Kenya: Who favours and who destroys forest biodiversity?

Governments should be directly responsible for the
conservation of the natural and cultural heritage of
their respective countries and people. Nevertheless,
what frequently happens in the South is that the
authorities act in collusion with powerful internal
and external interests, and to the detriment of the
country's biodiversity, and thus against the welfare
of the population they are supposed to protect. This
is what is going on in Kenya.

Located in the east coast of Central Africa, Kenya
holds a variety of landscapes: from tropical
rainforests in the coastal plains to arid areas in the
dry west plateau. Such diversity in nature goes
together with the existence of different ethnic
groups. Deforestation and desertification are two
environmental problems severely affecting the country.
Logging --both legally granted by concessions and
illegal-- an inadequate policy towards protected
areas, megaprojects like dams and mining, are all
putting at risk the rich biodiversity of Kenya. In the
meantime, the government has not only proved to be
unable to stop the process, but has also been active
in promoting it.

The case of the highland Tinet forest area, inhabited
from ancestral times by the Ogiek, is a paradigmatic
example of environmental destruction and disregard to
indigenous peoples' rights. In spite of having managed

these forests in a sustainable way, they have been
forced to defend themselves against the arbitrariness
of both colonial and post-colonial governments, who
have ignored them and menaced them to get hold of
their lands arguing that they are within the
boundaries of a protected area included in the
country's Forest Act. Nonetheless it is not a
preservationist interest what moves the authorities.
In Kenya there is a logging ban in force but three
powerful companies --Pan African Paper Mills, Raiply
Timber, and Timsales Ltd.-- are exempted from it, and
prepared to enter the Tinet Forests once the Ogiek are
expelled. Regarding protected areas it seems that the
authorities have not learnt from past mistakes. In the

mid-1970s, Massai residents of southern Kenya were
abruptly relocated from land that was subsequently
enclosed within the Amboseli National Park, one of the
continent's most visited wildlife reserves. Deprived
of their lands and as a desperate way of showing their
protest, the Massai reacted by killing many of
Amboseli's most prized tourist attractions, including
dozens of leopards, elephants, and rhinos. Both the
fauna and indigenous people suffered as a consequence
of a mistaken approach with regard to biodiversity
conservation.

The announcement made by the government last February
according to which many areas of forest reserves
spread all over the country --totalling 67,150
hectares-- will be left without legal protection
confirms that there is no clear policy for forest
biodiversity conservation in Kenya.

National environmental NGOs gathered in the Greenbelt
have expressed their intention to present a formal
objection to the proposed forest excisions, and the
Kenya Forests Working Group is organizing an
international campaign to oppose it. Severe droughts
have affected the Kenyan territory in the last two
years. Considering the connection existing between
deforestation and the fall in rainfall patterns, the
destruction of these forests would aggravate the
problem and at the same time be detrimental
to the flora and fauna they are home to.

Megaprojects constitute another pending menace on the
country's biodiversity. For example the dam project on
the Sondu Miriu River, one of the major rivers in the
Lake Victoria Basin, is threatening local
biodiversity. Even though the power station is
scheduled to be operational in 2003, the diversion of
the river will cause the disruption of the whole
hydrological basin, with negative consequences on
wildlife. Rare species, like the Colobus monkeys and
hippopotamus, which depend on the river for their
survival will be forced to seek a source of water at
the lower populous Nyakwere plains disturbing their
habitat. The government is backing the project and the
Japan Bank for International Cooperation, together
with a Norvegian and a South African company are
giving financial and technical support to it. The NGO
coalition Africa Waters Network has denounced this
danger, and at the same time local villagers are
resisting the project, which would mean the forced
abandonment of their agricultural lands.

Last but not least, mangroves situated in the coast
near Mombasa on the Indian Ocean are in danger because
of a titanium mining project by a Canadian firm.
Kenyan organizations gathered in the Coast Mining
Rights Forum have recently launched an international
letter campaign, targetting the government and
financial partners --the World Bank included--
denouncing the expected effects of mine exploitation
in the area and demanding its suspension until a
serious environmental impact assessment is performed.

In sum: the answer to the question we have posed
regarding biodiversity conservation in Kenya is clear.
On one side there are local communities and
environmental NGOs trying to protect the country's
biodiversity. On the opposite site there are the
authorities, transnational companies, international
banks and "developers", whose actions result in its
destruction.

Article based on information from:
http://www.globalresponse.org/gra_index/2000.html ;
Lynette Obare, Forest Action Network, 6/3/2001,
e-mail: [email protected] ; Nabil El-Khodari,
27/2/2001, e-mail: [email protected] ; Paula Palmer,
23/2/2001, e-mail: [email protected] ;
WildNet, 17/2/2001, e-mail: [email protected]

Source: World Rainforest Movement, [wrmfriends] WRM
Bulletin # 44, March 19, 2001 [email protected]