Environmental Burden of Plastic Bags in Kenya

Plastic Bags Blown by Wind 

"The plastic bags we have in Kenya are so flimsy that millions of them only get used once before being thrown away, you see them in the trees, in the hedges, and on the ground. And when they settle on the ground, they collect small pools of stagnant water, in which mosquitoes breed." Professor Wangari Maathai

Since the 20th century, plastic has become a widespread material that cannot miss in every household. The characteristic of plastics such as durability, low cost, and light weight has made it very useful material in everyday life. These characteristics have worked to the advantage and sustainability of plastics over their substitutes. Consequently, plastic bags have replaced the traditional paper bags and secured a solid place in the modern consumer economy. Despite these good qualities, the non-biodegradable nature of plastics has worked to its disadvantage at its end of life phase.
As Kenya uses nearly a million bags daily, more than half of these plastic bags end up in the solid waste mainstream thereby causing the biggest test to solid waste management across the country. The percentage of plastic bag waste is relatively high in municipal solid waste. The plastic bag waste has resulted in several adverse environmental impacts such as blockage of rivers and culverts, the blight of landscapes, choking of soil and animals. The bags have caused deteriorated air quality, disrupted ecosystems, threaten wildlife, and contaminate both surface and ground water. The plastic bags have also been linked to the 'flying toilets’, a major public health concern in slum neighborhoods. The bags contain poisonous ingredients such as Phthalates and Bisphenol-A that are linked to cancer, birth defects, endocrine disruption, impaired immunity and other ailments. The plastic bags also offer breeding grounds for mosquitoes that cause malaria.
Attempts and Challenges

The Problem of Plastic Bags

Different Kenyan towns have developed strategies to deal with plastic bag menace. For example, In 2006 Nairobi developed a complete plastic waste management strategy that focused on raising mass awareness, community participation, attractive incentives, serious consultation, and heavy penalties for the offenders. However, nothing much has been done as plastic bags are visible everywhere. According to the International Journal of Current Research, nearly half of plastic bags clog the drains and end up in landfills. When the bags end up in rivers and lakes, the marine life gets endangered and in most cases has killed the animals when inadvertently consumed. This is very eminent in Lake Nakuru national park where plastic bags are causing havoc. In Lake Nakuru, the traces of plastics have been found in dead carcasses.
In mid-2007, Kenya banned thinner plastic bags of up to 6 microns in thickness that are easily carried by the wind many kilometers from their origin. Even though there is a shift to 10 microns, these bags still litter the environment due to the unsuccessful collection and recycling infrastructure. Unlike the plastic bottles, plastic bags are rarely recycled that leave the bags carelessly disposed of. The plastic bags are thinner and require lots of sorting and cleaning, unlike the bottles. Since recycling of plastic bags are not economically viable as one would require it lots of them to make something worthwhile due to their thickness and this is very expensive to recyclers. The recyclers would rather focus on plastic bottles that are less expensive to recycle since they require little sorting and cleaning. Since the cost of producing new plastic bags is cheap and recycling expensive, there are more plastics everywhere.
The prevalence of plastics everywhere is due to failures on the market, institution, and policy that has cascaded undesirable effects in the general public. These failures have driven a wedge between the consumption activities and social and private costs of production. These failures have distorted the correct signals about the true scarcity of resources being depleted and the cost of environmental damage being caused to the producers and consumers of products and services. This has, therefore, caused over-production and over-consumption of resource-depleting and environment-damaging plastic bags, and underproduction and under-consumption of other alternative resource-saving and environmentally friendly commodities.
The market has failed as the production and consumption externalities are passed to the environment. Since the plastic bags principally aid use-and-throw consumerism, they are overly cheap. But why are they so cheap? Plastic bags require a fairly small amount of material to produce devoid of loss of function thus savings on the cost of raw material. Another reason is the existence of externalities as the end-of-life treatment and resource depletion costs are not included in the product cost. The cheapness of these plastic bags has certainly led to extravagant consumption and disposal in various fronts. For example, the take-away consumerism common in many Kenyan cities has seen food items like French fries wrapped in feeble plastic bags even though they are best served in plates. This case excludes the consumer and the manufacturer from paying for the external costs.
The institutions and infrastructures charged with managing plastic bag menace have failed. After use, nearly all plastic wastes are inappropriately disposed of. This happens because the solid waste management systems are dysfunctional. The existence of inadequate plastic waste collection and treatment schemes, and poor enforceable littering and dumping by-laws has exhibited the institutional failures. Resource mismanagement by local authorities has also affected effective garbage collection and the inability to enforce the existing by-laws in Kenyan town
Feasible Solutions

