Glyphosate, EU, Tragedy in the Making

When the World Health Organization defined Glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, it should have put an immediate stop to the sale and use of Glyphosate-based herbicides.

Survival depends on a clean environment. Survival depends on a clean environment. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

The report was published in March 2015, and a press release was issued by WHO on March 20th summarizing the methods and results. The full report appeared in IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. In preparing the report on Glyphosate, international expert scientists from the International Agency for Research on Cancer worked for nearly a year evaluating “reports that have been published or accepted for publication in the openly available scientific literature” as well as “data from governmental reports that are publicly available”. The studies listed in the references for the IARC paper totalled 269.

Introduction to the WHO summary

The wording of the IARC report was suitably cautious, and the message was abundantly clear. Glyphosate poses a risk to human health.

Glyphosate-based herbicide in the Stari Grad Plain. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Industry reaction

Unsurprisingly, Glyphosate producers condemned the IARC report. The loss of the Glyphosate market would mean huge reductions in their income.

Agro-chemical giant Monsanto hired a panel of scientists to counteract the findings of the IARC experts. The claim that the panel was 'independent' was undermined by the revelation that two of the 16 experts had been employed by Monsanto in the past, and a further ten had been Monsanto consultants. The company also published a rebuttal on its website by Robb Fraley, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer. He referred to the IARC classification of Glyphosate as “erroneous”, and cast aspersions on the integrity and capacities of the IARC scientists with statements such as: “...IARC reports not only create unnecessary confusion with consumers, but they also fuel efforts by activist groups to mislead the public with shoddy science.” Robb Fraley's statement put emphasis on a Reuters 'Special Report: How the World Health Organization's Cancer Agency confuses consumers', by journalist Kate Kelland, with input from Himanshu Ojha, edited by Richard Woods. A heavily biased opinion piece by two non-scientists, it does not lend much weight to the Monsanto arguments.

Monsanto is well-known for its adroitness in handling the media, and biased journalism in its favour has come under an increasing spotlight in 2016.

Monasanto's credibility is further marred by its persistent refusal to disclose certain toxicity studies regarding Glyphosate - and then denigrating its detractors for basing their criticisms on 'incomplete evidence'.

There is even a Glyphosate website, purporting to bring 'balance to the debate' over the poison. It has been created by a group of agro-chemical companies. Smoothly written spin, it touts the supposed benefits of Glyphosate in European agriculture, and discounts all contrary views as 'scaremongering'. It repeats many of the reassuring statements about glyphosate which have been shown to be untrue or misleading, for instance the belief that glyphosate acts through pathways which are not present in animals. Relatively recent research shows otherwise. The website is promoted as a Google ad, and even popped up as a banner under an article I wrote for Total Croatia News in May 2016 entitled 'EU Taking the Piss'. The home page of the Glyphosate website is beguiling, resplendent with pretty pictures of rural scenes, full of bland statements preaching objectivity. It's designed to appeal to the unwary, promoting a poison that any informed  person has long since found unacceptable. The poison vending machine is very well oiled, not a trick is missed.

Glyphosate website home page.

It's a strange world where people are made more aware of the Zika virus threat than the actual harm being done by the world's most widely used poison. 

Glyphosate-based herbicides in fields near Jelsa. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Glyphosate-based herbicide in fields near jelsa. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Respective roles

The IARC has the task of warning the public of potential cancer hazards in the products and materials which we use as common practice. It is a worthwhile humanitarian task, and people are free to accept, ignore or reject the IARC findings as they wish. The agro-chemical companies are in the business of selling their products, poisonous, hazardous or otherwise, for maximum possible gain. Consumers have the choice of not buying particular products, but heavy marketing combined with relentless political pressure have made it extremely difficult to form balanced views - until it is too late. The spread of agro-chemical poisons around the world has been inexorable. A huge amount of money has been invested in making this happen. There is no such finance available for publicizing the alternative view.

This would not be a problem if the effects of pesticides could be restricted. A 2016 survey showed that some Californian organic wines contained traces of Glyphosate, following similar findings in German beers. Not to mention the presence of Glyphosate in city-dwellers' urine, the correlation between urinary Glyphosate residues and ill-health, and a host of other unwanted contaminations. Given the pervasive effects of Glyphosate-based herbicides, people who want to choose organic, pesticide-free foodstuffs are being denied. It is not reassuring to know that when previous 'safe limits' for Glyphosate residues in foodstuffs were exceeded in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency simply raised its estimates of those so-called 'safe limits'.

