Pesticides: cause for alarm

From October 1st 2016, the sale of Roundup (Croatian Cidokor) and 11 other similar glyphosate-based herbicides was banned in the European Union. The ban should serve as a wake-up call to all users, supporters and promoters of pesticides.

Handle the earth with respect and care. It will pay dividends. Handle the earth with respect and care. It will pay dividends. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

The ban came under a Commission Implementing Regulation dated 1st August 2016 (ref. 2016/1313). Although glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicides concerned, the ban was specifically related to formulants, the substances with which glyphosate is mixed for use. The Croatian Ministry of Agriculture announced the ban on its website on September 20th and 21st 2016. Registration holders were obliged to inform distributors, and ensure the removal of all stocks from the market by December 31st 2016.

Cause for celebration? Well...

When a substance on public sale and in common use is found to be dangerous, the normal practice is for that substance to be recalled from all suppliers and users immediately. Further sale and use of the substance is prohibited as soon as the ban comes into force. The manufacturer is usually ultimately responsible for the collection and (safe) disposal of the recalled product. A system is put into place nationwide, also publicized and enforced, to ensure that the hazardous product is removed from the public domain in the shortest possible time. None of this happened in the case of Roundup, which continued to feature large among the world's freely available pesticides. Yet Roundup is undeniably dangerous. In 2017 the French Environment Agency granted approval for Roundup Pro 360. This led to a Court case in Lyon, with the judge ruling on 15th January 2019 that the authorization should be annulled and the product banned.

Pesticide bans in practice in Croatia

Responsibility for overseeing the approvals, sales, distribution and use of pesticides in Croatia is shared between Ministries.

The Ministry of Agriculture is the main source of information for people who use so-called 'plant protection' chemical poisons. It has a search section on its website which provides information on all the 'plant protection' pesticides which are approved for use in Croatia. Many of the pesticides are allowed only for use by professionals who have completed the necessary training. The search section identifies individual pesticides, with information about ingredients, usage and approval status, There are various options for searching. The simplest version is to type in the name of the product you are interested in, stating whether it is for professional or non-professional use. Under the search button ('Traži') the link to the product is shown.

How does the listing system work in practice?

Almost two months after the EU ban on sales of Roundup /Cidokor came into force, the Ministry of Agriculture still listed three Cidokor products without any obvious warning about the ban. Cidokor was in the sub-list of products which had lost their licence, which is a separate search (note: the sub-list is no longer available in 2021). But anyone looking up Cidokor without knowing it was banned would have no reason to search beyond the information page, which was showing the approvals as if they were still in force.

From the Ministry of Agriculture listing, 29th November 2016.

Under its English name, however, Roundup carried a warning in red letters that it was no longer approved. For Roundup Biactive, the red-letter heading stated that existing stocks could be used and sold up to the 'permitted date', which in the following paragraph was given as January 1st 2017, while stocks could be held in store until 1st January 2018. Odd, given that the product approval, first granted in Croatia in 1999, ran out on 1st July 2016. So Roundup Biactive went into extra time as a result of the EU ban.

Another example is the insecticide Pyrinex 48EC. The approval for Pyrinex 48EC in Croatia was granted from September 25th 2015 and was due to last until January 31st 2019, for professional use only. However, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had been giving increasing warnings about the health hazards relating to Pyrinex's active substance Chlorpyrifos since 2002. A review in 2014, updated in 2015 detailed the unacceptable effects on human (especially children's) health, birds, fish and earthworms. Following a review by the European Union, the United Kingdom issued a partial ban in September 2016. However, like Roundup, it continued to be produced, sold and used around the world. In August 2018, a Federal Appeals Court in the United States ordered a ban on Chlorpyrifos.

Pyrinex 48EC was added to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture's list of disallowed pesticides on March 25th 2016.The initial search for Pyrinex 48EC at the time of writing threw up two links: only one carried the red-letter warning that it has been de-registered, while the other did not. In fact, Pyrinex 48EC continued to be used in Croatia until 30th Jaruary 2019, when Chlorpyrifos was finally banned in the EU.