A Waterway Blocked by Plastic Bags

Proper corrective measures should be formulated to address the root causes. Since externalities are the principal causes, economic instruments are viable corrective measures that can be adopted. For example, when a levy charged on one-way plastic bags is properly set, the desired change in consumer behavior may be stimulated and this may encourage re-use and rational use of plastic bags. There is the need to change the production and consumption patterns. This can be achieved economically by restricting its consumption, making its production expensive and imposing higher prices.
The use of levy is core in tackling the menace as it works well in relation to environmental effectiveness, enforceability, cost-effectiveness, and political acceptability. The levy will help control wasteful consumption thereby promoting the re-use culture. There is also a need to fix the institutional failures. The focus should be on formulating and enforcing feasible by-laws on illegal dumping and littering. Awareness campaigns and education can also be done to everyone involved in the production, use, and disposal of the plastic bags. Even though economic instruments can be very effective in handling the plastic problem, Kenya just like other developing countries is faced with the major challenges of limited resources to be devoted towards environmental quality improvements. Since these countries focus more on economic development, fewer resources get allocated in dealing with environmental challenges. Another option that is widely debated is the outright ban on plastic bags. Since the damaging nature of plastic bags is astronomical, the ban on the bags appears to be the most appropriate. As millions of bags are produced daily, a large proportion gets dumped in the wrong places. On the permanent basis, the focus should be on changing from the material used to make conventional plastics to the desirable renewable and biodegradable materials. The options available include bio-degradables, photo-degradables, and compostables.
Conclusion 
Plastic bags are a symbol of environmental wastefulness. It makes no sense to produce a single-use bag that lasts for many of years destroying the environment and harming animals. The widespread existence of plastics everywhere is an indication of ineffective by-laws on illegal dumping and littering; externality impact in production and consumption,  malfunctioning garbage collection and disposal systems, poor life-cycle considerations, and low public awareness. The intervention measures should focus on changing the unsustainable behaviors about plastic bag production and consumption. The measures should aim at addressing the root causes, creating corrective policy and practical instruments that can prevent wasteful consumption, resource depletion and waste accumulation, and littering and open-dumping

Organic Solid Waste: A Possible Key to Urban Food Security in Kenyan Slums

A Sack Garden in Kibera Slum

Solid waste management in many urban areas in Kenya has been chaotic. The effort by many urban authorities charged with the responsibility of managing these wastes has not been such successful. Huge dumps of solid wastes are being seen by the roadside, riversides, lakesides, and even adjacent to residential houses. The negligent disposal of these waste has posed numerous environmental and health problem that affect not only the human but also other plants and animals. These solid wastes have resulted in blocked sewers, offer breeding grounds for pest and parasites such as rats and mosquitoes, air pollution when carelessly burned or bad odor emitted, and water pollution when washed into rivers and lakes.

As illustrated by the NEMA 2015 report, most of the generated wastes remain uncollected due to poor waste collection and disposal systems. Apart from Nairobi that has made efforts to collect about 80% of waste generated daily, other major towns still lag behind. As Mombasa only collects about 65%, Eldoret collects only 55% of the waste generated daily.  Kisumu collects about 20% of waste total waste it generates daily. On a daily basis hundreds of tones are being generated in Kenyan towns. As Nairobi generates 2,400 tons of waste daily, Nakuru, Mombasa, Eldoret, and Kisumu, generates 400 tones, 2,200 tones, 600 tones, and 400 tons respectively per day.

According to NEMA 2015 report, more than 50% of solid wastes generated in Nairobi and about 63% of solid wastes generated in Kisumu are organic. In Eldoret 49% of solid wastes generated are foods. As 60% of solid wastes generated in Mombasa are organic, 51% of solid wastes generated in Nakuru are food. This is a clear indication that more than half of the wastes generated in these towns are organic and when effectively utilized, it can solve other numerous health, economic and social problems. These urban organic wastes when effectively composted into manure, they can be used solve the food insecurity prevalent in urban slums. The unemployment, low levels of income, high dependence ratio, high food prices, illness, and big household sizes have immensely contributed to high food insecurity.  As the slum residents eat barely for survival, the quality of food is least of their concern. This has forced the slums residents to resort to reducing the number of meals, scavenging, eating street foods, and reducing food variety and quality as a coping strategy.

Slums such Mathare and Kibera in Nairobi, Bangladesh and Owino Uhuru in Mombasa, Bondeni and Rhoda in Nakuru, Langas and Huruma in Eldoret, and Manyatta and Obunga in Kisumu can turn around organic solid waste into gold when properly composed and used for urban farming. As the move will help reduce organic waste, that constitutes more that 50% of the total solid waste generated in these urban towns, cleaner and greener environment shall be realized. In the same course, urban farming will help solve other problems such as offering employment, subsidized the high food costs, and improved food quality. When urban farming is well practiced by using well-decomposed manure, cheaper and fresh food can be availed to slum dwellers. The urban farming is currently being practiced in sacks and open spaces. In Kibera, the residents have used sack gardens to grow fresh kale, spinach, tomatoes, onions, vegetables, and arrowroot.

