Early in September while addressing a public gathering in Dundori in Subukia constituency, Musyoka, lifted the one-year-old ban on the infamous shamba system. Kalonzo’s action impressed local MPs Koigi wa Wamwere and former District Forestry Officer Musa Sirma (now MP for Eldama Ravine). While The two politicians celebrated, the move angered Kalonzo’s assistant, world famous environmentalist, Professor Wangari Maathai, who to this day has persistently opposed the reintroduction of the shamba system.

A day after issuing this order, Musyoka restated his stance: “We must encourage farmers to own forests. That is the only way afforestation programmes will succeed. Keeping them away from forests is not the best way of conserving the resource.” Musyoka said at Karura while receiving some Kshs 200 million from the US ambassador to Kenya William Bellamy for forests programmes in the country.

While it is healthy to debate on the merits and demerits of the shamba system, it is saddening to note that Minister Musyoka has been playing politics with his docket instead of giving direction and elucidating clear government policy on the matter. While we do not begrudge him his political ambitions, it is obvious that the minister is doing his portfolio a great disservice.
The current debate on the shamba system is actually a side-show. The real issues affecting the country’s forestry sector is the Johnny-come lately approach to issues by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR). Indeed the problem is with the ministry not the communities living around forests.

A critical look at the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR) reveals a sleeping giant. MENR is fully empowered with all the necessary powers, but due to ignorance, misinformed opinions and lack of charisma from the sitting minister (both past and present) has floundered miserably. The continued misinformation by the press alluding to MENR as a backwater ministry, hasn’t helped matters, instead it has led to this ministry’s under-performance.

Twenty-two months since the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) took over, the reins of power, it has slated major changes for the country’s forestry sector. Key among these changes was to pass the all-encompassing Forestry Bill 2004; relaunch the Kenya Forestry Master Plan (KFMP); and reclaim grabbed forestry lands as espoused by the yet-to-be-released Ndung’u Report.
These three issues mark major milestones in Kenya’s forestry sector.

In June last year, the NARC administration translated its election manifesto into a fully fledged (White Paper) government working document. This was when it launched the highly ambitious and acclaimed Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment (ERS). On forestry and mining the ERS notes: “Forestry and mining are important not only because of the direct consumable products such as timber, but also because of the impact that their exploitation has on the environment and productivity of other sectors. In particular, agricultural productivity is significantly dependent on forests and a healthy environment. Although mining has not featured highly in the economic agenda, the combined output of various industrial materials is significant. The forestry and mining sector is faced with many constraints, which hamper its development. These constraints include inadequate policy, legal and institutional framework governing natural resources exploitation. There is inadequate community participation in management of the environment and natural resources. Besides, there is insufficient information on natural resources inventory. The forestry in particular has been seriously affected by weak governance, which has led to unprecedented destruction of forests with serious environmental consequences. This has been exacerbated by lack of cheaper alternative sources of energy. Inappropriate policies on alternative fuels like kerosene have resulted in deforestation.

“Inorder to overcome the constraints noted above and encourage new investments and competition in the sector, the government is already implementing measures aimed at accelerating the expansion of forest cover and repossession of forest land that had been irregularly allocated to private developers. The government also contemplates to: Develop a clear policy in order to eliminate corruption regarding harvesting of forest products and allocation of forestland for private development: Promote development of agro-forestry and encourage community participation in efficient management of forests. This will be complemented with continued re-afforestation including private sector participation to ensure the attainment of the minimum required forest coverage of 10% by the end of 2007.”

Having set in motion its agenda, the government is duty-bound to translate its proposals into action. Early this year, the ministry organized a high-powered parley at the Coast where a cross-section of ministers and more than one hundred and fifty MPs attended. The meeting’s main agenda was the country’s dwindling forestry cover. After the parley it was agreed that come June this year and the government would relaunch the Kenya Forestry Master Plan (KFMP) and also pass the Forestry Bill 2004.

Apart from the “Oxfam Lunches” at Whitesands Hotel the venue of the Forestry Talks, nothing ever took off from what the ministers and legislators had discussed.
It is with such an understanding that one must view the shamba system debate. Again it is important that one bears in mind the history of the shamba system. Lynette Obare and J.B Wangwe in their Paper “Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Kenya” reveal: “The shamba system is adopted from the taungya system of South America. It was devised by the Forest Department (FD) in 1943 to facilitate plantation establishment. This was prompted by the acute land shortage faced by communities after colonization, and a need to reduce plantation establishment costs by the forest department. It was also meant to provide food security to those who practiced it. Under the shamba system, the cultivators were incorporated into the FD through employment and were permitted to clear and cultivate cut over indigenous bush cover from a specified land area, usually between 0.4 – 0.8 ha per year. This is done with the agreement that tree seedlings are planted on this land, and subsequently tended through weeding, pruning and safeguarding against game damage. In return the FD provided the resident cultivators with employment, social amenities and land for the cultivation of annual crops such as maize, potatoes, beans, peas and pother vegetables. Cultivation proceeded until a time when tree seedlings were large enough to shade, and thus inhibit the growth of annual plant crops; usually a period of 3-5 years. The extent of the shamba system was restricted to the high potential areas, comprising about 3% of Kenya’s land area, and representing 12% of Kenya’s total agricultural land. These areas are endowed with fertile soils of volcanic origin and a high annual (1000mm) rainfall with a bimodal distribution.