European Parliament - headed off from the right direction?

In advance of the European approval for Glyphosate expiring in June 2016, members of the EU Parliament expressed their worries over unconditional renewal. From the Press release following the EU vote on March 22nd 2016:

' “So long as serious concerns remain about the carcinogenicity and endocrine disruptive properties of the herbicide glyphosate, which is used in hundreds of farm, forestry, urban and garden applications, the EU Commission should not renew its authorisation. Instead, it should commission an independent review and disclose all the scientific evidence that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) used to assess glyphosate,” said Environment Committee MEPs on Tuesday.

“The European Commission should not renew the approval of the herbicide substance glyphosate on the EU market for another 15 years, until 2031, without any restrictions as proposed,” said the Environment Committee in a non-legislative resolution passed by 38 votes to 6, with 18 abstentions.'

However, the EU Commission has shown determination to keep Glyphosate on its approved list. The Commission had recommended giving Glyphosate approval for a further 15 years, but finally reduced the proposal to seven years. It seems the MEPs, despite their grave concerns, accepted this compromise, as a further vote for a non-legislative Resolution was carried by 374 votes to 225, with 102 abstentions, in April 2016. The MEPs did express grave concerns in the Resolution, and suggested several measures to restrict the use of Glyphosate, in particular proposing a ban on its use in or near public parks, public gardens and playgrounds. As reported in Slobodna Dalmacija on April 14th 2016, Croatian MEPs Biljana Borzan and Marijana Petir were among those opposing the 15-year renewal of Glyphosate. Marijana Petir wanted the approval to be extended for a maximum of three years, preferably one, which she and others felt would be sufficient to establish firm evidence of Glyphosate's dangers and to develop a better alternative.

Glyphosate-based herbicide, field between Jelsa and Svirče. Photo: Vivian Grisogono

Glyphosate's origins and future

The 2015 IARC document describes how Glyphosate started: “Glyphosate was first synthesized in 1950 as a potential pharmaceutical compound, but its herbicidal activity was not discovered until it was re-synthesized and tested in 1970  Székács A, Darvas B (2012)”. The arrival of Glyphosate on the herbicide scene was well timed, as it coincided with the partial but significant ban on its predecessor DDT. Coincidence? The dangers of DDT were well known long before the ban. So was the ban on DDT delayed until Monsanto had come up with an alternative? The present situation seems like a mirror of those times. Seven more years to come up with an alternative so that Glyphosate can be retired without financial loss? 

Glyphosate usage worldwide

Worldwide production and usage of the poison is huge, as the IARC report acknowledged: 

“Glyphosate is reported to be manufactured by at least 91 producers in 20 countries, including 53 in China, 9 in India, 5 in the USA, and others in Australia, Canada, Cyprus, Egypt, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan (China), Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela (Farm Chemicals International, 2015). Glyphosate was registered in over 130 countries as of 2010 and is probably the most heavily used herbicide in the world, with an annual global production volume estimated at approximately 600 000 tonnes in 2008, rising to about 650 000 tonnes in 2011, and to 720 000 tonnes in 2012 (Dill et al., 2010; CCM International, 2011; Hilton, 2012; Transparency Market Research, 2014).”

In like vein, the MEPs' draft Motion of March 2016 stated: “systemic herbicide glyphosate currently has the highest global production volume of all herbicides; whereas its global use has increased dramatically, by a factor of 260, in the last 40 years (from 3 200 tons in 1974 to 825 000 tonnes in 2014)”.

Glyphosate-based herbicide and discarded bottle. Photo Frank Verhart

The organic alternative

Russia banned the import of genetically modified (GMO) crops, joining several other countries with similar intentions. Russian President Vladimir Putin spotted the gap in the market. Organic foodstuffs are now an important part of Russia's exports, and Vladimir Putin aims to make Russia the largest exporter of organic produce. Meanwhile, Russians are discovering the joys and benefits of innovative fine dining using home-produced foodstuffs. One of the world's smallest countries, Bhutan, is among those opting for organic production, aiming to be 100% organic by the year 2020.

Precautionary Principle

In public health, the Precautionary Principle should prevail. Where there is any doubt of any kind about the safety of a product, it should not be allowed or condoned.