Sample of Unsegregated Organic Waste

Even though urban farming is being practiced in these slums, it is still at a minute scale.

What is it that has been holding back the use of organic solid water for agriculture? Health concerns and poor segregation of solid wastes at the source are the key challenges facing the adoption of organic solid water for agriculture. Foods from urban farming have been feared for contamination as some are grown in pitiable places such as along the sewers. In some cases, urban farmers have been accused of using sewers to grow crops. The soils in these slums may also be contaminated and these contaminants may pose a great health risk when consumed by the residents. In these slums, there is no waste segregation and this leaves everything mixed up, therefore, making it difficult to isolate organic wastes from other solid wastes.

Even though there are legitimate health concerns that need to be addressed, organic solid waste can be safely used for urban farming when adequate control measures are practiced. The coordination between environmental, health and agriculture departments is crucial for the design of effective preventive and mitigating strategies that will mitigate health risk. Urban farming requires health consideration during zoning to identify areas where certain types of farming are allowed or excluded as this will ensure that only safe crops are produced for consumption. The urban farmers require education on health and environmental risks to substantially reduce such risks. Contaminated organic waste should be avoided by encouraging widespread separation at source as this will lead to sufficient high-quality compost. To obtain good quality compost there will be a need for the co-operation among several stakeholders. Education and promotion through demonstration projects, exhibitions, workshops, information brochures, and focus meetings are also necessary. Training, extension services, and technical advice should be provided to these urban producers particularly on ecological farming practices, farm development, proper health risks management, space intensive and water saving technologies, enterprise management and marketing. 

Sample of Segregated Organic Waste

The county government should put strategies within their solid waste management strategic plans in place to composting of organic waste. Access to low-cost water inputs and essential infrastructure should also be enhanced to urban farmers. The urban farmers ought to have a strong organization for them to have channel and power to influence their needs. This can make them properly represent their interest during urban policymaking and planning at the different levels.

Conclusively, the potential marriage between solid waste reduction and urban farming will not only lead to better health through enhanced nutrition and incomes but also create a cleaner and better environment. Since the composted organic matter contributes to better urban solid waste reduction and waste management, compost-making should be ameliorated. Even though the chronic poverty within the slums has deeply intertwined the crisis, urban farming from organic manure can help offer some solutions. This is a perfect case where when one problem (organic solid waste) is properly handled, several other problems also get addressed (food insecurity, poverty, and unemployment).