“Clearly the Shamba system was an important arrangement which enhanced and sustained the food security of otherwise landless peasants. The system was discontinued in 1986 chiefly due to an expanded human population whose demand for forest land allocation exceeded the initial FD objective of plantation establishment. In addition, illegal activities (forest clearing, tree poaching, hunting) from the resident cultivators and their families jeopardized forest protection and management. Interestingly, resident cultivators in forest areas with high wildlife populations voluntarily gave up the practice due to crop destruction and livestock predation.
“After the shamba system was stopped, communities living around the forest moved in and settled in areas that were cleared. Forest degradation has escalated as they do not use indigenous forest management knowledge. In the 1990s the Forest Department introduced the Non-Resident Cultivation (NRC) for the establishment of plantation forests. Through the approval of the respective District Development Committees, cultivators were involved in plantation development under certain terms and conditions that were enforced be the respective Forester, District Forestry Officer and provincial Forestry Officer. The Non-Resident Cultivation is a modification of the shamba system that attempts to reduce the risk of cultivators claiming squatter rights on forest land. The system however, fails to take into account the need to protect crops from wild animals and thieves that invade the plots at night.”

Indeed this brings into perspective the raging debate. The shamba system had recorded a 70% failure. Indeed the arguments propounded by Uhuru, Wamwere, Sirma, Shitanda and now supported by former provincial administrator, Eliud Mahihu, for the rethinking of the shamba system need not arise. Why this should not happen is because a careful look at the soon to be reintroduced Forestry Bill 2004 reveals a more refined model of the shamba system. What the politicians need to know is that owing to the changing fortunes of time and the burgeoning population, the shamba system is unworkable in the present day Kenya. For sake of clarity we kindly request the politicians opposing the banning of the shamba system to take a critical look at the Forestry Bill 2004 which they rejected. While the politicians have spread the lie that the Forests Bill 2004 excludes communities from accessing forests just like the old Forestry Act, we choose to debunk the myth.

Part IV of the Forests Bill 2004 is titled “Community Participation” and contains four clauses. These clauses read: “46 (1)A member of a forest community may, together with other members or persons resident in the same area, register a community forest association under the Societies Act. (2) An association registered under subsection (1) may apply to the Director (of the Kenya Forestry Service) for permission to participate in the conservation and management of a state forest or local authority forest in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (3) The application referred to in subsection (2) shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain – (a) the list of the members of the association and their addresses; (b) the constitution of the association; (c) the association’s financial regulations; (d) the area of forest for which the association proposes to undertake conservation and management; (e) the association’s proposals concerning –the use of forest resources; methods of conservation of biodiversity; methods of monitoring and protecting wildlife and plant populations and enforcing such protection; and (f) such other information as the Director may require. (4) Where there is no management plan in respect of the area, or where the association proposes that there be a new management plan, the application shall be accompanied by a draft management plan. (5) The provisions of this Act regarding management plans shall apply in respect of the draft management plan submitted under subsection (4). (6) The Director shall cause to be kept an upto date record of all association participating in the conservation or management of forests.”

The Bill continues to explain:
47 (1) “An association approved by the Director under section 46 to participate in the management or conservation of a forest or part of a forest shall – (a) protect, conserve and manage such forest or part thereof pursuant to an approved management agreement entered into under this Act and the provisions of the management plan for the forest; (b) formulate and implement forest use programmes consistent with the traditional forest user rights of the community concerned in accordance with sustainable use criteria; (c) protect sacred groves and protected trees; (d) assist the service in enforcing the provisions of this Act and any rules and regulations made pursuant thereto, in particular in relation to illegal harvesting of forest produce; (e) with the approval of the Director given in consultation with the Board, enter into partnerships with other persons for the purposes of ensuring the efficient and sustainable conservation and management of forests and forest produce; (f) keep the Service informed of any developments, changes and occurrences within the forest which are critical for the conservation of biodiversity; (g) help in fire fighting; and (h) do any other act that is necessary for the efficient conservation and management of the forest. (2) The management agreement between the Director and the association may confer on the association all or any of the following forest user rights – (a) collection of medicinal herbs; (b) harvesting of honey; (c) harvesting of timber or fuel wood for an individual’s own domestic use; (d) grass harvesting and grazing; (e) collection of forest produce for community based industries; (f) eco-tourism and recreational activities; (g) scientific and education activities; (h) undertaking of agro forestry practices; (i) contracts to assist in carrying out specified silvicultural operations; (j) development of community based industries; and (k) other benefits which may from time to time be agreed upon between an association and the Service; provided that (I) none of the activities specified in this subsection shall be carried out so as to conflict with the conservation of biodiversity; and (ii) the director may, in consultation with the association, make rules regulating the performance thereof.”

Further to this the new bill gives the community powers to assign forest user rights to qualified agents on agreeable terms. Clause 48 (1) notes “An association may, with the approval of the Director, assign any or all its rights under a management agreement to a suitably qualified agent on mutually agreed terms. (2) The director shall not approve any assignment or lease which would derogate from the main objectives and purposes set out in the management agreement. (3) The management agreement shall be deemed to provide that an association shall be liable for all the activities, acts and omissions of the assignees of its rights under the agreement.”
It is these information which the public is starved off. Honorable Kalonzo Musyoka is a lawyer of international repute and as such is expected to distinguish between politics and real benefits. He should explain to these aggrieved communities that as far as forestry is concerned, the Forests Bill 2004 is a friend rather than a foe. Musyoka should traverse the width and breadth of the country using his legal expertise to educate the affected communities what they stand to gain should the Bill become law. Indeed it will be sad for him to become president and all the trees in the watershed and water catchment areas are gone.

Uhuru, Koigi, Shitanda, Sirma and Mahihu should read the Forestry Bill 2004 again. Their preoccupation with the shamba system is befuddling. Should the bill be passed by parliament it will ensure that communities own forests and are no longer treated as squatters nor offering ‘slave labour’ for pitiable subsistence farming in the name of shamba system.

Comment on the story