There are three forests that the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, now headed by Mr Davis Chirchir, has targeted for excision to pave way for construction of two roads and a border town. The most controversial one remains the proposal to hive off 51.64 acres that will ostensibly be converted for the expansion of Kiambu Road.
Already, the Green Belt Movement, founded by Prof Wangari Maathai, has gone to court to challenge the proposal, which is not surprising given that the announcement came amid the so-called harvesting of mature trees at the forest.
The move has generated heated debate in large part because the public was neither informed nor involved before the harvesting commenced. So, it is not surprising that the plan to “set aside” the 51 acres for road expansion has been greeted with resistance.
Matters have not been made easier by the proposal to build a recreational centre and ablution block on the land to be hived off. This has created speculation that the move will benefit a few well-placed individuals who are set to benefit at public expense.
Besides being public land, Karura is also popular with health and fitness enthusiasts, whose numbers have been growing in leaps and bounds over the years. It is also considered as “the lung of Nairobi”, being the only forested space, and carbon sink, in the capital.
Cutting down age-old trees so that someone can build an entertainment centre is not going to sit well with Nairobi residents especially given that the Nairobi City County government has decided that it is not in a hurry to re-open Uhuru Park, which has been closed to the public for close to four years now.
The argument by Mr Aden Duale, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change, and Forestry, that there is a Kenya Gazette notice of 1951 demarcating land within the forest for the expansion of the road has been lost in the resultant protest that led the Land and Environment Court to temporary suspend any works in the disputed portion of the forest.
The other controversy revolves around a section of the Mau Mau Road, which is intended to pass through the Aberdare Forest and which, again, has been stopped by the court. The road, also known as the Ihithe-Aberdare Forest-Kahuruko-Ndunyu Njeru Road, was to cost Sh4.4 billion but works have been suspended over the controversy between what is greater; building a road or conserving the environment?
A similar controversy has greeted plans for the excision another 50 acres of Suam Forest in Trans Nzoia County, where the government intends to build a one-stop border town complete with social amenities, such as staff houses.
The question that the three projects raise are fundamental since the government and the public appear to be reading from different scripts. The government wants to develop infrastructure, which is intended to benefit citizens, but the people appear to prefer the preservation of the environment over development. How is such a conundrum to be resolved?
A similar dilemma presented itself when President Uhuru Kenyatta unveiled plans to build the Nairobi-Mombasa SGR railway line in 2017. Environmental activists went to court, where they argued that the project ought to be stopped because it would interfere with a wildlife corridor since part of the line was passing through the Nairobi National Park, the only such facility within a city globally.
Although the line was to pass through parts of the Tsavo National Park, this was not much of a contention compared to the section that was to pass through the Nairobi National Park. In the end, the challenge was resolved when the government backed down and reduced the size of land it intended to hive off from the park. This compromise allowed the project to go on.
That there is need to expand Kiambu Road, complete the Mau Mau Road and build the Suam border post cannot be challenged. What is of concern is why the government appears to be targeting forest land at a time when the country has been galvanised to aim at ensuring that at least ten per cent of Kenya’s land mass is under forest cover. These projects, which will necessitate the destruction of pristine ecosystems, appear to fly in the face of public interest.
In my view, there is need for the government to critically relook its communication strategy with a view to getting the buy-in of the public. It is also important that these projects are not seen as being shoved down the throats of citizens.
Rather, the public ought to be made aware of the cost and benefit implications and be enticed to become part of the solution. This will create win-win outcomes for all involved, including the unique flora and fauna in these contested ecosystems.
Email your news TIPS to Editor@nairobilawmonthly.com, and to advertise with us, call +254715061658 anytime of the day
