Content uploaded by Lubanga Makanji
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lubanga Makanji on Jan 19, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofForest Planning
21
Article
LoggingBanLawin Kenya:
and Policy
Convergence
and Impactsor
Divergence from the Forest
on Plantation Forestry
Lubanga Makanji*i
andHaruyuki Mochida'2
ABSTRACT
Iogging
bans as means of trying
to
control deforestation
and other wrong forestry
practices
has
been in
use
for
along time
in
many parts of the
world. It
is
evinced by
command and control regulation. Recent
cases of interest
are in Asia Pacific countries. Ihis mainly involved logging bans in natural forests.
In the
case of Kenya,
cutting in
natural forest$ was banned many years back.
wnat is
of interest
lately
is
the
near total
ban,
which includes
a cutting
meratorium on plantatiens.
Kenya's
case is
unique in
the
sense that
the
ban
is
a presidential
decree.
[Ihe
aim of this
paper is to explain the relationship between
the
ban and law
and pelicy,
and to
show that
imposition
of a logging
ban
witheut due censideratien of existing forest law and forest policy
does not enhance the well-being of the forest
plantation.
This research was conducted through an examination of the Ferests Act and Forest Policy and
interviews with forestry officers and saw millers. Other forms of secondary data were also examined. Results
indicated that there is lack of cenvergence to the ]aw and po]icy,
as the President does not derive his powers from
the forest law and policy There are associated impacts on plantation
forestry These are both positive
and negative.
Long term unintended eifects are negative and this
is
a lesson
that
we can learn
from this
form of command and
control in forestry when applied to plantatiens.
Stakeholders should learn that adverse political
solutions do not sit
well with good plantation
forest management.
Keywonts: Kenya,bogging ban,
Law and policy,
Impacts,Plantations
INTRODUCTION
To this day, many parts of Africa are still inhabited by
forest dwelling communities. These cemmunities have ruies
governing
the usage ef flora and fauna found in these foresbs.
Among the rules are certain prohibitions,
which are seasonal
bans.
Fol]owing
coionial rule, these traditionai
systems have
given
way to new forms ef regtilation as forests have been
brought under central gevernment management. Kenya is no
exception. After
Kenya attained independence
frem British
Colonial
rule, this
centinued but also challenges have arisen.
Faced with various problems associated with forests,
governments have reacted in
many ways.
'iDoctoral
Program in
University of Tsukuba,
City 305-8572
"Institute of Agriculture
of Tsukuba, li3nnodai
8572
Agrieulturul
Sciences,
Tennodai 1-1-1,
Tsukuba
and Forestry, University
1-1-l,
'1'sukuba
City
305-
Since the early 1970s, gevernments throughout the
industrialized
werld have
responded to
the
rise
of
environmental degradation
and industrial
pollution
with
a
myriad of environrnental pelicies.
The deminant government
response however has been the
application of
`direct'
or
`command and control' regulation designed
to
prehibit
or
restrict environmenta11y harmfu1 activities. (GuNNINGHAber
et al,
1998).
'lhis
statement is
largely
true based
on the
way in
which most states formulate
laws
to
govern natural resources.
For along time, there has been very little consultation with
other stakeholders. Altheugh ether aspects may be considered
such as extension, incentives, and education, it is largely a
government aifair.
'lhis
therefore creates a leeway for
command and centrol by the government or responsible
Forestry Department (FD).
Felling bans as a direct rneans of controlling forest
degradation
are used in
rnany ceuntries, beth
developed
and
less
developed.
Bans are a f6rm of command and contrel.
Recent
cases of interest
have
been
seen in
Asian
countries
where bans
have been imposed
en felling
of natural forests.
Countries with logging bans include New Zealand, Peoples
J hox"ann. 10:21-30ceOO4
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety of Forest Planning
22
Republic of China, Philippines, Sri Innka, Thailand and
Vietnarn.
IAO in
2001 has prepared reports on each of the
countries and we shall briefiy
leok
at the findings.
In
New Zea]and
befere
1987,
logging
was prohibited in
some 300,OOOha
of state owned natural forests,
including
80,OOOha that were previeusly
classified as production forests.
Pelicy changes initiated in 1987 resulted in 4.9 millien ha of
state owned natural forests
being
transferred to permanent
censervation status under separate administratien including ari
estimated 1 mMion ha of state owned natural forests
with
a
potential
for harvesting under sustainable forest management.
In the Peoples Republic of China, estimates show that
some 49.6 millien ha of natural forest are in need of greater
protection.
Responding
to
natural disasters,
China
establishecl
a priority
for natural forest conservatien and protection,
shitting timber production to forest plantations.
Refiecting
concern for
deterioration
ef the forest
environment, and
stimulated by the severe flooding in 1998, China imposed a
logging ban in state owned forests te include upper reaches ef
the Yangtze kiver and the middle and upper reaches of the
Yellow ruver. In addition, the Natural Forest Conservation
Program (NFCP)
stressed the need for afforestation and
greening
of wastelands, increasing forest cever, rehabilitating
forest stand qualities,
and expanding forest eco-functiens.
In the Philippines, logging bans have been selectively
imposed since the early 1970s on a case-by-case basis. General
bans were initiated in 1983 covering much of the Philippines,
with ac{ditional specifie bans in 1986 and 1989. More than 7e%
of the provlnces are now under logging bans er harvesting
meratoria. At present
(2001)
twe preposed
bills are under
consideration. The first $enate bill S.No 1067, '`An
Act to
protect the Fore$t by banning a]] Commercial logging
operations, Providing Mechanisms for its effective enforce
ment Emd Implementation and for Other Puq)oses" would
prohibit
all commercial logging operations in all types
of forest
for a period ef 20 to 30 years.
The seconcl,
"An
Act providing
for the Sustainable Management of Forest Resources and for
Other Purposes" (Senate
S.B l31 1) allows for logging in seme
residual forests and weuld constitute partial
ban (frugile
areas,
steep slopes pretected
areas) and provide
for sustainable
managcment.
