGO, Save Lamu, filed a petition with the Kenyan courts to stop the proposed construction of a 2nd national port in the region north of Lamu. This colossal project – estimated at 1.23 trillion shilling or, roughly, 17 billion dollars – would cover roughly 1,000 acres in Lamu District alone and includes plans for an oil refinery and terminal, international airport and railway track to Juba in Southern Sudan. At minimum, 6,000 families are likely to be displaced by the project. The much larger environmental and cultural impact the port is likely to have remains unexamined – no environmental impact assessments have yet been performed in this pristine region which borders an international United Nations Biosphere Reserve nor attention paid to the consequences of development on this scale to the region of Lamu, designated as a World Heritage Site for its unique cultural and historical significance to the world. It is for these reasons that the local people of Lamu have objected to the process by which the Government of Kenya (GoK) is going about implementation of the country’s Vision 2030, of which the port is a mantle piece, as well as the secrecy with which it is being planned and implemented.
On February 8th 2012, a courtroom in the small coastal town of Malindi, Kenya will be the scene for Save Lamu to present its case against the GoK involving several violations of the new constitution in its planning and implementation of the 2nd national port, known as the Lamu Port-Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET). While the battle between local people and the government plays out in the courtroom, it is pertinent to note that Save Lamu is not protesting the port, itself, but the manner in which it is being dictated to local people, without their representation or consultation. Environmentally, there is no plaintiff. If there were, the case would be argued that the situation of the second port here, in this critically sensitive and vital part of the archipelago, is contraindicated under international conservation mandates. The plaintiff would argue that there is no compatibility between conservation aims of the region’s UN Biosphere Reserve and a development project of this size and scope, a project which involves dredging of shallow inland channels, felling of shoreline stabilizing mangrove forests, destruction of sea grass beds imperative to the critically endangered dugong and other threatened marine turtles in the region, degradation of fish and shrimp nursery grounds, transport of oil in and around tourist establishments and artisanal fishing grounds, destruction of sea turtle nesting grounds, and poses unknown impacts to two national reserves with their complement of marine and terrestrial wildlife, including large mammals such as elephant. At this critical juncture in human history, the enlargement of Kenya’s carbon footprint to systematically tie this region of the world to increased dependency on fossil fuels, their processing and transport, while simultaneously decreasing Kenya’s capacity to mitigate for sea level rises associated with global warming runs contrary to long term sustainable development aims of the country.
The port site sits squarely in the center of the archipelago which will exacerbate rather than minimize impact. East Africa has consistently lost mangrove cover, thousands of hectares per year over the past twenty-five years, and increased rates of degradation would seriously imperil this fragile ecosystem and reduce its capacity to mitigate climate change effects. Extensive dredging, of the order necessary to allow ships to pass from the open sea into the channel, would further impact huge stands of mangroves and corals and degrade areas in the vicinity with the dumping material. Marine wildlife – in this area which is supposed to be nationally and internationally protected – would be devastated.
The eyes of the world need to sit squarely upon that courtroom on February 8th in Malindi and support those local people standing up for their rights against a government and its international donors who are firmly vested in this port proceeding as planned. Beyond that, there is urgent need for the international community to demand that international conservation designation - biosphere reserve designation - means something more than a poster board for tourism when the need arises, that it implies an obligation to the world community to safeguard a living legacy that exists nowhere else in the world. The GoK needs to know that it has chosen the wrong spot to situate its port – for its own people and for the world.
Please act to support local people in their fight to suspend the proposed Lamu Port by going to savelamu.org
Please also act to demand that the Government of Kenya halt its plans for the 2nd port which threaten to devastate critically endangered dugong and marine turtle populations.
Background
The world is still reeling from the devastation of the recent quake, tsunami and nuclear aftermath in Japan, but averting the planned devastation of the Lamu Archipelago cannot be sidelined. At the highest level, business as usual and not natural disaster is at the roots of current threats to one of the world’s most vitally important sites of cultural and conservation importance: the Lamu Archipelago via the proposal to build a second national port for the country of Kenya and situate it in the very heart of the archipelago.
The Kenyan government recently officially announced its long standing plans for this multi-billion dollar project, making public what had long been only high level negotiations and closed door diplomatic conversations. Opposition is growing to this gargantuan project which is estimated to cover 1,000 acres in Lamu District, including plans for an oil refinery and terminal, international airport and railway track to Juba in Southern Sudan. In Lamu alone, 6,000 families are likely to be displaced by the project but this figure barely scratches the surface of the much larger impact the port is likely to have. Local people in the region had never been consulted concerning the project nor have environmental impact assessments ever been conducted. Widespread demonstrations ensued against the development when it was first disclosed. Local leaders, environmental groups, hoteliers and other locals dependent upon the region’s natural resource base as well as cultural leaders fearing the destruction of Lamu’s unique cultural heritage have banded together to oppose the construction of the port which stands to devastate both the culture of Lamu and its natural environment.