Kachok Dumpsite and Its Challenges

A Section of Kachok Dumpsite, Kisumu

The existing state of Kachok dumpsite is an indication of the present solid waste management problem in Kisumu. The dumpsite that measures approximately 3 acres is surrounded by a stadium, a supermarket, a hotel, schools, and estates. With the 400 tons of waste that Kisumu city generates per day, only 80 tons (20%) get delivered to the dumpsite. The waste generation of the city expands at 6-12% annually. As 60-65% of the wastes are organic in character, 10.2% constitute plastic wastes. Solid Waste Management is one of the development challenges facing the County Government and residents of Kisumu. Even though previous attempts to resolve the nuisance have failed, the county government is currently putting structures in place to resolve the matter.
The solid waste problem in the city has been propelled by illegal dumping, ineffective laws on littering, failure garbage management (collection, transportation, recovery, and disposal) systems, as well as low public awareness. Since most (80%) of the solid wastes in Kisumu remain uncollected, the wastes have resulted into blocked sewers, the spread of infectious diseases, pollution of Lake Victoria, and litter in the streets. These wastes have also resulted in a great air and water pollution. As litters and dust get blown away by the wind, smoke from burning and odors fill the air. When it rains the leachate and even some waste get washed to the Lake Victoria. The dumpsite also offers a good breeding ground for pests such as rats.
Challenges
The solid waste management problem is not only limited to Kisumu, it is a problem affecting nearly all urban areas in Kenya. The present waste management Kenya has been compounded by increased urbanization. Urbanization and industrialization have increased waste generation and made the waste streams complex. Even though laws and policies on waste management exist, poor implementation and weak practices have made several towns being chocked by their own waste thus impacting the environment and public health. The previous local authorities that were mandated to manage these waste failed to prioritize the institution of appropriate waste management and this led to meager resource allocation. Also, the councils were short of technical and institutional capacities in waste management.
Just like other towns, waste management in Kisumu faces a number of challenges such as inefficient waste management systems, inadequate technical and financial resources, limited knowledge, poor attitude and practices, and lack of political will. With limited awareness and knowledge of the benefit of a clean and healthy environment, most residents have poor practices in relation to waste management that has led to littering, illegal dumping as well as open burning. Politics and waste management appear to go hand in hand. Political goodwill is essential for the success of good waste management. Regrettably, the inadequate prioritization of waste management agenda has lead to pitiable investments and funding. This has therefore hampered waste management cycle from the collection, transportation, and disposal.
Even though the county governments are mandated to allocate waste disposal sites or facilities in their areas of jurisdiction, the availability of land for such purposes still remains a challenge. Communities have been seen opposing the relocation of Kachok dumpsite to their backyard majorly because of poor management of the current sites. Consequently, many dumpsites have been sited in environmentally sensitive areas like wetlands, river banks, and forests. High poverty level witnessed in informal like Manyatta, Obunga, and Nyalenda have hindered the residents to pay for waste management services.  These areas also inaccessible and usually lack waste management infrastructure. Inadequate technical skill in waste management has seen waste management facilities poorly managed and failed to operate at optimal capacities
Cumulatively, the current waste management being witnessed in major towns is in a poor state. According to NEMA 2014 report, most Kenyan town and cities have ineffective waste collection and disposal systems. As Nairobi only collects about 80% of the 2,400 tons of waste generated daily, Nakuru only collects 45% of the 400 tons of waste generated per day. Mombasa only collects about 65% of the 2,200 tons and Eldoret collects only 55% of the 600 tons of waste generated daily. In Kisumu, only about 20% of the 400 tons of waste generated daily is collected. This leaves Kisumu as the major town with the least effort to manage its waste.
Way Forward and Opportunities
As waste materials are linked to economic development, they represent wasted money in their original cost, disposal, and potential value when recycled and reused. As a result, the County Government has adopted the Integrated Sustainable Waste Management policy as a way of achieving better and more sustainable solutions to the problem that has existed for a long time. Even though the decommissioning plans of Kachok dumpsite are underway, getting a suitable relocation area has also been a challenge due to considerations such as surface and groundwater, public health, soil structure, cultural asset, services and utilities, community resistance as well as bird hazard.
There is a need for new management approaches such as adopting new technology, social attitude change, viewing waste as an economic resource, and adopting a conducive legal framework. As the new technology will help in water disposal, social attitude change will focus on waste minimization and even sorting at source. Through reuses and recycling, waste is a good economic resource. There is a need to rethink and revise the existing laws with the aim of encouraging partnerships with private sectors. There is also need to involve external development partners and investors that can pump in additional financial resources toward effective waste management.
There is a need to encourage social and environmental entrepreneurs to step up and assist in the management of such wastes like in the recently held Taka Taka Challenge. The Taka Taka Challenge organized by the Social Business Incubator (SBI) has indicated that waste management is a problem in Kisumu and the residence can use waste to create wealth economically. The challenge saw the first prize winner, Continental Renewable Energy Co, getting financed to recycle plastic waters into building materials such as fencing posts, roofing tiles, and manhole covers. The second prize winner, Taka Feed Moto, received finance to use organic waste to make fuel briquettes, animal feeds, scrapped biogas, and manure. The third prize winner, IPWA Taka Park, got financed to create a central waste sorting, bailing, bulking, and storage center. Even though the management of solid waste is still a great challenge, there are still opportunities.

Global Warming: How Real Is It?