In Sri Ianka, in 1989 a
"temporary
ban" on logging in
natural forests was imposed en highly degraded areas to allow
them to recover and to develop sustainable management plans,
primarily
in the wet zone in the south west ol' the Island.
'I)iis
was extended to a total
ban
in
1990 at which tin]e
another 31
areas coverlng 61,300ha were added to the protected
area
system. Overall, the ban affeets about 1 million ha of
preduction
forests. In 1995, a large proportien
of the iiatural
forests were given
pretected area status, and residual natural
ferests outside the protected
areas were set a side for
sustainable multiple-use inanagement,
Ttic
logging
ban
in
Thailand
was imposed on 17th
January
1989 in response to devastating floods in Nokorn Sritham-
Mdkanji and Mochida
marat Province
in
Southern
Thailand
the previous Novemben
Ingging contracts and concessions were canceled, and
applications for
new cencessions were clismissed. In 1991, the
Government reoriented its
forest policies
to emphasize
management of some 27.5% of the land areas as conservatien
atid protected areas.
In
the ca$e ef Vietnam,
in
June
1997,
the
Gevernment
imposed
the
logging
ban in
natural forests
en 4.8
ml]lion ha. It
prohiblted
harvesting in special use forests, and declared a 30-
year moratorium on legging in critical watershed protection
forests.
Lc}gging
in
the reinaining natural forests
is
restricted
te less
critical natural forests
in
19 provinces. IIIie
number of
enterl)rises permitted to ]og wELs reduced frem 241 in 1996 to
105
by 2000,
The goals
for timber harvesting bans in Asia Pachic are
seldom well articulated. Most bans are the response of pelicy
"failures". The undeslrabie outcomes from conventional forest
practices
and utilization is presented
in arguing for swift and
decisive actions te correct past
problems and abuses (FAO,
2001). This argument by EAO carries weight viewed from the
point
that the bans have been imposed after cases of
unsustainable usage were noted. However, in cases like China
where there were natural disasters prornpting
action, its net
easy te completely state that this was policy
failure. Leoking at
the eases mentioned above, one could not fail to notice that
they all relate te some form of disaster that may be natural,
Another thing that emerges is that all are to a large extent
within some legal framework and plans
exist on how to
proceed
with tlie ban.
The u$e and management of forests is certain]y
influenced by the actions of the government.
The latter in its
quest
te enhance secial and economic well-bcing of the
citizens makes decisions which u]timate]y lead to a variety ef
programs including the impositien ef regulating actions
deerned necessary to force private
actions on behaif of
forestry; IIJFRO (1984).
It is correct to assume that this
should be the case under representative government.
I'Iewever,
under undemocratic states, certain actjon can be
undertaken to settle economic scores. For example if there are
not set criteria for which companies should centlnue logging
and which ones should not, then personal
econemic gain
rather than natienal interests may prevail.
Special characteris-
tics of each ban necessitate the need for separate studies on
each.
This research was conducted through an examination of
the Forests Act aiid Forest Policy and interviews with forestry
officers and saw millers. Other forins of secondary data were
also examined. Special emphasis in data collection was given
te three districts, Nyeri, Nakuru, and Kakamega, which joint]y
produce more that 80%
of Kenya's soft woocl.
Kenya is situated en the equator in East Africa, between
Lake Victoria and the
Indian
Ocean,
and has a tota1
land
area
of 220,OOO square miles. The country rises gradually frem the
sea te about 6,OOOft, 300
miles lnlancl where the
Great
Itift
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofForest Planning
Legging Ban in Kempa;Convergence or Divergence frem
the Fbrest Law and Iloliqy and IinPaets on Aantation Fbrestry 23
Valley divides it from North to South. Broadly speaking, the
ceuntryhas mountain forests
(5,50Qft
and above) ,
Semi-tropical
Rain Forests of the highlands (4,OOO-6,OOOft
approximately)
Iowland fore$ts (below
4,OOOft approximately) and Edaphic
forests (Mangroves)
(L()Gm
and DysoN 1962).
Kenya's gazetted forest area is about 1,600,OOOha, Of the
gazetted
area, about 165,OOO ha is plantation
forest covered
mainly by Cyprcss, 45%, and Pines, 31%. The plantation
area
currently under forest is estimated at 120,OOOha as areas that
have been cleared have not ptantecl
and some areas have been
under consideration for excision. Estimates published
in 1994
by the Kenya Forestry Master Plan show that 54% of the area
in the establishment phase
is under stocked, 96% of the area in
themaintenance phase
has backlegs in silvicultural treatments,
while 21% of the tota1 plantatien
area is eccupied by over
mature stands. Concerning wood extraction on an annual
basis, the fo11owing figures emerge, Sawmilling industry:
545,OOOmS,
plywood
mills, 105,OOOmS, transmissien poles
75,OOOm3
and pulp and paper 345,OOemS. After the logging ban,
saw millers have
no access to governrnent forests hence the
consumption should be ni}. Whatever they extract is from the
farm$
and this
has
resulted in
a tota1
closure of at least
5e% of
the
mills as at the time of the survey. Currently the forest
estate is
estimated to cover enly 1.7% of the land area. This is
almost haif,
what it
was a deeacle
ago. Before the leggimg ban,
there have been almost annual excisions since the early 1980s.
This
is
a bigger
threat
to
forestry than anything else is.
Available
examples of excisions are as fo!lows: In 1999, an
approval was given for
exeision ef 34,800ha, eff East and
Seuthern
Mau forests.
'ihis
was later extended to 42,400ha. By
September
2000,
146
excisions taking
355,650ha
had been
made. In
2eOl,
the Mau forest again lost 50,OOOha. In 2002,a
tota1
ef 167,OOO
ha were proposed for excision but have been
subject of lidgation
by
human rights
and environmental
groups.