From the Ministry of Agriculture list of approved pesticides, November 2016.

The list of chemical pesticides which were no longer registered in Croatia dated back to 2011 on the Ministry of Agriculture website, and provided the following numbers: in 2016, 38 chemical pesticides were disallowed or de-registered up to the end of November; in 2015, 32; 17 on 2014; 260 in 2013; 96 in 2012; and 13 in 2011.

The Ministry of Agriculture granted the approval for Pyrinex 48EC at a time when the product's primary ingredient was already the subject of major concern by the very authority which had previously deemed it safe. It took a long time for the ban to be established, and there was still time allowed for stocks to be used up.

The question of leftover stocks

Despite time being allowed to sell and use up spare stocks when a chemical substance is banned, there is always at least some left over. What happens to those? Are they collected and 'safely' destroyed? Tragically, there is shamefully little provision for safe disposal either of unwanted unused pesticides or empty pesticide packaging, especially on Hvar. Much of it ends up in the communal rubbish or worse still in the environment, contrary to existing laws.

Hazardous contents, hazardous packaging. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

The glyphosate story

Monsanto's Roundup was first marketed in 1974, although its active ingredient glyphosate had been discovered in 1950. In the United States, its approval in 1974 was for 'industrial non-crop use in agriculture'. Its permitted applications were quickly extended, and by 1980 Roundup was a worldwide bestselling weedkiller. Monsanto's US patent on glyphosate was allowed to expire in 2000. By 2012 the EU had registered some 2000 glyphosate-based herbicides made by many different companies for use on croplands. Given the unwelcome presence of glyphosate in human urine, one could be forgiven for calling the ban on just 12 glyphosate herbicides as 'pissing in the wind'. Farcical but not funny.

Glyphosate's approval has always been the subject of controversy, sparking concern and criticism among independent scientists and environmentalists. Industry-sponsored unpublished 'safety' studies, conducted on animals, formed the main supporting evidence for official approval in the United States, Europe and consequently around the world. An independent study published in 2012 showed that important data indicating glyphosate's ill-effects had been suppressed from the evidence used for approval. When the EU was asked in 2010 by Monsanto to re-approve the use of glyphosate in herbicides, the permit was due to expire in 2012. However, the review was delayed until 2015, with a further extension until June 2016. In the meantime, EU Parliamentarians recommended a total ban on the substance, but were thwarted by the European Commission, which initially proposed extending the permit for a further 15 years, a demand which was subsequently reduced to 18 months. Meanwhile, European Parliamentarians agreed to the Commission's proposals to ban the co-formulant POE-tallowamine, resulting in the ban on Roundup sales. A European Citizens' Initiative publicized as the  'Stop Glyphosate Campaign' garnered over a million signatures in record time in 2017, but the main demand was rejected by the European Commission out of hand. However, there were two positive outcomes from the campaign, with legislation proposed to ensure more transparency in the approvals process for pesticides, and more reliance on independent studies regarding the safety or otherwise of pesticides (as opposed to the present system of primarily accepting industry-funded studies). The new Regulation covering these issues was published on September 6th 2019, coming into force 20 days later, and was due to come into effect after 18 months, on 27th March 2021.

Almost simultaneously with the EU's ban on Roundup in 2016, the American EPA approved a dicamba-based herbicide developed by Monsanto for use on its next generation of biotech (genetically modified) crops. The new herbicide was developed in response to the increasing problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds. As dicamba had allegedly caused serious environmental problems in its previous use, the approval of the new version was greeted with widespread concern.

Powerful lobbying, forceful marketing

The agrochemical industry is rich and powerful. It is exceptionally skilful in dominating the market, quelling opposition, and recruiting support from politicians and scientists. Pesticide advertising is widespread and shamelessly misleading. The agrochemical companies have succeeded in creating the ultimate spin in relation to proofs of safety. One of their biggest promotional successes was to re-define poisonous pesticides as 'plant protectors'. That euphemism has helped deflect attention from pesticides as poisons and potential health destroyers.

The 'Glyphosate Facts' website: a smooth, attractive cover-up?