Global Warming has become a polemical debate today. The debate has seen the opposing view being defended aggressively by either side. The global warming debate has brought divergent views among scientist, scholars, political leaders, religious leaders, as well as the general public. As US-based Scientist Hal Lewis believes that global warming does not exist and is a scam, NASA argues global warming is real and has affected many.  As president Obama and Pope Francis publicly declaring that cglobal warming is a problem that needs to be addressed soon, other political leaders like Donald Trump strongly believe global warming is a hoax. Whether global warming is seen as a real or just a science scandal aimed at controlling humanity, there is still need to understand the facts surrounding global warming for us to effectively tackle the challenges it poses.
As the supporters of the existence of global warming have proved that earth’s average temperature is rising, the opposing side argues that there is no significant and extended temperature changes from 1997. The proponents of global warming existence acknowledge that from the 1800s, the rise has been steady with 1970s being stronger. However, in the 1990s the rise become lull but started to rise again on 2000s. On the other hand, the opponents claim that since from 1990s temperature change has not been significant, global warming is not real. Even though there was a steady rise from 1975, it became flat in after 1997 and there has not been a significant change for 17 years.
The proponents have proved that the rising sea level is due to global warming. Evidently the sea level has been rising in many parts worldwide.  The melting ice caps and glaciers have partially attributed to the rise. The rise in global sea level increased to about 6.7 inches in the past century. Compared to the 20th century, the rise in sea level has doubled from a trend of 1.6 mm per year. The 2007 IPCC report forecast that global warming will cause a 7-23 inches increase in sea levels by the end of this century. According to Vardiman, global warming has seen the sea surface temperatures of Gulf of Alaska rise by 3% in the last 30 years, Arctic sea-ice coverage decreased by 5% in the last 25 years, and the Western Atlantic hurricane frequency increase about 3% in the last 150 years. Evidently, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration have increased the greenhouse effect and possibly caused warming.  Even though it was not clear to Vardiman which one caused the other between increased carbon dioxide concentration and global warming, it appears that increased carbon dioxide concentration raised atmospheric temperatures that warmed the oceans to release its large quantities of locked carbon dioxide. The oceans have several times more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere that can be released when warmed or altered in pH. As another evidence of global warming, there have been rising ocean temperatures: From the documented temperature records over 50 years, there has been a steady rise in ocean temperature since 1969. The greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere from fossil fuel have been sucked up by the oceans thereby increasing its temperatures. The glaciers have also been shrinking. Greenland and Antarctica are losing its glacier to increasing temperatures. According to NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, Greenland lost between 36 and 60 cubic miles of glacier yearly from 2000 to 2006. The glaciers in Montana Glacier National Park have reduced from 150 to 25 since 1910. The proponents have also proved that because of global warming, ocean acidification is real. The Ocean is becoming more acidic as the emitted greenhouses gases into the atmosphere find their way into the ocean.
As the proponents believe that the human activities are the primary cause of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the contrarians believe that nature releases more carbon dioxide than humans. According to proponents, humans are the primary contributors to global warming. With the increased use of fossil fuels, the carbon dioxide has found their way into the atmosphere. More heat has been trapped by the carbon dioxide that has overloaded the atmosphere. The atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing and are higher at the moment than at any point in history. The carbon dioxide level is 25% higher today than in 1957. When it comes to global warming, carbon dioxide is the key driver even though there are other heat-trapping gases. According to NASA, human and not natural processes are the cause of global warming. The NASA/Duke University study revealed that natural cycles alone are not enough to explain the global warming examined over the last century. The study shows have detailed justifications that global temperatures would remain stable for a long time unless they are destabilized by outside forces like increased greenhouse gases from humans’ activities. The contrarian claim that nature releases more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than human is true as 95% of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is natural. However, natural processes like plant growth and oceanic absorption pull the gas back out of the atmosphere thereby offsetting them. This leaves the human activities as a net surplus. The fossil-fuel burning and increased deforestation have primarily cause of increased carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere.
Despite using the same pieces of evidence as those supporting the existence of global warming, the opponents appear to have a different conclusion. The opponents claim that there is insufficient historical data available to support global warming. The failure by the recent gathering of 31,000 environmental scientists to come to a consensus about global warming being real due to lack of long-term data on historical climate and unclear existing data. The increase in arctic ice by 50% since 2012 have helped the opponent of global warming existence argues their case.  The Arctic Ice core measures indicate that an increase in volume from 2012, thereby contradicting the argument that global warming is causing the ice to melt. In 2012 alone, the Arctic Ice increased by 50%. In addition, the opponents believe that the climate models have been unreliable and the predictions made were wrong. Since some of the predicted dates passed without the predicted effects happening, the opponents believe that the climate models that have been used to predict the impacts of global warming have been flawed. For instance, Al Gore foresaw all Arctic ice vanishing by 2013, which, on the contrary, is up by 50% since 2012. They believe that the  long-term global warming predictions are meaningless.  Scientist like Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara has been seen discrediting global warming. In his resignation letter, Lewis strongly believed that global warming is a scam being driven by trillions of dollars that have corrupted several scientists. Lewis further stated that global warming is not only the greatest but also the most successful pseudoscientific fraud in a long time.
The question, therefore, is why are there divergent views on global warming?  Does global warming really exist? The two groups appear to differ greatly even though they use the same data. Why the divergent view?  Maybe there is no agreed term or definition to describe what is actually happening. Is the definition of the global warming in the context of climate an issue?   Maybe a different term such as “climate change” may be more insightful of the actual issue. Maybe the different mode of analysis and interpretation of the existing data is what has seen divergent conclusions on global warming even though the data is the same. Are climate change deniers being used by the energy industry to shoot down pieces of evidence supporting global warming? According to Begley et al (2007), the energy industry is using their 'Exxon Secrets' project to find climate change denials. Also on The Carbon Brief (2011) revealed that 90% of those authors doubting and criticizing climate change had relations to ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil has been known to fund organizations that question the global warming science and even attack policies aimed at solving the crisis. According to Adam (2008), the UK Royal Society conducted a survey in which it revealed that ExxonMobil allocated US$2.9 million in 2005 to 39 groups that distorted the climate change science by the absolute rejection of the evidence. According to Vardiman, global warming has been happening over at least the last 30-50 years. The warming may just be a temporary fluctuation that could have a longer-term trend. Global warming is real and the shorter period oscillations that have been witnessed should not be used to discredit global warming.