All
the
excisions have been made by the same
government that
breught
in
the
logging ban witb the fu11
knowledge of the president.
'Il]e first
stage ef Kenya's
logging ban began in on
October
12"i'
1999.
The governrnent (Forestry
DepartmenO
through a circular to all
forest
officers su$pended allocation$
of forest
plantations.
Ihis
was fo11owed by a legal notice No
171
of 17th
Nevember 1999
(Kenya
Gazette supplement No 65
pages
3,505-3,506 of November 26"" 1999) which suspended for
90 days,
harvesting
of forest
plantations
in all forest areas
including
quarrying
in
Olelua
ferest.
The ebjective was to
enable stocktaking of the plantation
status with a view to
establishing a mechanism for sustainable harvesting as well to
enhance the management of indigenous forests. From the
exercise, a deplorable
state of Kenya's forest was noted.
Inappropriate
forest
practices
were realized including backlogs
in
establishment, maintenance and treatments, ]ack of
silvicultural treatments, unplanned harvesting
leading to
revenue leakhges,
lack
of professionalism and high levels ef
corruption.
Based on the findings, the Forestry Departrnent (FD)
outlined procedures
and rules to be followed at all levels of
forest
management in an effort to revert to sustainable forest
management. Thus,
the
moratorium on harvesting was 1lhed
through Kenya gazette
supplement No 8 oi 11`) February
2000, in legal notice No 18 pages
28-29. However, after the FD
had
stuck to
the
law and put
in place
plans
for better forest
management, an indefinite Presidential ]ogging ban was
imposed
in
March 2000. The presidential
ban covered all
forests
and trees
in
the
Republic
of Kenya. Since the ban was
made through
a publtc
radio prenouncement,
we can only
assume that
the
objectives were the sarne as the earlier ban
that
had
just
been
lifted.
In addition, since the President is
senior to the
Minister of Environment or Chief
Censervator
of
Forests,
it
can only be assumed through what fo11owed that the
presidential
ban
was meant to
go a step beyond what the FD
had in
mind. It was meant to protect
and better manage both
public and private
resources. The ban
has been in operation
even during
the
period of the
survey 'Ihis
will form
the
basis
of our sLudy. In the case of the
Presidential
ban, there is no
prescribed way of doing
it.
According
to
Kenyan law, the
president is above the law. In the case of the ban therefore, a
presidential
announcement is made over the national radie.
"rhat
follews
next is
that
the
senier civil servants are supposed
to
interpret
what the
president has
said and issue circulars or
verbal directives
to
junior
officers on what should be done. In
so doing
they disregard
al1
ether normal procedures
oi
banning. IVhether this way of banning leads to better
plantation
forest
management is an issue, we seek to
investigate.
Kenya has very limited private
forests. Private
forest,
forests
on iarms,
and other forests outside the Forestry
Departments
jurisdiction
were all
affected by the logging ban.
This means that
even for
those
privately
owned trees on farms,
cutting was prohibited.
If a farmer wanted to cut a tree for his
or her
own use, permission was required from the local
District Forestry Officer (DFO).
The ebjective of the
study is te explain the relationship
(cenvergence
or divergence)
between
Kenyan forestry laws,
pelicy
and the
]ogging
ban
the
impact
on the plantation
forestry
estatc, and shew that
imposition of a ban in disregard
of the law
and policy
does not Jead
to better forest
management. In
forestry,
a well planned law
and policy should
be the guide in
all
matters of forest
management.
'Il]e
imposition
of a logging
ban,
if
need arises $hould be well
thought eut and planned. The intreduction of bans in
a
command and control fashion
will lead te operating in a legal
vacuum and this
will not augur wel} for
forest
management.
Furthermore,
if
the
law
and policy
are well planned, there will
not arise a situation where logging
bans in plantation
forests
become necessary. In
the
Asia
Pacfic
case, the
ban
was in
naturat forests. Kenya has had a ban on logging of natural
forests
since 1982,
Tlie
recent ban included
plantations
hence
the need to look at this special case.
J Fbx Aann. 10:21-30ceOO4)
NII-Electronic
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety of Forest
24
Planning
Mdkamp'i
and Mochida
iiWlCLIMATIC LIMtTAT]ONS OF POT
Fig. 1 Location of forest areas in Kenya
Source: Wass, Peter (Ed).
(1995)
IUCN
RESUIJI]S AND DISCUSSION
Forests Act, Forest
Policy
and Relation
to the
Presidential
Ban
Kenya has a forcsts acL referred to as the Forests Act
Chapter
385 of the
laws
of Kenya.
It
commenced on lst
March
1942. It is an Act of Parliament to provide for the
establishment, controL and regnlation of Central forests,
forests, aiid forest areas in
the
Nairobi
area and on un-
alienated Government land.
The Forests
Act,
being
ene of a
number of Acts in the ]aws of Kenya is
made and given
consent by parliament.
IIhis
means that
any future
amendments must also
have
parliamentary approval. In
case of
amendrnents, the minister in
charge of forests
prepares
a bill
and presents it
to
parliament.
After
debate,
the amendment
may or may not be dene.
'lhe
current act was last revised in
1992.
Kenya also has a natienal forest policy,
referred to as the
Kenya Ferest Policy lhe general aim of the policy
is
to
previde eontinuous guidance to
all
citizens, from elected
national leaders and administrators to
those
whose livelihoods
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofForest Planning
Lagging Ban in Kenya: Cbnvergence orDivergence]ivmthe Forest Law and iloliay and ImPacts on Aantation Foresti
y25
and future depend on sustainably managed forests and
forestlands.