In the case of Glyphosate, there is no doubt at all about its potential harmful effects. Practical experience has demonstrated an array of problems in human and environmental health arising from its continued use. The scientific evidence showing the dangers of Glyphosate-based herbicides is massive and growing. The IARC paper focuses on just one potential hazard, but it is one of very many. There have been detailed accounts of the dangers of Glyphosate over many years, including a 2012 overview from the Permaculture Institute, and Eco Hvar's own report, both of which present the scientific evidence condemning Glyphosate use. Eco Hvar has also compiled a list of relevant research articles for ease of reference. 

EC stance deeply concerning

The blatantly biased behaviour of the European Commission in supporting the maximum approval renewal period for Glyphosate is cause for the gravest concern. The EU Parliament is due to hold a further vote on the subject in May. If this proves inconclusive, the Commission will have the final say. Parliament's Resolutions are non-binding on the Commission. Following the April vote, Croatian MEP Biljana Borzan expressed the optimistic view that the Commission will not dare to ignore the clear message from the Parliamentarians. The signs so far - tragically - are that such optimism may be wishful thinking. The very fact that such an important decision should be strung out for over a year following the IARC report is in itself a travesty in total opposition to the Precautionary Principle. The further time suggested for 'further research' is clearly just a delaying tactic.

As for the need for a substitute product to take Glyphosate's place, it would be comforting to think that this would take the form of a truly organic alternative that would not cause harm to humans, soil, insects, plants or animals. The track record of the agro-chemical industry in modern times indicates that this too is wishful thinking.

Those of us who do not want to be force-fed poisons face a bleak future in Europe and most other countries in the world. No doubt this will be a factor which UK voters take into account when they decide on whether to vote for staying in or leaving the EU in June, ironically the same month when Glyphosate's current approval expires.

© Vivian Grisogono 2016

To see our listing of glyphosate's possible ill-effects according to the independent scientific evidence, click here. The list is frequently updated. If you know of peer-reviewed studies relevant to the information, please send us the details via email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

You are here: Home poisons be aware Glyphosate, EU, Tragedy in the Making

Eco Environment News feeds

  • Spike in fossil fuel use a result of global gas crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

    The world’s coal use is expected to reach a fresh high of 8.7bn tonnes this year, and remain at near-record levels for years as a result of a global gas crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    There has been record production and trade of coal and power generation from coal since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine inflated global gas market prices, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

    Continue reading...

  • Researchers from St Andrews found rise in nitrogen dioxide exposure associated with higher admissions

    Exposure to air pollution is linked to an increased risk of hospital admission for mental illness, according to the most comprehensive study of its kind.

    The research, involving more than 200,000 people in Scotland, found an increase in exposure to nitrogen dioxide in particular was associated with a higher number of people being admitted to hospital for behaviour disorders and mental illnesses.

    Continue reading...

  • Climate-vulnerable pair add weight to proposed treaty seeking transition from coal, oil and gas in equitable way

    Pakistan and the Bahamas have joined a growing bloc of climate-vulnerable countries seeking to broker a global pact to phase out fossil fuels in an equitable way, the Guardian can reveal.

    The Bahamas is the 15th nation to fully endorse the proposed fossil-fuel non-proliferation treaty, which would provide a binding global roadmap to explicitly halt expansion of coal, oil and gas in a fair way – with wealthy nations responsible for the highest emissions transitioning first and fastest.

    Continue reading...

  • Trade can help protect species – and real skins are often more sustainable than synthetic alternatives, say conservationists

    Conservation experts have criticised a decision by London fashion week to ban exotic animal skins from its 2025 shows as “ridiculous”, warning that it is ill-informed and could harm the protection of many snakes, crocodiles and reptile species.

    Last month, the British Fashion Council’s deputy director for policy and engagement, David Leigh-Pemberton, told parliament that next year’s fashion shows would prohibit the use of skins from alligators, snakes and other animals. In a statement, the council said the ban was part of a wider range of standards to promote sustainable practices in the fashion industry.

    Continue reading...

  • Critics and opposition parties vow to oppose major projects they fear could damage the environment

    A new law that could see controversial mining and infrastructure projects fast-tracked for approval across New Zealand has sparked protests in parliament and vows from critics and opposition parties to stop proposals that they fear will wreak havoc on the environment.

    The coalition government’s Fast-Track Approvals legislation passed into law on Tuesday, despite thousands of public submissions opposing it.

    Continue reading...