Water Hyacinth: Why It Will Not Go Away Any Soon in Lake Victoria

A Section of Lake Victoria Heavily Infested With Water Hyacith

The water hyacinth, Eichoirnia Crassippe, was first spotted outside the outside Lake Victoria Basin way back in 1955 along River Sigi in Tanga region of Tanzania and later sighted in River Pangani in 1964.  In the late 1980s, the Tanzanian section of Lake Victoria was invaded by the hyacinth via River Kagera.
Environmentally, water hyacinth is threatening the ecological stability of Lake Victoria, out-competing other species in the vicinity, as well as threatening the aquatic biodiversity. By preventing the growth of phytoplankton, the hyacinth ultimately affects fisheries. Hyacinth is known to deplete oxygen and reduce water quality in fresh waters. The decaying water hyacinth vegetations have reduced the water quality and quantity of potable water, besides increasing water treatment costs. The decaying sediments can also accelerate eutrophication that can subsequently increase water hyacinth itself or enhances algal blooms. Socially, the hyacinth has reduced access to clean water, increased vector-borne diseases, as well as conflict among the community like the one being witnessed at Migingo Island. Water hyacinth also provides breeding grounds for vectors and pests such as mosquitoes known for malaria and human lymphatic filariasis and snails known for bilharzia. The weed has also been linked to cholera as it harbors the causative agent. For instance, Nyanza region in Kenya recorded larger proportion of cholera cases of 38.7% above the 15.3% national average between 1994 and 2008.  Cases of increased attack by the crocodile, poisonous snakes, and other reptiles have also been attributed to hyacinth.  Economically, hyacinth has caused great impacts. The blocked waterways hampered agriculture, fisheries, and even recreation. In the Kenyan section of Lake Victoria section, water hyacinth has decreased the fish catch rates by 45% due to obstructed access to fishing grounds, increased fishing cost, and delayed access to markets.
Due to the ecological, economic, and social impact, different organizations have put measures in place to control the spread of the weed. In Lake Victoria, biological, mechanical, and manual methods have been applied to tame the spread of water hyacinth. As biological method has been used to stop the spread of water hyacinth, mechanical and manual methods have been used to haul up the remaining frail weed biomass. The weevils, Neochetina bruchi and Neochetina eichhorniae, resulted in the collapse of water hyacinth mats in Uganda waters between September and October 1998, and in Kenya and Tanzanian waters in 2000. Mechanized removal through mechanical weed harvesters clears larger areas of weed (6-8ha) in a shorter time. The mechanical harvesting is advantageous as it can alleviate the burden of the weed in a few of hours or days. The physical barriers have also been used to prevent or delay re-infestation like the ones at the Kisumu Pier, the inlet of River Kagera, and at the Nalubaale hydropower generation station near Jinja town. Even though manual removal benefits local by offering employment, it is ineffective due to the slow overall pace of weed removal. The workers are also exposed to crocodiles, snakes and disease vectors.
On the other hand, is water hyacinth both ecologically and economically desirable to some extent? Some riparian communities have used water hyacinth as a resource as it is been used to make livestock feed, produce furniture and handicrafts, bio-fuel, make manure. The hyacinth has also provided the breeding grounds for some indigenous fish species that had been threatened by the introduction of Nile perch into the lake. These indigenous fish uses the hyacinth as hiding ground from the Nile Perch, their main predator. Water hyacinth can be used for biogas and bioethanol production, heavy metal and dye remediation, wastewater treatment, electricity generation, animal feed, medicines, as well as in agriculture and sustainable development. Dairies, sugar factories, tanneries, pulp and paper industries and distillers can use hyacinth to treat wastewater. Water hyacinth can also be used to heavy metals as the ones that were purposely introduced into the lagoon. The biomass can also be used to produce biogas for household uses in villages around the lake region. And can this reduce stress on forests for fuel? However, the application of utilization alone may not be effective as it would offer an incentive to preserve the persistent plant at the expense of the environment and maintain the production systems that may pose even higher economic and social costs. This method may not reduce infestations but instead facilitate its spread to fresh, un-invaded, water bodies. At the moment, the current negative effects of the weed appear to outweigh its benefits. The utilization of hyacinth as cottage industry raw material should not promote its propagation, but rather help to manage its growth.
Despite the enormous efforts to control the water hyacinth, it has not been removed. The hyacinth has demonstrated a high ability of resurgence. Mechanical removal exercise has not been successful due to cyclic re-infestation from adjacent bays of Lake Victoria. As the biological removal is unable to phase out the weeds, the manual removal is ineffective for heavier infestations. Since none of these methods appear to be effective in solving the problem, an integrated control option, the use of two or more of the control methods, have been tried.
Water hyacinth will not go away so long as we are still disposing the nutrient rich pollutant into the lake. The heavy pollution into the lake will proliferate the existing and the dormant water hyacinth to keep covering the lake. The nitrates and phosphate-rich waters that flow into the lake from catchment areas just feed the weed further.  Millions of dollars may be used in controlling the spread, but unless the pollution around the Lake Basin is addressed, all these resources may all be wasted in vain. Between 0.2 and above 1.5 ha of water hyacinth that flows into the lake daily from River Kagera is just an indication of how nutrient rich these waters are. Since one water hyacinth plant can have as many as 5,000 seeds that can stay dormant and viable for around as 20 to 30 years, the resurgence is very easy as they multiply very fast and is capable of covering 50 ha of a water body in just two weeks.
Water hyacinth is not the problem; it is just a symptom of the wider problem; poor watershed management and pollution. The remedy to water hyacinth control is not on the Lake itself, the solution lies in the watershed management and sound pollution control. The focus should be in reducing the nutrient load of water flowing into the lake through proper waste waters treatment. The focus should also be on proper land use practices within the riparian communities to reduce agricultural runoff and heavy use of fertilizers. Through this path, controlling water hyacinth in the lake can become a reality.

