Mau forest must be saved

29 July 2009, Business Daily
URL: http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion%20&%20Analysis/-/539548/631606/-/view/printVersion/-/fm8vh7/-/index.html

Nairobi:  The ongoing Mau Forest Complex environmental debate offers a simple lesson to Kenya; pay your water bills! It is estimated that the originally 988,000 acre forest complex acts as a “water tower” that supplies both the Lake Victoria region and lakes in parts of Rift Valley. Other than seeking to politicize this issue; if our leaders are interested in a long lasting solution, they must devise a strategy to pay Kenyans to conserve forests and other strategic environmental assets.

Kenyans pay their bills for the conservation of Mau Forest indirectly through electricity rates; town council water rates; tourism rates for flamingoes and wildebeest migration; good health (due to clean air) and cooler climate (because trees act as carbon sinks) among other benefits.

My take is that, the Kenyan citizens who are presently vilified for destroying the forest are victims of “it belongs to all of us economics.” Such an economic system fails to pay for what it consumes.   If policy makers genuinely recognized the importance of this so called water tower and opted to pay people staying in and around this complex; there will be no need of environmental activism.

Early this year, I participated in a European Landowners’ Organisation workshop and I was amazed at how they measure almost everything and calculate payment for “public goods.”  From a simple premise “Who pays the entry fee for enjoying the environment?” …arguments have been advanced to the effect that those who protect forests such as those in Brazil ought to be paid.

The carbon credits or payments for carbon offset stems from this idea. In part, that is why Africa’s clamour to push Europeans to lower agricultural subsidies to farmers always hit the wall; the mzungu is ahead and will simply use “crops clean environment argument” to keep his subsidy in place.  Instead of blaming the victims in the Mau saga; we ought to advance arguments such as; how much should we pay those who occupy this strategic complex so as not to engage in certain economic activities that jeopardize our livelihood.

For instance; the Ogieks who are pre-occupied with hunting and gathering ought not to be seen as primitive, rather, a monthly pay cheque ought to come from us to them for keeping a strategic complex in place.   If the Kenya government (that is Kenyan citizens) commits to pay people who protect environmental assets; the percentage of the country’s forest cover will increase in no time.

The Mau saga reveals the dangers of “Mali ya Umma” (loosely translated to “it belongs to all of us or the public”) because that is what has been creating tyranny in Kenya.  The very politicians we expect to offer a solution are the same characters hiving off huge pieces of land for themselves and even leasing out some to foreigners.   In both cases, the common mwananchi is treated as though he/she cannot add any value to the society. What belongs to all of us belongs to no one and so falls into disrepair – Mau is a typical example.

Kenyan opinion leaders and experts ought to use this Mau saga to develop measurements on the value the ecosystem adds to the economy. Such measurements can be used to develop compensation rates for individuals/communities that offer public goods such as protecting forests, wildlife conservation, and flowers for bees among others.

Experts from US, Netherlands and Argentina estimated in 1997 that the ecosystem offers USD 33 trillion worth of service to global GNP. To conserve Mau and other strategic ecosystems, we must learn to pay our bills.

*  Article by James Shikwati