At the end of November 2016, nearly two months after the EU ban on Roundup sales, the 'Glyphosate Facts' website made no mention of it. The Monsanto website, which covers most of the world, with Monsanto news given in a multitude of languages, was equally silent on the subject.

Concerned independent scientists, regulators and environmentalists are forced to argue the toss with a tireless, well-oiled propaganda machine. Arguments are bandied to and fro over decades. Meanwhile, untold damage is being done to land, sea and air, and human health problems are multiplying.

Caution should prevail

Pesticides should be proven beyond doubt to be completely safe before being approved for use. Most consumers believe that approved pesticides have been proved safe. This is not so. The evidence that they are not safe has been sidelined by the industry in many different ways. The burden of proof has been thrown on to the people opposing the development and use of dangerous pesticides. To make their task more difficult, words are being twisted to create impossible conditions for scientists seeking to establish risk evaluations and ill-effects. This was especially true when Euro-MPs were due to consider the European Commission's proposals for identifying and regulating hormone disrupting chemicals in December 2016.

Pesticide safety is always in doubt. As they are poisons, pesticides cannot be tested on humans. The human testing is done once the pesticides are put into use. We are the guinea pigs in practice (following in from the tragic dogs, rabbits, rats, chickens and countless other animals who have been tortured with force-fed pesticides for the sake of 'proving' the agrochemical industry's point). There is no such thing as 'sustainable use' of pesticides. For safety's sake, pesticides should not be used. That is the precautionary principle. The agrochemical industry has turned the precautionary principle on its head. You can read about pesticide regulation and its limitations in our article 'Pesticides, Laws and Permits'.

The organic way: rotavating for clean soil between vines. Photo Vivian Grisogono

The very limited EU restriction on a few glyphosate-based herbicides was a minimal response to long-held, well-founded, far-reaching concern. Its most useful effect will be to make people realise that dangerous substances are being used long-term in our environment, causing damage on many levels, including in the human and animal food chain. Proper safeguards are lacking; and the regulatory bodies are not dealing with the potential hazards effectively.

The fact that previously approved chemical pesticides are subsequently disallowed, especially after being in use for several years, should ring alarm bells round the world. Clearly there are deep flaws in the regulatory system which are putting public health at risk.

Do chemical pesticides work?

The short answer is no. Or more precisely, only in the short-term. Chemical herbicides have resulted in the proliferation of 'superweeds'; chemical rodenticides have been behind the rise of 'super-rats'; and following widespread use of chemical insecticides there are ever-increasing numbers of mosquitoes, and even 'supermoths'. These results are all the more unsatisfactory when set alongside the untold collateral damage to the environment and human health. The bottom line is that healthy crops can only grow in uncontaminated soil.

Freedom of choice

While the EU has to approve active substances in products such as pesticides, it is up to individual Member States to allow them to be sold on their markets. Member States have the right to 'grant, refuse or restrict the use of a specific product'. In July 2016, Malta became the first EU country taking steps to ban glyphosate-based herbicides outright, with many localities on Malta having already done so. Since then other countries have initiated bans on glyphosate, fierce opposition from the agrochemical industry. It would be great news if local authorities in Croatia followed their lead. Even better if the central government took the initiative of outlawing pesticides and promoting organic agriculture and proper sustainable care for the environment. If they did, there would certainly be significant savings in health expenditure.

Even if the powers-that-be do not want to lead the way, individuals can achieve much. If end-users stop buying chemical pesticides, the market will disappear. The EU ban on a handful of pesticides will achieve precious little in itself. But it might serve to alert even just a few people to the harm being done. It might persuade some to give up using pesticides. If so, it will have done a deal of good.

BEWARE, BE AWARE!

© Vivian Grisogono MA(Oxon) 2016, updated August 2021

 

Media

You are here: Home Nature Watch Poisons Beware Pesticides: cause for alarm

Eco Environment News feeds

  • The talks in Azerbaijan have seen nations at odds over how much money developed countries should provide to poorer ones

    Marching in silence with their arms crossed high, activists from around the world protested the draft deal at the Cop29 venue last night.