There are seven poHcy
ubjectives listed
in the
policy These are: i). Inerease the forest and tree cover of the
ceuntry in
order te ensure an increasing supply of forest
products and services for meeting the basic needs of present
and future
generations,
fer enbancing the role of forestry in
soclo-economic developmenL iD. Conserve the remaining
natural habitats
and the wildllfe therein,
rehabilitate them and
conserve their
biodiversity iii), Contribute to sustainable
agriculture by conserving the soil and water resources by tree
planting and appropriate forest rnanagement. iv) Support the
government policy of alleviating poverty
and prometing
rural
development,
by income based on forest and tree resources,
by previding employment, and by promoting
equity and
participation
by local
communities, v). Fulfi11 the agreed
national obligatiens under international
environmental and
other forest
related conventions arid principles.
vi). Manage
the forest
resource assigned fer productive
use efficiently for
the maximum benefit,
taking
inte
account all direct and
indirect
economic and envirenmental impacts; also review
wa}rs in
which forests
and trees
are valued, in order to facilitate
management decisions.
vii)
Recognize
and maximize the
benefits
of a viable and efficient forest
industry
for the national
economy and development.
Formulatiun of the
Fo)'est
policy involves
seriior
civi]
servants concerned with forestry Drafts of the po!icy are
prepared, and then passed
to the Minister in charge of ferests.
'Ihe
Minister then decides
whether the
required changes are
necessary or net. Parliarnentary approval is required to eifect
the
policy.
Ihe forest policy has gone through several changes
culminating in the current one of 1994. Mie Forests Act
and
the
Forest po]icy
are the two vital documents that
should
supersede all other documents in matters of forestry
Forests
should be run based
on these two.
Bearing
the above in mind, we would like te introduce the
main findings
in this study We shall explain relevant aspects of
the
Forests Act,
followed
by and then later
tho$e
of the ferest
policy It would be prudent
to deal with only these aspects that
are pertinent to this study. At the end, we shall establish the
presence
or absence of a ]inkage to the Presidential
decree
banning
logging.
The Forests Act Cap 385 ef the Laws of Kenya
The Forest
Act
section 15 concerning rules is of relevance
here.
The relevant parts are a (parts
i,
ii,
iii,
iv
and vi), c and d.
Under the mentioned parts,
the fo11owing
are stated. Tlie
minister may make rules-
a) either of general application or in respect ef particular
Central
Forest, forest area or any un alienated
government land for all or any of the fellowing
purposes
i)
regtilating the sale of and the disposal of ferest
preduce and the felling, working and removal
b)c)
d)
thereof;
ii) Regulating the use and occupatien ef land in
a
Central
Forest
or forest
area, fer
the purposes of
residence cultivation, cornmercial or inclustrial
purpeses, or for camping or picnicking or for
grazing
cattle;
iii)
Regulating
and controlling the manner and
circumstances in which licenses may be granted
and the manner in which a person to whom a
license
is granted
shall exercise a right er privilege
conferred upon him by the ]icense and providing
for an appeal te the minister and any rule made
under this subparagraph may empower the
Director of Forestry'3 to require a licensee, as a
term or conditien of his license, to provide
assistance in
the
prevention and fighting of any fire
in
the
Central Forest or forest
area, and to take
such measures as the Director of Forestry may
require to
report, control and eradicate such
noxious insects or fungi as may, from time to time,
be speefied by the Directer of Forestry by notice
in
the gazette'`;
iv)
Centrolling
the entry of persons
inte a Central
Forest
or fore$L
area, and regulating the period
during
which persons may remain there and the
conditions under which they may do so;
v) C]osing
paths and roads in a Central Forest or
forest
area either to
persons and traffic or to both
vD CIoslng
a Central Forest or forest area
vii)
Controlling
and regu]ating the entry into and the
use of a Central
Ferest
or forest
area declared
to
be nature reserve
viiD Prescribing
fees and royalties
Deleted
LN 246
1964
I;or
the
protection and management ef indigenous
forests
on alienated Government land;
and
generally for
the better
carrying eut of provisions of
this
Act
Parts
i,
ii,
iii,
iv,
and vi of (a)
are the ones that point to
some forrn
of logging ban. c and d are also apposite for
purposes
of our study Clearly,
sectien 15 gives pewers to the
minister to
make rules. 'Ihese
rules may lead to stoppage ef
cutting of trees
in
governnlent forests,
S :Director of Forestry
is
currently called the Chief
ConservatorofForests
"'Gazette/ Official Kenya gevernment document
that
validates certain rneasures taken from time
to tirne to proclaim
ministerial or government
activities,
f thx Aann. 10:21-30ue004)
NII-Electronic
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety of Forest Planning
26 Mdkanjiand Mbchida
Thble
1Plantation allocations1998!99
1998 1999
Licensed operators {ha)
Unltcensed
operators (ha)
Pan African Paper
mills (PPM)
(ha)
Recommended annual planting
program (ha)
2,150.44,420.26,510.53,OOO.O1,719.95,130.36,710.53,oeo.o
Source:
Fie
Notc:ld
surveyl FD reports
In both years,
the unlicensed operators got rnore allocations
PPM is treated $eparately as it has a 25-year license
Up to 1985, the Forest Department (FD)
allocated
plantation
materials for harvesting strictly on the approved
fe11ing
plans whose preparation was professionally
done taking
into
consideration materials available, rotation age, appropriate
silvicultural treatinents, mi11
capacity, and allowable
annual cut.
This
system slewly started to disintegrate and by 1997,
allocations of materials to
non-licensees had increased
drastically
in total disregard ef the approved fe11ing and
rnanagement plans,
Table
1
shows forest
allucations for
1998
and 1999 cornpared to the annual planting
prograrn.
The allocations exceed annual planting
and this
is
unsustainable because without corresponding increase in
planting.
Hence, the resources will not be enough especially
over along period.In
the
sarne period,
tota1
annual revcnue
declined
frorn
Kenya shillings 240 million annually to about
135
million. Moreove4 outstanding forest debt by Nevember
1999
was Kenya shillings 92 millien and backlogs in planting of
40,OOOha
as at the end of 1999. This was indeed worrying and
shocked the
FD.