Lake Nakuru: Is Its Future Threatened by Plastics?

A Section of Polluted Lake Nakuru

The global prestige of Lake Nakuru is being threatened by excessive pollution that is choking Nakuru town.  Poor solid waste management and increased human activities around the town are threatening one of the country’s top animal sanctuaries. Even though siltation is the greatest risk according to Kenya Wildlife Service, solid waste pollution particularly the non-degradable plastics are draining the life out of the lake.
Lake Nakuru is an internationally renowned tourist site that is a home to wildlife. Having been designated a Ramsar Site in the late 1990s, it was also listed as a marshland of global importance for the supervision of migratory water birds. In 2009, it was also declared an Important Bird Area (IBA). Later in 2011, UNESCO listed Lake Nakuru as world heritage site. Being a home to flamingos, Lake Nakuru also hosts other 450 bird species
In 2015, 20 tons of plastic were collected from the shores of the lake and its adjacent conservation area. As revealed by animal carcasses operated on by veterinary doctors, a high incidence of plastics in their systems is an indication of how herbivores are being killed by these plastics. Most of the plastics are usually washed during heavy rains into the lake and thus draining its life slowly. Kenya Wildlife Service wants Nakuru County government to take drastic actions to stop constant use of plastic bags since a half a ton of plastic is being collected weekly from the park. These plastics are non-biodegradable and are very harmful not only to the aquatic life but also to other herbivores animals found in the park.
Even though the damage caused by plastic bags to nature is astronomical; million of plastics are still being produced daily. Surprisingly, nearly all of the plastics are not recycled and equally large amounts get disposed of in the wrong places. The plastic bags are a poisonous menace to the environment. Unlike plastic bottles that can be subjected to recycling, plastic bags should be banned since they are not economically viable to recycling due to their thickness. Recycling plastic bags are very expensive. This is the reason there are more plastic bags along the street corners and fences, unlike the plastic bottles that are being recycled.
Are plastic bags a sign of environmental wastefulness? It is illogical to produce a single-use bag that will last for several years harming the environment and killing both land and water animals. In addition, our lives are also being threatened by the same plastic bags as they offer good breeding ground for mosquitoes when in our drains.
The use of market-based approach can also offer some solution to plastics bags. The plastics bags offered by shopping malls should introduce a direct charge to make shoppers feel the pinch and reuse the plastic bags. In Scotland, the introduction of a 5-pence charge for each plastic bag taken by a shopper significantly reduced plastic bags littering on the environment. Rwanda and Mauritania are the best examples of how effective banning plastic bags are. Those who think we cannot do without plastic bags in Kenya should take a trip to Rwanda to just sees how good life is without plastic bags. The introduction of charge can encourage consumers to make smart purchasing choices and compel them to carry your own reusable bag. The move may also make consumers become consciously aware to refuse an extra wrapper whenever an item is already wrapped.
The promise by Nakuru County government to enact punitive pollution laws is a good move. They should take into account options such as introducing a charge to plastic bags and even banning them completely. The introduction of charge to plastic bags may not work best given that town is flooded with hawkers who use the plastic bag as their sole wrapping material and controlling them has been a challenge not only on Nakuru but also in other towns around Kenya. Even though banning plastic bags may appear to be a damaging control mechanism to the business community, it is the best control method that addresses the interest of everyone in the environment. Plastic bags only offer short term benefits but long term environmental harm that may last for hundreds of years.

Ivory Burning: Will It Stop Elephant Poaching?