    “Pay up or shut up!” the campaign group Demand Climate Justice said in a post on social media.

    Continue reading...

  • Advocates and officials argue that consequences of Israeli siege are inextricably linked to tackling the climate crisis

    As countries negotiate over climate finance, Palestinian officials and advocates have come to Cop29 in Baku to highlight global heating’s intersection with another crisis: Israel’s siege on Gaza.

    “The Cop [meetings] are very keen to protect the environment, but for whom?” said Ahmed Abu Thaher, director of projects and international relations at Palestine’s Environment Quality Authority, who had travelled to Cop29 from Ramallah. “If you are killing the people there, for whom are you keen to protect the environment and to minimise the effects of climate change?”

    Continue reading...

  • Conservationists failed to capture elusive insects this summer, so Kristina Kenda offered to step in

    When British conservationists flew to Slovenia this summer hoping to catch enough singing cicadas to reintroduce the species to the New Forest, the grasshopper-sized insects proved impossible to locate, flying elusively at great height between trees.

    Now a 12-year-old girl has offered to save the Species Recovery Trust’s reintroduction project. Kristina Kenda, the daughter of the Airbnb hosts who accommodated the trust’s director, Dom Price, and conservation officer Holly Stanworth in the summer summer, will put out special nets to hopefully catch enough cicadas to re-establish a British population.

    Continue reading...

  • Among sweeping rightwing electoral victories across the globe, the ‘big loser of the elections has been climate’

    An unprecedented year of elections around the world has underscored a sobering trend – in many countries the commitment to act on the climate crisis has either stalled or is eroding, even as disasters and record temperatures continue to mount.

    So far 2024, called the “biggest election year in human history” by the United Nations with around half the world’s population heading to the polls, there have been major wins for Donald Trump, the US president-elect who calls the climate crisis “a big hoax”; the climate-skeptic right in European Union elections; and Vladimir Putin, who won another term and has endured sanctions to maintain Russia’s robust oil and gas exports.

    Continue reading...

  • Fourth consecutive year that seals have bred at Orford Ness, where more than 130 pups were born last season

    The first grey seal pup of the season has been born at a remote shingle spit that was once a cold war weapons-testing site.

    The birth at Orford Ness on the Suffolk coast marks the fourth consecutive year of seals breeding there, which began in 2021 after a reduction in visitor access because of the Covid pandemic.

    Continue reading...

  • When the rain kept coming down, people began to worry. We were afraid the dam up the hill might not hold up. This is Jie’s story

    Location Guangdong, China

    Disaster Extreme rainfall, 2024

    Li Jie lives in Xianniangxi, a mountainous village in southern China’s Guangdong province with her family, where she is a social worker for a rural non-profit organisation and also works in the fields. The climate crisis has increased heavy rainfall in Guangdong and exacerbated floods in the province in April 2024, which have since killed at least 47 people.

    Continue reading...

  • Spain is increasingly either parched or flooded – and one group is profiting from these extremes: the water-grabbing multinational companies forcing angry citizens to pay for it in bottles

    After catastrophic floodsengulfed Valencia last month, killing more than 200 people, it might seem counterintuitive to think about water shortages. But as the torrents of filthy water swept through towns and villages, people were left without electricity, food supplies – and drinking water. “It was brutal: cars, chunks of machinery, big stones, even dead bodies were swept along in the water. It gushed into the ground floor of buildings, into little shops, bakeries, hairdressers, the English school, bars: all were destroyed. This was climate change for real, climate change in capital letters,” says Josep de la Rubia of Valencia’s Ecologists in Action, describing the scene in the satellite towns south of the Valencian capital.

    In the aftermath, hundreds of thousands of people were reliant on emergency tankers of water or donations of bottled water from citizen volunteers. Within a fortnight, the authorities had reconnected the tap water of 90% of the 850,000 people in affected areas, but all were advised to boil it before drinking it or to use bottled water. Across the region, 100 sewage treatment plants were damaged; in some areas, human waste seeped into flood waters, dead animals were swept into rivers and sodden rubbish and debris piled up. Valencia is on the brink of a sanitation crisis.