It is cenceivab]e that
under these conditiens, the
first
phase
ef the
logging ban was imposed in 1999. Clearly, the
airn
of the ban was to
correct the
mistakes that
had
been done.
It
was meant te have a pesitive
impact
on the
forest
as a whQle.
The signMcance of this
ban is
that
it
had taken into
account
necessary steps that may justify
its imposition. The law
was
fo11owed
to
the
latter
in imposing this logging ban.
[Ihe
logical
steps involved in imposing a loggSng ban by
the minister are hereby explained. The Minister
in
consultation with
senior civi1
servants woulrf initiate
aii
intention of closing the forests.
A notice oi the same would be
published in the Kenya gazette.
'Ihe
peried
{n which there
should be any objections is set a$ 28 days, If there is
no
objection after 28 days, the Minister will automatically impose
the logging ban. U there is epposition, then the
matter has to
go to court for arbitration. Although the entire above are
legical in imposing the ban, a qualitative
anialysis of the
Ferests Act reveals that on]y inferences are made. There is
no
explicit explanation concerning how and when a logging bari
should be impesed.
Almost immediately after IMing the FD ban,
the
Presidential
ban came into effect.
'Ihe
minister may not have
direeted the presidcnt to issue the directive, as the
chain of
command doe$ not allow for this. Although
not clearly
mentionecl as to what the meaning and signhicance of the
presidentlal
ban
are, inferences
can be made. Given
that
the
president went ahead to invelve three army officers in
management ot Kenya's ferest, it can only be
assumed that
the
meaning of the ban was to enhance better management of the
forestry resources, The ban is significant in
the
sense that
it
has stopped all fe11ing activities arid covered al1
forest
areas,
public
and private,
Kenya's Forest Policy
As earlier ment{oned, Kenya has had a forest
policy since
colonial times with the earliest recerded po]icy statements
around 1902.
'lhe
1957 forest pelicy
states that
the
object of
the Governments Forest Policy is therefore
to ]ay
down the
basic principles,
which shall guide the development
and
control of forestry in Kenya for the greatest
good of alL These
basic principles
are contained under 10 main heads.
(i)
Reservatien of land for
Forest
Purposes;
Reserve in perpetuity
the existing
forests
and, wherever
pessible
add to them so as te
provide sufficient land
in
order to
maintain and improvc climatic arid physical conditions ef the
countrM conserve ancl regulate water supplies, conserve the
soil, and to supply both timber and non-timber forest
products.
(ii)
Pretectien of the Forest
estate;
Protect the forest estate by
all
meanis at the government's
disposal for the purpeses
mentiened above.
(iii)
Management of the
Forest
Estate,
Manage this forest estate on the
principle
ef sustained
yield so as to obtain the best returns on its
capital value and on
the expenses of management.
(iv)
Relations with Timber uti1izatien industries
Foster the conception of a mutually interdependent
forest
industry and ensure clese coordination between
all
interests
concerned.
(v)
Finance
Provide adequate funds,
within the limits
of finance
available frem time to time,
for the realization of the policy
otijectives.
(vi)
Employment
Pay full regard to
the
pessibi]ities
of using the
Forest
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofForest Planning
Laggiflg Ban in Keaya: Convergence orDivergence ]ivmthe
Eorest
inw and Poticy
and bnPacts on Ptantation FZ)restry 27
Estate
for
the
provision of employment, food production
(threugh
shamba system) and te
administer the
forest
labor in
consultation with local authority
(vii)
Relations
with African bocal Authorities
Encourage
and assist African lk)cal autherities te carry
out afforestation works and maintain forests
in
Afi'ican
areas in
accerdance with
the
plan approved by the ministen
(viii)
Private
Forests
and ether Forest
not under state
ownership
Encourage
and assist in
the
management of existing
private
forests
and the
establishment of new ene$, not only for
productive but
alse proteetive
purposes.
(ix)
PublicAinenities
Foster
the value ef forests
as areas of natural beauty or
special interest,
develop
recreatien facilities and preserve
wild
life,
both fiora
and fauna,
in
so far
as is consistent with seund
forestmanagcment.
(x)
Reseai'ch and Education
Promote research and education in
al1
branches
of
forestry and forest products and to foster by educatien and
propaganda
a greater understanding among the people
ef
Kenya of the
value of forests
to
thern
and their
descendants.
The 1968
policy fe]lowed
the
one created in
1957. Ihis
policy
is
fer
the most part the
same as the predecessor.
The
only slight difference is that under each of the ten aspects,
details have been included pinpeinting exactly what the
government intends te do. This was independent Kenya's first
ferest policy
and appears to have been written not for better
management of forest resources but as a necessary change
from
celonial to African majority rule.
[[he
forest
policy was revised once mere in
1994. Miis
pelicy
borrows largely from the 1957 and 1968 policies.
There
were policy
statements added cencerning multipurpose
management of forests, social forestry, wood energy in urban
and rural areas and international
conventions to
which Kenya
is
or should be
a signatory Mo$t forestry activities after 1994
are based on this pelicy
In
1999,
it was felt necessary to review the forest pelicy
again. 1[his
policy takes into account other policies
related to
land use, environment, agriculture, energy, and industry
among others. However, the ten basic principles
are the same
as in
the
previous policies.
One policy
statement that has been
added that was net in the other policies
talks about the need to
increase
the forest and tree cover ef the country in order to
ensure an increasing
supply of ferest products
and services for
meeting the basic need$ of present and future generations and
for
enhancing the ro]e of forestry in socio-economic
developrnent.
'Ihe
forest policy right from the very first one in colonia]
era,
does not mentien Iogging ban.
'iherefore,
the logging ban
policy is deviating
from the policy
that has always been in use.
Three different perspectives
that show the need for a forest
policy are -
forest
pelicy
as a result of demand of the rnembers
of society, forest
policy as a result of the competition between
political
parties,
and forest pelicy
as a result of existing
forestry bureaucrats' production of demand for their services
(OLsEN
1978)
.
