The Tana River Delta on Kenya’s coast is at cross-roads.  The massive pressure to exploit the area for growing sugar and biofuel crops amongst other development pressure is forcing an intense campaign to ensure that the delta’s peerless natural environment.  We’ve been following the story here and here.  For biofuels in particular, the pressure on land is mounting in Africa and European governments, including our own are not able to identify good sources from bad - a fundemental flaw in policy that risks a wave of damaging landuse change.

There is little doubt that the natural richness of the area is outstanding, local communities alongside Nature Kenya (with support from the RSPB) want to see necessary development in the area planned to ensure that the cost of smash and grab development isn’t measured in the inevitable loss of one of the world’s most important places for nature.

It’s not about no development – it’s about the right development shaped and led by the best information and with local communities at the heart of the process.

So it’s encouraging to hear that there are now steps to develop a plan for sustainable development for the delta.  The devil, as always, will be in the detail and there is a tough struggle ahead for Nature Kenya’s campaign to ensure that the master plan does the job effectively and ends the era of bad planning and short-termism that has dogged the delta for years.

Follow me on twitter.

Parents
  • Good question.  The problem is that it is impossible to differentiate the good from the bad – the rush to drive the biofuels market has been effective but has basically created a gold rush without the ability to ensure that there are even benefits in terms of carbon saving (it can make it worse through the knock on impact of changing land-use for example).  In order to build investor confidence this sorry policy started by setting targets without any meaningful analysis of the negative impacts.

    Beyond the carbon issue, the impact of this mal-formed policy is felt in environmental and social impacts across the developing world (the Dakatcha woodlands and Tana River Delta are just two examples in one country).  So there could be good biofuels – derived from waste products for example, and long term biofuels could have an important role to play, but not until the car crash of policy development in the EU and UK are fixed.  

Comment
  • Good question.  The problem is that it is impossible to differentiate the good from the bad – the rush to drive the biofuels market has been effective but has basically created a gold rush without the ability to ensure that there are even benefits in terms of carbon saving (it can make it worse through the knock on impact of changing land-use for example).  In order to build investor confidence this sorry policy started by setting targets without any meaningful analysis of the negative impacts.

    Beyond the carbon issue, the impact of this mal-formed policy is felt in environmental and social impacts across the developing world (the Dakatcha woodlands and Tana River Delta are just two examples in one country).  So there could be good biofuels – derived from waste products for example, and long term biofuels could have an important role to play, but not until the car crash of policy development in the EU and UK are fixed.  

Children
No Data