The site proposed for the country’s second port could not be any more damaging, ecologically. Environmental impact assessments, if ever performed, have not been made public and are unlikely to have been performed by an independent agency. If performed with any degree of transparency, they would necessarily have had to weigh the tremendous negative impact on Kenya’s mangroves, corals, and threatened marine fauna. To build the port, the relatively pristine forests in the region of the port site would require extensive felling. The mangroves of the Lamu Archipelago represent 60% of Kenya’s mangroves, covering some 342 km2. The port site sits squarely in the center of the archipelago which will exacerbate rather than minimize impact. Any increased rates of degradation would seriously imperil this fragile ecosystem and reduce its capacity to mitigate climate change effects. Extensive dredging, of the order necessary to allow ships to pass from the open sea into the channel, would further impact huge stands of mangroves and corals and degrade areas in the vicinity with the dumping material. Marine wildlife – in this area which is supposed to be nationally and internationally protected – would be devastated.
In 1980, 60,000 hectares off the coast north of Lamu was designated a Biosphere Reserve under UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Project in recognition of the international conservation importance of the north-eastern coastal region. Dodori Creek, proximate to the proposed port site, sits at the edge of this biosphere reserve at coordinates 2°03’ S and 41°00’ E. The environmental impact alone, not to mention the effects on local subsistence fishermen and local farmers, would completely negate the intention of designation of this site to preserve in perpetuity the outstanding biodiversity, natural resources and ecology of the area through management that incorporates the full participation of local people.
Impacts on local people and wildlife from the project stand to be irreparable. In the past, local fisherman have hailed the Dodori Creek area as a shrimp sanctuary, vital to local subsistence fishermen, and defended it from outside fishing and development interests. The bay around Manda Island is protected by coral reefs and the inland channel, sheltered from the open sea by Pate Island, is known to support corals, sea grass beds and lush stands of mangroves. Several species of sea turtles use these areas regularly in the winter as feeding grounds and many species of reef fish and crustaceans feed here. The importance of this region to a critically endangered species, the dugong (Dugong dugon), is of paramount concern; these creatures rely on shallow sea grass beds exclusively for their survival. Dredging and cutting of the magnitude proposed would have a catastrophic impact on this animal, one of the nation’s most threatened species, and virtually ensure local extinction.
Opening up the Lamu Archipelago to transport and refining of oil is clearly incompatible with aims of biosphere reserve designation. Incidental and accidental spillage on the periphery of such an internationally important environment must be factored into any risk assessment associated with construction and clearly has not been. Anywhere along the Kenyan coast the effect of a large scale spill on both commercial and artisanal fishing industries would be significant, but particularly devastating to the Lamu Archipelago. Such spills are not atypical. In the Gulf of Aqaba in the Red Sea, for example, minor oil spills occur frequently. In areas where shipping is most heavy, such as in Israeli waters, as many as 22 small spills were recorded in 1990. Any oil spilling within the vulnerable inland channel around Manda Bay would be concentrated there, having little outflow, and thus the corals and related marine life supported therein would be impacted directly before any diffusing of oil occurred that would take it out to the open sea where it would further impact fringing reefs and pelagic species. Ship traffic also poses a major, sustained risk of damage to coral reefs and related marine life through oil pollution. Kenya’s coral reefs support in the order of 80% of the artisanal fishing industry. Worldwide, coral reefs are experiencing severe die-offs associated with global warming and ocean acidification. Threats to corals posed by this project are not limited to oil spillage and oil pollution, but a host of associated effects, including smothering by sediment from dredging and land conversion, contamination by pollutants from industrial activity as well as untreated sewage and municipal wastewater from construction crews and new developments (airport, railroad and refinery.) Additional pollution sources that would impact the larger marine realm from both shipping and road/rail transportation include discarded solid waste, spills of mineral and organic matter from bulk cargo loading operations, chemical and thermal discharges from power generation facilities, and discarded garbage from incoming and outgoing ships. It is worth noting that there has been a 70% decline in fish species in the area of the existing national port in Mombasa.
A second port situated in the Lamu Archipelago also threatens the thriving base of tourism that currently exists in the region. Sports fishermen come from all over Europe to catch and release the region’s magnificent pelagic and reef species of fish. The region has enticed dignitaries and royalty for years due to its idyllic beauty, remoteness and incredible marine wildlife and nearby big game. In 1997, Princess Diana brought the two young princes to stay at nearby Kiwaiyu Safari Village within Kiunga Marine Reserve. Old Lamu Town has attracted tourists for decades with its rich history and culture and an additional concern for port construction at this site lies with another UN designated site – that of Lamu, itself, with its World Heritage Site status. Elders in Lamu foresee the demise of their culture and way of life as they already watch prostitutes arriving from the interior in anticipation of the boom town to be. If a port and oil refinery were to open, an international airport would hardly be necessary as the region would lose forever its appeal – both biological and cultural.
All told, the creation of Kenya’s second port stands to degrade and potentially devastate this vitally important internationally recognized site of conservation importance – the central Lamu Archipelago – and stands to benefit few except those in high places. A former minister of Parliament in Kenya, Mr. Omar Mzee, was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “This is going to be a total mess. The government is thinking of the national G.D.P. This will not benefit Lamu. It never has.” (NYT, 1/12/10)
Please take action to save the Lamu Archipelago! A consortium of local leaders and organizations has created a petition to stop planned port construction in Lamu. Follow the link below to tell the Government of Kenya that the culturally and ecologically sensitive and internationally recognized Lamu Archipelago is the wrong place to situate a second national port.