Hewever,
in
the case of Kenya,
the logging
ban
does not seem te fit in any of the three, Could there be a
fourth
aspect of policy?
Could
it be
that the logging ban was
meant to hurt
particular
groups and appease others? This
question may remain unanswered unless if the issuer of the
ban is
closely evaluated vis-h-vis the
forest.
policy ancl the
relationship torthe saw millers.
From the foregoing, it is not easy to imagine how the
Presidential
ban canie into
being.
First,
the
Forests Act does
not rnention the roie ot the
President
in
forestry
rlhe
policy
also dees not give him!her any powers over the forest. May be
these powers are vested in
him under the constitution but this
is
net clear and is
not the subject of this
discussion.
Bearing
this
in
mind, we realize that
the ban
is
not related te
the
Ferests
Act
and Forest
Policy
It
therefore diverges
rather than
cenverges to the two.
Logging bans are not normally the end objective of
policies,
but rather represent one of many choiccs to achieve
something else (EAO,
2001), 'Ihis
being the case, would it be
prudent
to argue that the logging ban had other values or
agendas that were hidden.
Conservatien
and pretection pelicy goa!s must be more
explicit and translated inte rneasurable realistic and
operational terms. Without effective monitoring and assess-
ment, it is difficult or impossible to know whether
conservation and protection
goals of logging bans are being
accomplished or not. (FAO,
2001). We concur with these
ebservat.lons. As noted in the Kenyan case, lack oi specificity
could cause unteld negative impacts on the forestry estate. In
addnion, eur research found
out that
the
Kenya gevernment
had not instituted
any research to
find
out the
impacts of the
logging ban. With this in mSnd, we would like te cap the
examinatien of the Kenyan legging
ban with an examination
of the lmpacts on the plantation
estate. 1[his wi11 show us what
happens where the law and policy is set a side and decrees
IMPACTS OF THE LOGGING BAN
ON THE FOREST PLANTATION ESTATE
Logging bans have both negative and positive
impacts on
the forest estate. The extent of the impacts may depend en
hew well the ban is planned
and implemented. In the Kenyan
case, the Presldential logging ban was very abrupt. It appears
that
there was no planning
involved and mechanisms bave not
been
set in place
for proper
implemelltation of the ban te
achieve net positive
impacts.
'lhe
identified impacts are
confusion in forestry managemenL centinued depletion of
forest
reseurces, less ofjobs in saw mi11s, establishment, forest
fires and pests
are now prevalent,
theft of forest products,
undermining of silvicultural
operations, reduction in p]anting
back
log,
un-harvested mature plantations,
pruning
back logs
and thinning
back logs. We shall now turn te each of the above
J Fbn Aann. 10:21-30(2000
NII-Electronic
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety of Forest Planning
28 Makanji and Mbch
ida
and shed more ]ight to
it.
Confusion in Management ef Forest
Resources
Beiore the enset of the
legging
ban and way back in
1991,
the FD and Kenya Wildlife
Service
(KWS)
signed a
memorandum ot understanding covering Aberdare, Mt Kenya,
Namanga Hill, NgurumanlLoita, Ngong hills,
Mau Forest,
Mathews Range, Mount Nyire, Kakamega, Arabul{o
Sokoke
and Shimba hills. Ihe MeU was signed in
December 1991
with
a duration of 25 years.
The objective was for
biological
conservation and maintenance of ecological processes.
After
the entry of the ban this may not be the case hence the
reference te
the
confusion.
[[1iere has been confusion in the management ef forest
resources especially after the logging ban. 11iree bodies, the
Ferestry Department (FD),
the
Kenya Wi]dlife
Service
Q(IVS)
and the provincial
administration have had roles to
play.
As
earlier mentioned, there
are no preper guidelines in
the case a
presidential
ban. Each department theretore
tries
its
level
best
to adhere to the Presidential directive. This actually Ieads to
eonfusien in
management of forest
resources. [Ilie
role of each
body is not clearly defined
under such circumstances.
Examples of the
confusion caused include
the transfer
of
management of Mount Kenya forest tu the management of
Kenya Wildlife Service without corresponding increase
in
resources to KWS or formalizing the transfer as per
the
Ferests AcL This was net legally
done and hence had to be
reveked at a later stage. In additien, three retired army
generals were appointed by the president to help run forestry
activities in
Kenya.
One was stationed at the FD headquarters
in Nairobi while one was posted te
Nakuru (Western
Region)
and the other to Nyeri (Eastern
region). 'I/his
created a let
of
tension between professional
foresters in the Ferestry
Department and the
army elficers. The army efficers have no
training
background in forestry 'lheir
understanding of
technical silvicultural operations is
inadequate
and this
has
had implicatiens for
plantations.
It
1ias
been
argued that
they
are the ones behind the lack of thinning
in
the
fore$ts.
The
Director of Forestry and his
officers are help]ess
as the
officers derive
their
powers from the head of state. No one
wants to antagonize the
officers who report directly
to the
office oi the president.
Exploitation of Forest Resources
Although the
ban
was intended
to
stop legal
and illegal
extraction of trees,
this
is
not the
case. Interviews
showed that
cases of illegal
extraction are on the rise.
Penalties
have not
changed to refiect the governments' seriousness in combating
illegal extractions. As wood shortage bites,
the price
of sawn
timber has risen hence creating a rnajor incentive for illegal
extraction. Different areas reported different changes in the
price
oi timber. The lowest
recorded price change was an
increase of abeut one third. The highest was ten times. On
average, the price is 4 times higher than before the ban. Ihis
means that the
earnings if
one is
not apprehended have
quadrupled,
thus an even greater incentive for exploitatien.
Ix}oking at Kakamega forest as an example, the
cases of
arrest (offences
against forestry) are presented
in
Table
2.
Investigation revealed that there are explanations for
some of the years in which arrests have been low. In 1992,
which was an election year in
Kenya,
there were few
arrests.