    Continue reading...

  • From YouTube video guides to sourcing parts, here are some ways to extend the life of your appliances and sentimental items

    One of the best ways we can reduce our household’s carbon footprint is to repair things instead of throwing them away. But it’s also a way of life for many people.

    “Seems I’ve spent most of my life fixing stuff because I was brought up that way,” observes Phil, from Bedfordshire. “I look at everything that comes my way as potentially useful and more often than not, it is,” writes Richard, a designer from Essex.

    Continue reading...

  • Residents concerned as North Carolina city lifts boil advisory and scientists detect lead in water at area schools

    When the western North Carolina town Swannanoa was battered by Hurricane Helene in September, two large trees crushed Stephen Knight’s home. His family of six was launched into a complicated web of survival: finding a temporary home, applying for disaster relief, filing insurance claims.

    The new logistics of living included the daily search for food and water. Until earlier this week, most residents of this town east of Asheville had no drinkable tap water for 52 days. After the storm damaged infrastructure around the region, water had been partly restored in mid-October. It was good for flushing toilets but not safe for consumption. In some places, sediment left the water inky like black tea.

    Continue reading...

  • As Ford announced cutting 800 UK jobs it said rules forcing companies to sell more EVs each year are ‘unworkable’

    When Ford announced this week that it was cutting 800 jobs in the UK, the US carmaker also had stern words for the government. It has joined in a chorus of criticism of rules that force car companies to sell more electric vehicles each year. The rules, known as the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, are simply “unworkable”, Ford said.

    Someone should have told Ford back in 2022, when the carmaker strongly backed the policy. In fact, it went further, calling for the British government to force carmakers to sell even more electric cars each year.

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds

  • A Conservation International scientist shares what can be done to prevent an ‘outright alarming’ future for whale sharks.

  • A new Conservation International study measures the cooling effects of forests against extreme heat — with eye-opening results.

  • EDITOR’S NOTE:Few places on Earth are as evocative — or as imperiled — as the vast grasslands of sub-Saharan Africa. In a new Conservation News series, “Saving the Savanna,” we look at how communities are working to protect these places — and the wildlife within.

    MARA NORTH CONSERVANCY, Kenya — Under a fading sun, Kenya’s Maasai Mara came alive.

    A land cruiser passed through a wide-open savanna, where a pride of lions stirred from a day-long slumber. Steps away, elephants treaded single-file through tall grass, while giraffes peered from a thicket of acacia trees. But just over a ridge was a sight most safari-goers might not expect — dozens of herders guiding cattle into an enclosure for the night. The herders were swathed in vibrant red blankets carrying long wooden staffs, their beaded jewelry jingling softly.

    Maasai Mara is the northern reach of a massive, connected ecosystem beginning in neighboring Tanzania’s world-famous Serengeti. Unlike most parks, typically managed by local or national governments, these lands are protected under a wildlife conservancy — a unique type of protected area managed directly by the Indigenous People who own the land.

    Conservancies allow the people that live near national parks or reserves to combine their properties into large, protected areas for wildlife. These landowners can then earn income by leasing that land for safaris, lodges and other tourism activities. Communities in Maasai Mara have created 24 conservancies, protecting a total of 180,000 hectares (450,000 acres) — effectively doubling the total area of habitat for wildlife in the region, beyond the boundaries of nearby Maasai Mara National Reserve.

    “It's significant income for families that have few other economic opportunities — around US$ 350 a month on average for a family. In Kenya, that's the equivalent of a graduate salary coming out of university,” said Elijah Toirai, Conservation International’s community engagement lead in Africa.

    © Jon McCormack

    Lions tussle in the tall grass of Mara North Conservancy.

    But elsewhere in Africa, the conservancy model has remained far out of reach.

    “Conservancies have the potential to lift pastoral communities out of poverty in many African landscapes. But starting a conservancy requires significant funding — money they simply don't have,” said Bjorn Stauch, senior vice president of Conservation International’s nature finance division.