Elephant tusks and rhino horns set ablaze at Nairobi National Park

On April 30, President Uhuru Kenyatta set blazing 15 tons of elephant tusks and rhino horns at the Nairobi National Park. These illicit wildlife goods are estimated to worth over $172 million and represent to about dead 8,000 elephants and 343 rhino. The move was aimed at protecting the elephant and the rhino that have been endangered by lucrative illicit ivory business.  As indicated by the African Wildlife Foundation, approximately 470,000 African elephants left in the wild are endangered. According to the Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya lost 164 elephants to poachers in 2015, and 302 in 2013 and 384 in 2012. The illegal ivory trade is a very lucrative and that is the reason why the business is still thriving despite the local and international efforts to bring it to a halt. Even after the global ban on ivory trade in 1989, the killing of wildlife still continues alarmingly. The interception of the ivory is a common success indicator of the governments’ anti-poaching efforts. Even though the interception reduces the supply of ivory into the illegal trade and penalizes the smugglers, these efforts do not entirely stop the actual problem of unlawful killings of elephants.
Just like other countries, Kenya has adopted the common strategy of burning ivory stockpiles as this reduces the motivation for people to take part in smuggling by eliminating the ivory from the market. The practice started in 1989 when tons of ivory were set ablaze by the former president Daniel Arap Moi. The Kenya’s elephants were greatly threatened at the time as their number reduced to 16,000 from 167,000 in 1973. The move reversed the decline and the elephant population in Kenya currently stand at approximately 38,000. In 2011, former President Mwai Kibaki also set on 5 tons of tusks. Even though burning ivory stockpiles appears to be a positive move as it creates awareness about the illicit trade, the impact from observation may not be that much in deterring poaching. Despite inadequate data to support this view, it is evident that the poaching of elephants has increased. This, therefore, brings up the question whether destroying ivory is an effective approach to reducing poaching. The strategy appears to have increased poaching, on the contrary.
The issues surrounding ivory trade are complex and hard to disentangle. From the economic theory, destroying ivory stockpiles reduces its supply into the market thereby increasing the worth of available stocks. This, in turn, increases the expected return from poaching thus driving more poaching. The failure of the burning strategy in saving elephants has brought up discussion around the adoption of the market-based approach. The anti-poaching efforts appear to be directed towards the poachers, who are just the symptoms of the problem, rather than the economic drivers and its global demands that are the cause.   Destroying ivory stockpiles only reduce supply, but not demand. I tend to dissent with the idea that the ivory destruction will drive the prices and poaching higher. How can the supply be affected by the commodity that is not yet on the market? The burning of ivory just sends a message that killing these animals for ivory is unacceptable. Putting the confiscated ivory into the market would create more illegal ivory laundering. This would increase elephant poaching and stimulate even more demand for ivory. Unless the market mechanisms governing the supply and demand are considered as the primary problem, and psychological and economic remedies applied, elephant’s survival have no future.  The problem is the demand for ivory. Combating the supply through law enforcement is basically futile, even though it could marginally slow down the killing of elephants by apprehending a few of those involved.
Some groups have suggested that the confiscated ivory should be flooded into the market to reduce the prices of the ivory drastically purposely to discourage poachers from taking the risk. At the moment, the poachers are willing to take the risk of being shot by game wardens as the tusks are expensive. By attacking the key motivator, “High Return,” the poacher and everyone involved in the chain will not risk their lives for poaching. I disagree with this point of view. The move is only effective in shorter term but the moment the stockpiles of low-priced ivory are exhausted, the demand that had been increased by cheap ivory will ripe the market for criminal vultures and speculators. In addition, the governments selling the ivory would be seen legitimizing the illegal ivory trade.The economic theory predicts that the command and control nature of anti-poaching policies usually lead to abhorrent outcomes.
The market-based solutions can be helpful in handling elephant poaching as it has been effective in some cases such as Private Game Park. The provision of property rights to individuals has motivated individuals to protect and preserve best populations of the animals. The absence of clearly defined and implementable ownership right is the root problem with conservation. The lack of clearly distinct and protected rights is a primary cause of poaching not only in Kenya but also in other African countries. The communities around the game reserves are often excluded from benefiting from the wildlife. This makes these communities see no value in wildlife and instead get motivated to collaborate with poachers.
The market-based approach appears to offer a feasible and long-term solution to the problem of elephants poaching. Transferring of ownership rights to surrounding communities would give them a strong incentive to protect the wildlife. The local community must be engaged in the managing these reserves as this will make them more watchful in their anti-poaching endeavors. The direct involvement of these communities in the reserves policing would make poaching undesirable by increasing the risks involved. The government should focus on elevating these communities from poverty that is a great driver to poaching. The communities should be deliberately supported through policy to get involved in the lucrative businesses such as hotels ownership operating within the game reserves, a business dominated by international chains. Let the communities operate the tourist campsites to get revenue and poaching will decrease drastically.  A viable option to poaching menace is increasing the communities’ involvement in conservation efforts. The poachers within the community may turn into fierce wildlife protectors.
The burning of ivory is not a remedy to poaching even though it is symbolically important. It does not address the problem linked to common pool resources. The burning of ivory is necessary, but more useful policies must focus on using more market-based strategies that give communities the ownership rights to the wildlife. This will perhaps compel these communities to robustly support anti-poaching activities. Viably, regaining the trust of Asian traders to stop buying ivory and governments to ban completely ivory trade appears to be a better solution. Importantly, public awareness campaigns across Asia may also drive the demand for ivory down by creating an enormous stigma related to owning ivory.