During such times, there is general reluctance in arresting
offenders as politicians
iiifluence whatever happens around
forest areas. The same can be seen in
1997,
which was an
e]ectien
year.
It
can be safely assumed that at such times the
law and pellcy
are unefficiaNy sttspended. However, in
the
year
of the initial ban, 1999, the number of arrests
was highest.
In
the following year,
the numbers were sti11 high. This may give
an indicatlen that extraction continues despite the
ban.
Ihis
will definitely
have
a negative impact
on the
ferest
estate.
Tab]e
2Number of arrested offenders inKakamegaforesN992-2001
Year No of arrests
1992199319941995199619971998199920002001 124216322flOO276155135457335274
Source: Annual reports. Kakamega Forest.
Note,
significarit
in
Kenyan
forestry
1992 and 1997 were election years
and are
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety ofForest Planning
Laggi,rg
Banin Kkeaya:
Convergence
orDivetgencebem the Fbrest Law and lloliay and ImPacts on lllantation thresdy 29
Loss ef Jobs
The Kenya Ferestry
Master Plan
(KFMP)
indicates
that
"the
saw milling industry reperted!y employs l4,OOO people"
KFMP (1994).
However the stucly we conducted revealed that
before the logging ban, the employees were as follows:
Permanent: 25,875 Casual: 18,360 Tetaling 44,235 persons.
After the imposition of the ban, the numbers dropped as
follows:
Permaiient
1,395
Casual/
1,116,
giving a total
of 2,511
employees. This clearly $hews that there has been loss efjobs.
Our aim however is
te find
out how this
relates to
the
forest
estate. In many areas surrounding the forests, residents who
depended
on sawmills for jobs
found themselves without jobs
after the Presidential
ban.
However,
this
had another impact
on the
forest
estate that is worth noting. Thcre has been the
[Ibungya
or Shamba
system or recently called Nen Resident
Cultivators (NRC)
system in Kenya. When the local people lest
jobs,
most turned to the NRC system for survival. Tliey are
allocated areas to cultivate and raise seedlings for p]anting
in
the
forest. 'lhe
system is the same as the shamba system. The
positive
side of this
is that more seedlings are raised by greups
of former sawmill workers. These seedlings are then planted
in
the
plots
allocated by FD. According to Forestry officers in
Nakuru,
the
demand for
plots
far eutstrips the supply It is
therefore easier te
carry eut tree planting
{n the gazetted
forest.
If
survival is guaranteed through additional measures,
backlogs
in
planting will be a thing of the past.
Establishment,
Forest Fires and Pests
Saw millers haye
in
the
past contributed a great
deal to
reforestation activities. These they do by raising seedlings,
providing
transport and even paying
some of the workers
wages to carry out planting
activities. The reasens why millers
have
contributed to
afforestatien activities are variec]. One,
the
law
requires them to
previde help. Two, some millers do it for
the
sake of maintaining "good relatiens" with FD.
'lhis
rneans
that
even in
lean
times, they are assured of being allocated
seme area to
operate. Three,
some millers do activities out of
their
own convictien that
for
the
future ef their businesses,
trees will be required. It
could be called forward planning
on
the part
of the millers.
The presence of saw millers in the ferest has also played
a
major role in
that
their werkers act as guards
for Forestry
Department.
In
their
absence, ccrtain aspects of establishment
do not fiow
smoothly FD may be generating
enough revenue
but
treasury allocation
is not adequate for development
expenses, hence
saw millers have been of great
assistance as
far
as establishment and other iorestry activities are
concerned.
In
accordance with
the
Forest law, licensees may be called
upon to take part in
firefighting
and contrel ef pests.
This, they
have done in
the pa$t willingly or under coercion due te the
law.
Now, they
are not obliged to heSp in any of these activities.
As such, this
has
become a problem for
the
Forestry
Department. Ihis has an impact on the forest estate. Fire
prevention
and fighting and pest control have become the sole
respensibility of the FD and this has really $tretched their
meager resources.
'Iheft
of Forest
Products
Theft of forest products
cannot be easily quantified.
Howeveg
through interviews with forest rnanagers, we
established that
cases of theft
have increased.
I6 out of 29
forest
stations er 55% reported cases ot skyrocketed thefts.
Ihe main item
stelen is timber. FMeen out of twenty nine
reported spending a lot ef time in courts than on official
office!field work, This they attributed to the fact that since
other parties
are involved in management of the forests, cases
which they originally compounded at the office now ends up in
courts. Court presecutors
press
charges against offenders and
require that
FD officers appear as witnesses, The officers
indicated that
this
takes toe much of their
time at the expense
of other important forestry matters.
Nter the
ban,
prices ef forest products
have risen sharply
as earlier mentioned. This is accompanied by problems of lack
of products and general unemploytnent. Due to this, in all
areas surveyed, incidences
of theft have increased. Wtth
increased
cases of the theft, this is aifecting the forest estate.
Indiscrirninate
felling rneans that silvicultural activities loose
meaning. This
is
because
thieves do not reutinely select trees
to
cut but do cut where they think there are lesser chances of
being
apprehended. In addition, it was neted that their cutting
style would cause problems, as the stumps left behind may be
a habitat
for
pests
and diseases. IAtest complainant is PPM
whose allocation
is
poached leading to operation at about 30%
of the
miller's capacity. PPM is thus in a dilemma and may
point the finger ef blame at the Forestry DepartmenL
Silvicultural
Operations
As previously mentiened, this is a Presidential ban. It
does
not follow
any laid down precedures
ior a legging ban.
IIhis
has thrown the
FD in
to
cenfusien, as none of the
guvernment efficer$ is willing te contradict the President, even
if
there
was scientific evidence to shew that
the ban
is
wrong.
Among the
silvicultural issues of cencern are planting
backlogs,
un-harvested mature plantations,
pruning, and
thinning
backlegs.