    Upfront costs can include mapping out land boundaries, removing fences that prevent the movement of wildlife, eradicating invasive species that crowd out native grasses, creating firebreaks to prevent runaway wildfires, as well building infrastructure like roads and drainage ditches that are essential for successful safaris. Once established, conservancies need to develop management plans that guide their specified land use for the future.

    Conservation International wanted to find a way for local communities to start conservancies and strengthen existing ones. Over the next three years, the organization aims to invest millions of dollars in new and emerging conservancies across Southern and East Africa. The funds will be provided as loans, which the conservancies will repay through tourism leases. This financing will jumpstart new conservancies and reinforce those already in place. The approach builds on an initial model that has proven highly effective and popular with local communities.

    “We’re always looking for creative new ways to pay for conservation efforts that last,” Stauch said. “This is really a durable financing mechanism that puts money directly in the pockets of those who live closest to nature — giving them a leg up. And it’s been proven to work in the direst circumstances imaginable.”

    © Will McCarry

    Elijah Toirai explains current conservancy boundaries and potential areas for expansion.

    Creativity from crisis

    In 2020, the entire conservancy model almost collapsed overnight.

    “No one thought that the world could stop in 24 hours,” said Kelvin Alie, senior vice president and acting Africa lead for Conservation International. “But then came the pandemic, and suddenly Kenya is shutting its doors on March 23, 2020. And in the Mara, this steady and very well-rounded model based on safari tourism came to a screeching halt.”

    Tourism operators, who generate the income to pay landowners' leases, found themselves without revenue. Communities faced a difficult choice: replace the lost income by fencing off their lands for grazing, converting it to agriculture, or selling to developers — each of which would have had drastic consequences for the Maasai Mara’s people and wildlife.

    © Will Turner

    A black-backed jackal hunts for prey.

    “But then the nature finance team at Conservation International — these crazy guys — came up with a wild idea,” Alie said. “In just six months they put this entirely new funding model together: loaning money at an affordable rate to the conservancies so that they can continue to pay staff and wildlife rangers.”

    Conservation International and the Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association launched the African Conservancies Fund — a rescue package to offset lost revenues for approximately 3,000 people in the area who rely on tourism income. Between December 2020 and December 2022, the fund provided more than US$ 2 million in affordable loans to four conservancies managing 70,000 hectares (170,000 acres).

    The loans enabled families in the Maasai Mara to continue receiving income from their lands to pay for health care, home repairs, school fees and more. And because tourism revenues — not government funding — support wildlife protection in conservancies, this replacement funding ensured wildlife patrols continued normally, with rangers working full time.

    Born out of this emergency, we discovered a new way to do conservation.

    Elijah Toirai

    “The catastrophe of COVID-19 was total for us,” said Benard Leperes, a landowner with Mara North Conservancy and a conservation expert at Maasai Mara Wildlife Conservancies Association. “Without Conservation International and the fund, this landscape would have not been secured; the conservancies would have disintegrated as people were forced to sell their land to convert it to agriculture.”

    But it was communities themselves that proved the model might be replicable after the pandemic ended.

    “The conservancies had until 2023 before the first payment was due,” Toirai said. “But as soon as tourism resumed in mid-2021, the communities started paying back the loans. Today, the loans are being repaid way ahead of schedule.”

    “Born out of this emergency, we discovered a new way to do conservation.”

    A new era for conservation

    The high plateaus overlooking the Maasai Mara are home to the very last giant pangolins in Kenya.

    These mammals, armored with distinctive interlocking scales, are highly endangered because of illegal wildlife trade. In Kenya, threats from poaching, deforestation and electric fences meant to deter elephants from crops have caused the species to nearly disappear. Today, scientists believe there could be as few as 30 giant pangolins left in Kenya.

    Conservancies could be crucial to bringing them back. Conservation International has identified opportunities to provide transformative funding for conservancies in this area — a sprawling grassland northwest of Maasai Mara that is the very last pangolin stronghold in the country. The fund will help communities better protect an existing 10,000-hectare (25,000-acre) conservancy and bring an additional 5,000 hectares under protection. It provides a safety net, ensuring a steady income for the communities as the work of expanding the conservancy begins. With a stable income, communities can start work to restore the savanna and remove electric fences that have killed pangolins. And as wildlife move back into the ecosystem, the grasslands will begin to recover.

