Saving Kenya’s Forests

Category: Conservation | Date: Nov 14 2007 | By: admin

The announcement by David Mwiraria, Kenya’s Minister for Environment and Natural Resources, that the Shamba system is set to be re-introduced has re-ignited a long simmering controversy on whether the system is good or bad. The Shamba system, a method used to establish timber plantations through a form of agro-forestry in government managed forests, was banned in all forests in 2003 but is being practiced on a pilot basis in Bahati and Dundori forests in Nakuru. The pilots were meant to establish the viability of the system while tighter rules and regulations were being developed. This was one of many bans - it was banned in 1986, and reinstated in 1994.

On one hand of the debate are those who rightly contend that the system is responsible for serious loss of indigenous forest while failing to fulfill its purpose - that of raising plantations for timber. On the other hand are those who say that the failure was not of the system, but the people who were practicing it and those meant to keep it regulated.

The Shamba System was first introduced by the colonial administration to provide raw materials for the expanding timber industry and to reduce pressure on neighboring natural forests. Under the system, farmers grow both trees and food crops on small plots. They tend the trees and harvest crops until the trees become established. In theory everyone benefits, the Kenya Forests Service (formerly Forest Department) establishes plantations at minimal costs and farmers harvest food from the same land for a number of years.

The Shamba system is allowed under the Forests Act 2005 and is recognized as one way of raising plantations. The proponents of the system support the “use it or lose it” way of doing things where forests are concerned. They say that forests were lost because they were cut off from the people. One way of ensuring that people benefit from forests is to allow systems such as this, which benefit both the government and farmers.

On the other hand, evidence that the system took a heavy toll on forests cannot be ignored. As a result of corruption and mismanagement, the system did not establish plantations with many areas having planting backlogs. It instead contributed to the destruction of neighboring natural forests.

The Kenya Forest Service is preparing new regulations for the system. Whether this will help in ensuring that the system is only used to establish plantations away from natural forests will have to be seen. The controversy will certainly not go away.

Is the Shamba system good or bad? This seems like a case where a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ will not do.