11iese
are hereby discussed:
Planting
Backleg
Chagala
et al indicate that tlie backlogs have been as
fellows
1986:
4,203
ha, 1996: 16,OOOha, 1999: 46,OOOha and
2002:
21,OeOha.
This
clearly shows a steady upsurge in
backlogs.
However, after the ban, there have been reduced
baeklogs.
'Ihis
has
been mainly due to the increased
f Fbr,
Rann. JO:21-30zeO04)
NII-Electronic
Japan Society of Forest Planning
NII-Electronic Library Service
JapanSociety of Forest Planning
30
availability of labor
provided by Non Resident
Cultivators
(NI<C).
However, this is bound to cause problems for the
forest estate. There are ne management plans in operation that
incorperate the increased planting.
If the ban is not 1died, the
planted area wi11 sti11 face preb]ems, as the accompanying
forest
eperations cannot be dene.
'lhe
net effect will be lower
quality
plantations
that cunnot suffice for timber production.
Un-harvested
Mature Plantatiens
Over 1,OOOha of mature plantations
have net been cut.
Over mature trees left lying around means that FD is making
losses
on investment. In addition, the site occupied by these
plantations
is also out of production effcctively. This affects all
other subsequent operations and has negative irnplications for
forestry
development. It has also becn ar.crued that
old
plantations
may harbor pests ancl diseases. As the trees grew
older, some are prone to attack by pests
and diseases.
This has
implication for the rest of the piantations
in
Kenya.
It
will take
longer te achieve fu11 recovery.
PrunlngBacklogs
/[his has rlsen from 2,599ha in 1998 to 11,674ha by 2002.
As indicated earlier, there has been strong opposition to
any
silvicultural activities other than planting
coming from the non-
professional
officers appointed by the President and the
provincial
administration. As such even reutine activities such
as pruning have not been dene. This rneans that al]
ferestry
works are affected. Effectively, what this implies is that
future
forest products
from these un-prttned logs will net be
good for
timbe: lhe tirnber working cycles having been interfered with
means that it will take FD many years to recover from the
impacts of the logging ban.
This is
not good fer
the
forest
estate in
Kenya.
ThinningBacklog
[Mie first thinning backlog has increased frem 3,117
in
1998 to 3,514ha ln 2002. Nthough enly the
first
thinning
is
recorded here,
the second and third
are also affected. On
maturity, quality
logs cannot be produced
from such areas.
Ihis also has an impact oll
the
forest
estate. Delayecl
first
thinning implies that other activities wi11 also be postponed.
Even if these are done later, the pluntation
cycle is
corrupted.
Ihe whole purpese
oi raising trees
is
therefore
meaningless if
activities cannot be done as per
maliagement plans,
CONCLVSIONS
After careful examination of Kenya' s forest
act and policM
and the origin of the ban, we conclude that the ban diverges
from the law and policy.
This means that
the logging
ban does
not originate directiy frorn the
FD. Hence,
its
purpose is
not
Mdhanji and Mbchida
clearly stated. The lack of rule ef law is not good for
sustainable forest management. If
logging
bans should ever be
used, there is need to examine exi$ting laws and pelicies
before
the
ban
is
introduced.
Impacts of the ban clearly centradict sections ef the policy.
'lhe
impacts contradict preper management ef the forest
estate, relations with timber utilization industries, employment
creation, and interfere with running of private
forests. We can
therefore argue that in case of plantations,
logging bans are
not necessary unless lf the forests are being converted to
permanent conservat{on status. Legging bans should net
contradiet well-stated national ferestry objectives. This is a
lesson that
countries that
would like
to
go the Kenyan way ean
learn form this sttidy IDgging bans do not enhance proper
management of forest plantations.
If logging bans should ever
be used as management toels then rnore research is required
into when, how and what should e included. Otherwise, abrupt
policy
changes do not augur well for forest plantations.
REFERENCES
CHAc}AiA-ODERIL, E., IGArNJi, J.,
KAc;eMBE, K J.,
MBrrA,
G.,
GT'ix)Nc;,x,
J,
M. and i4kNDA(;o,
B., (2002):
Report on Professional Re$ponse to
the ban on
'I'imber
harvesting: Management, Socio-economie
impacts and implications. Kenya
Forestry
Research
Institute
and
Forest Departrnent, 36 pp
FAO, (2001):
Forest Out of Bounds: Impacts and effectiveness of
logging bans in Natural forests in Asia Pacific,
(Patrick
B.
I)urst,
Thumus R,
Waggener, Thomas Enters, and Tan Lay Ch ¢ng Eds)
Bangkok, T3iailand,
205pp
GuNNINcHArvT, N. and GRABosKy, R, {1998):
Smart
Regiilativn
Desigtiing Environmental Policy Clarendon Press
Oxfbrd,
:1S
IUI"RO,
(1984):
Policy Analysis for Forestry Development.
Proceedings
of the
international
Conlerence held
in
Thesaloniki
Greece on August 27-31 1984. Vbl, 1.,
520pp
bocrm,
J.PW.
und Wilson, W.G., (1962):
Forestry in Kenya-A
histerlcal Aecount of thc' Development of Forest Management in
the Colony. Government Printeg 32pp
}g!Ny,q
GovERNMENz (1992):
Laws of Kenya. The Forests Act Chapter
385, Gevernnient
printer,
Nairobi,
43pp
MINIsmy oF ENviRoNMENT AND NMuRAT. R)/soiJRcEs, (1994):
Kenya
Forest Policy, 16pp
MINIslRy oF ENvJHots'MENT AND Nfiruan kL'souRcEs, (1994):
Kenya
Forestry Master Plan Development programmes, Nairobi
xvi+,
420ppOLsEN,
J.
R, (Ed.),
(1978):
Political Organization. In Norweglan.
Universitetsforlaget. Oslo, 206pp
(Received
30 September 2003)
(Accepted
14 February 2004)