    In addition to expanding conservancies around Maasai Mara, Conservation International has identified other critical ecosystems where community conservancies can help lift people out poverty, while providing new habitats for wildlife. Conservation International has ambitious plans to restore a critical and highly degraded savanna between Amboseli and Tsavo National Parks in southern Kenya, as well as a swath of savanna outside Kruger National Park in South Africa.

    © Emily Nyrop

    A lone acacia tree in a sea of grass.

    Elephants, fire, Maasai and cattle

    Many of the new and emerging community conservancies have been carefully chosen as key wildlife corridors that would be threatened by overgrazing livestock.

    When the first Maasai Mara conservancies were established in 2009, cattle grazing was prohibited within their boundaries. When poorly managed, cattle can wear grasses down to their roots, triggering topsoil erosion and the loss of nutrients, microbes and biodiversity vital for soil health. It was also believed that tourists would be put off by the sight of livestock mingling with wildlife.

    © Emily Nyrop

    Cattle are closely monitored in the Maasai Mara to prevent overgrazing.

    However, over the years, landowners objected, lamenting the loss of cultural ties to cattle and herding. “That was when we changed tactics,” said Raphael Kereto, the grazing manager for Mara North Conservancy.

    Beginning in 2018, Mara North and other conservancies in the region started adopting livestock grazing practices to restore the savanna. Landowners agreed to periodically move livestock between different pastures, allowing grazed lands to recover and regrow,  mimicking the traditional methods pastoralists have used on these lands for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

    “Initially, there was a worry that maybe herbivores and other wildlife will run away from cattle,” said Kereto. “But we have seen the exact opposite — the wildlife all follow where cattle are grazing. This is because we have a lot of grass, and all the animals follow where there is a lot of grass. We even saw a cheetah with a cub that spent all her time rotating with wildlife.”

    “It's amazing — when we move cattle, the cheetah comes with it.”

    The loans issued by the fund — now called the African Conservancies Facility — will enhance rotational grazing systems, which are practiced differently in each conservancy, by incorporating best practices and lessons from the organization’s Herding for Health program in southern Africa.

    © Will Turner

    An elephant herd stares down a pack of hyenas.

    For landowners like Dickson Kaelo, who was among the pioneers to propose the conservancy model in Kenya, the return of cattle to the ecosystem has restored a natural order.

    “I always wanted to understand how it was that there was so much more wildlife in the conservancies than in Maasai Mara National Reserve,” said Kaelo, who heads the Kenya Wildlife Conservancy Association, based in Nairobi.

    “I went to the communities and asked them this question. They told me savannas were created by elephants, fire and Maasai and cattle, and excluding any one of those is not good for the health of the system. So, I believe in the conservancies — I know that every single month, people go to the bank and they have some money, they haven't lost their culture because they still are cattle keepers, and the land is much healthier, with more grass, more wildlife, and the trees have not been cut.

    “For me, it’s something really beautiful.”


    Further reading:

    Will McCarry is the content director at Conservation International. Want to read more stories like this? Sign up for email updates. Also, please consider supporting our critical work.

  • Conservation International is helping recover a savanna habitat nearly twice the size of Manhattan.

  • “Nature is resilient — when given the chance.” A Conservation International study shows where trees can grow back on their own — and fight climate change.

  • "Before, we were working blind": A new Conservation International study gives scientists an unprecedented view into a remote tropical forest.

  • Conservation International is launching a historic conservation partnership to plant 1 billion trees and protect 1 million hectares across India, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Nepal.

  • More than one in three of the world’s tree species are at risk of extinction, according to the first Global Tree Assessment, published today.

  • Ocean protections are lagging dangerously. Here’s what it’s going to take to meet global goals, according to a Conservation International marine scientist.

  • Years of civil war left Mozambique’s national parks in ruins. But in one park, a decade of conservation has brought the savanna roaring back to life. Now, Conservation International and Peace Parks Foundation are replicating this success on a massive scale.