That forests are integral to any country’s (Kenya included) economy and biodiversity is a fact that cannot be gainsaid.90% of households’ energy and 75% of the total energy used in Kenya is solely based on wood. Away from energy, forests are also the main sources for timber and pulpwood among other needs.

On top of these are the unseen roles played by forests. Forests act as important groundwater distillation areas, ensure species regeneration, boost biodiversity conservation, protect soil and water supplies and bolster carbon sequestration. A recent survey reveals that only 3.4% of the entire country is covered by forests. This is a far cry away from the world standards of 10% forestry coverage per country.

It is this realization of the importance of forestry for our country’s multiple needs that justify the protection and sustainable use of our forests resources. Way back in 1957 the Colonial government recognized the values of forests and came up with a Forests Policy. Eleven years later in 1968 the new KANU government updated this policy.
Despite the peculiar nature of a changing world, it was not until 1991 that the KANU government saw the need to revise the country’s forest policy to make it responsive to the needs of a rapidly expanding populace. The failures and blunders of the KANU regime are legion, particularly in the forests arena.

Owing to a number of reasons notably an ever increasing population; a non-existent land use regime; rationalization of the forestry industry; importance of woody vegetation in the arid and semi arid lands; multipurpose use of forestry products; social and farm forestry; commercial and environmental concerns on forestry and the significance of several international treaties and conventions (Convention on Biological Diversity; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources) it became necessary for a new program to govern the country’s forests.

In 1991 the Kenya Forestry Master Plan (KFMP) kicked off in earnest. It was a joint collaborative effort between the Finnish government and the Kenya government through the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR). The main aim of KFMP was simple. Just as the name suggests it was to come up with a Master Plan for Kenya forestry. Following up on this, was the strengthening of the Forestry Department (FD).

The KFMP was completed in 1994. Its time frame was candidly stated 1995 –2025. Envisaged in the KFMP are outlines and several scenarios and projections on the management and development of the country’s forestry sector for the next twenty-five years (1995-2025).
For starters the KFMP was a noble initiative. It is a paper that is in the same leagues as the much publicized Sessional Paper No 10 of 1965. It is comprehensive, elaborate and all-encompassing document. Nothing is left to chance and the real beneficiary is the common mwanachi. Reading through the contents of the KFMP is an insight on the vast wealth that this country has never fully exploited for her development.
To this day this document is still hidden from the public. Today, we reveal to you the highlights of the KFMP.

Critical concerns such as indigenous forests; dry land forestry; farm forestry and forestry plantations together with institutional development programmes were all covered in the KFMP.
1.24 million hectares (2.5% of the total land area) is covered by indigenous closed canopy forests. During this century alone some 220,000hactares of indigenous forests has been lost. The main reasons attributed to these losses are politically sanctioned excisions to pave way for tourism, agriculture and settlements. To this end the KFMP proposes strict legal conditions to govern excisions and discourage destructive exploitation and encroachment.

On dry land forestry, the KFMP points out that 88% of Kenya’s total land area is Arid and semi arid lands (ASALs). Though Kenya’s dry lands are sparsely populated, they play a pivotal role to the country’s economy, in terms of tourism, livestock management and supply of fuel wood.
The major problems associated with dry lands include: the displacement of pastoral communities; land conversion to pave way for permanent crop cultivation; sedentarization; land use conflicts; privatization of lands; hydrological changes outside dry land areas and poor land use practices.
Solutions to the niggling problems affecting sustainable dry lands management, the KFMP proposes: institutional strengthening; clear recognition of the beneficiaries from dry land development; improved policy and legislation; decentralized but planned management of dry land forestry resources in which local communities must have a central role and which recognizes and supports traditional knowledge and existing sustainable utilization efforts.

Coming to farm forestry the KFMP found out promising and dynamic results. To promote the situation, it proposes strong legal and policy reforms; direct support to farm forestry extension and training; monitoring of all farm forestry activities; improved marketing of farm forestry products; and active tree planting.

The KFMP hasn’t spared the shamba system either. Opponents of the shamba system can rest easy as the KFMP tactfully exposes the bottlenecks and the serious hang-ups that the shamba system poses to the country’s future forestry plans. The shamba system which is a form of slavery (feudalism) as the shamba farmers are paid a pittance in barter terms is denigrated. Instead the KFMP proposes self-sufficiency in favour of protectionism for protectionism sake. The KFMP notes that under a new forest policy regime the country will be in a vantage position to improve raw forests products utilization, improve processing technology and make export of forest products on the national agenda.

In terms of institutional development programmes, the KFMP illuminates the need for the transformation of the Forestry Department to make it community and public friendly and give it legal backing. On this score the proposal to create the Kenya Forestry Service (KFS) just like it was done with the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) – which took over from the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WCMD) - is advanced. The strengthening of the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), the Kenya Forestry College (KFC) in Londiani and other areas that could help in capacity building are all covered in the KFMP.

On completion of this beautiful document, implementation began in 1994. Three years later, the Finnish government pulled out from financing the implementation of the KFMP. The reasons are obvious, and they are all contained in the Ndung’u Report.

Away from the Ndung’u Report, the rejection of the Forests Bill 2004 was yet another blow to the country’s forestry. Contained in the Forests Bill 2004 was the transformation of the Forestry Department (FD) into a semi autonomous state parastatal among other measures that would have seen communities directly benefiting from forests.

It is regrettable to note that secret political pacts have seen to it, that the KFMP is yet to be relaunched (so as to make it accessible to the wider public) and the Forests Bill 2004 hasn’t been passed. Recently the Finnish government together with other partners have shown great interest in assisting to revamp the country’s forestry sector.

The question is will our politicians grow up? If they will, the relaunching of the KFMP and the passing of the Forests Bill 2004 must be a top priority, when the bill is reintroduced in Parliament.