  • Southill, Bedfordshire: On a ringing session of seed-eating farmland birds, I see up close the subtle beauty of the yellowhammer

    We’ve just released a second blitz of tits, when we notice that the mist net along the field edge has caught a sunbeam. The cold orange light that spilt over the horizon at dawn and pooled above the fields is long gone; the teasel, knapweed and bristly oxtongue seedheads are no longer haloed with hoarfrost. Instead, they’re drawing ground-feeding birds down to forage among the wild grasses and flowers.

    The fallow fields around us are part of an ambitious project to restore ecosystems across more than 1,500 acres of the Southill Estate. The plan includes creating new ponds, allowing land to revert to native scrub, and planting woodland for coppicing. Today’s visit is one of a series of winter ringing sessions to monitor the birds flocking to the fields. I’ve tagged along with my dad (a licensed ringer) and Suzy (a trainee). Their primary aim is to record seed-eating farmland species, many of which – such as greenfinch and corn bunting – are on the UK red list. And we’re in luck. Linnets lurk in the scrub and tinklings of goldfinches pass overhead.

    Continue reading...

  • Balcony solar panels can save 30% on a typical household’s electricity bill and, with vertical surface area in cities larger than roof space, the appeal is clear

    They are easy to install, and knock chunks off electricity bills. It may not be Romeo and Juliet, but Spain’s balcony scene is heating up as the country embraces what has hitherto been a mainly German love affair with DIY plug-in solar panels.

    Panels have already been installed on about 1.5m German balconies, where they are so popular the term Balkonkraftwerk (balcony power plant) has been coined.

    Continue reading...

  • In 2019, scientists published a climate-friendly food plan. I’ve long wondered: could it work for most Americans?

    As a fossil fuels and climate reporter, most of my journalism focuses on the need to radically overhaul the energy system. But the food sector also needs a makeover, as it creates between a quarter and a third of all greenhouse gas emissions.

    When scientists came up with a new climate-friendly food plan in 2019 and published their findings in the medical journal the Lancet, I read with interest. The guidelines called for more vegetables, legumes and whole grains, which seemed doable to me. The authors even allowed for meat and dairy consumption, albeit in small quantities. Both are major drivers of the climate crisis: the United Nations estimates that meat and dairy produce more than 11% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, and some experts put the figure at up to 19.6%.

    Continue reading...

  • Restoring age-old land rights has enabled 300 villagers to build a profitable business and halt the exodus to the city

    It’s late morning and the sound of axes clacking against wood echoes through Pachgaon’s bamboo forest in the central Indian state of Maharashtra. A huge depot, larger than a cricket stadium,is full of bamboo branches, stacked neatly by size in different sections. Nearby is a small, windowless office painted in the colours of the forest – a record-keeper of Pachgaon’s turnaround from abject poverty to relative wealth in just over a decade.

    Pachgaon’s rags-to-riches story follows the implementation of two longstanding Indian laws that restored to the local adivasi (tribal) community its traditional ownership rights over the forest, which they lost to rulers and colonisers several generations ago.

    Continue reading...

  • By rejecting traditional grazing and maintaining trees and wildlife habitats alongside pasture, farmers are turning their land carbon positive. But will it be enough?

    On a humid dawn in Colombia’s livestock capital, Michael Robbin rides across one of his farm’s pastures, where tall green stalks brush his horse’s belly. When he bought the land outside Montería in 2020 he divided it into 125 smaller fields. His neighbours called him crazy at first.

    “That’s not how it’s done in this area,” he acknowledges. “Everybody was looking at me like I was from outer space.”

    Continue reading...

Eco Health News feeds

Eco Nature News feeds

  • As 2024 comes to a close, global temperatures are at an all-time high — topping the previous hottest-year on record: 2023. Yet amid this backdrop, research consistently shows nature is a powerful climate ally.

  • “Invest in one woman, and that ripples out to her family, her community and beyond. It changes people’s lives.”

  • In southern Africa, grasses can beat the heat better than trees, according to Conservation International research.

  • An unheralded breakthrough at the recent UN biodiversity conference highlights the often-overlooked connection between our health and the planet’s, a Conservation International expert says.

  • A recent study on climate solutions downplays nature’s potential, two Conservation International experts say.

  • A new study found that seaweed forests may play a bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought — absorbing as much climate-warming carbon as the Amazon rainforest. But not all seaweed forests are created equal.

  • For the conscientious consumer, finding the perfect present can be a challenge. Not to worry, Conservation International's 2024 gift guide has you covered.

  • 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.