ACCID RSS newsfeed

Copenhagen: Reality check for Kenya

24 December 2009, Business Daily Africa
URL: http://allafrica.com/stories/200912221175.html

Nairobi:  One major achievement of the Copenhagen debate for Kenya is that public awareness on global warming, especially through the media, has been excellent.  A subject that was hitherto "all Greek" even to a number of our ministers appears to have been well understood in the last few months.

We have also learned from Copenhagen that commitment to alleviate global warming is essentially based on vested economic interests of various countries who do not wish to sacrifice their growths at the altar of climate change.

After all the noise and activism at Copenhagen, we need to move back to the Kenyan reality and localise global warming solutions to reflect Kenya's economic and social needs.  Climate change is global but impacts and solutions are essentially local.  We need to focus on turning global warming challenges into opportunities for Kenya.  We should also action corrective activities that are economically sensible, easy to achieve and which make huge differences to the country's economic and social survival.

Of course, Kenya will seek to benefit from the global warming dollars to be made available for developing countries' fight against climate change.  However, this should not be the main point of focus for we can achieve a lot on our own.

Climate change impacts response should be based on three cardinal realities.  Firstly, that rain patterns have changed and that food security is a key national threat.  Secondly, that energy security and cost will have a major negative impact due to permanently reduced hydro energy.  Thirdly, that whatever little rains we get can be conserved by massive reforestation programmes.

We apparently have no choice but to act on the three survival thrusts with or without Copenhagen as it is a matter of national survival.  If we demonstrate commitment to addressing the three issues we will open doors to floods of global dollars to supplement our efforts.  Solutions are inter-ministerial and that is why we may need to set up a "climate change impacts" coordinating unit, preferably in the prime minister's office.

Ministries directly relevant are Energy, Agriculture, Environment, Forestry and Water.  We may even need to re-look at Vision 2030 to ensure that policies, strategies and budgets are consistent with emerging climate change challenges.

On agriculture, the last three years of drought have confirmed that irrigation is no longer a choice but a must for food security.  Revitalisation of existing irrigation infrastructure (Bura, Hola, Perkera, Yatta, Mwea, and Ahero) and creation of new irrigation projects is a top priority.  Small scale farmers will need assistance to initiate irrigation projects.  The Water ministry will need to devise strategies to effect water sharing and to minimise conflicts.

Finally, we should focus on value added agriculture with lessons borrowed from the green revolution of India of the 1970s where modern agriculture methods and credit made the country self sufficient in food production.  We also need to address the drought situation that devastates pastoralists communities.  The communities will have to be assisted to face the realities of climate change and accept to change lifestyle and become less dependent on large herds of livestock.

This is a massive and difficult effort that requires to be addressed urgently.

A lot has been said and written in the area of energy.  The driving principle should be to address energy security, efficiency and cost.  The thrust has been to reduce dependence on unreliable hydro and imported expensive non-green fossil fuels through alternative energy, preferably green.  However, we need to acknowledge the long lead time for various energy projects.

There is need also to continue funding energy efficient programmes and technologies so as to reduce waste.

We also need to acknowledge recent efforts by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) to introduce a regulatory framework to facilitate the introduction of biofuels, both ethanol and bio-diesels.  Following the publishing of gasohol regulations, we have seen Mumias Sugar Company announced investment plans for alcohol production.  This is a good case of putting in place a legal and regulatory framework to not only grow the economy, but also encourage conversion to greener fuels.

Already, focus has been put on afforestation and reforestation.  This is crucial in the light of reduced rainfall.  The effort will certainly receive massive dollars from the REDD programme announced in Copenhagen.  The Kenya Forest Services should expand its mandate to address commercial forests for the paper industry and rural energy needs.  If we are to revive the paper industry, an impact assessment will have to be done in the light of changing climatic scenarios.

We also need to accept that the bulk of Kenyans will continue to cut forests for firewood and charcoal for their domestic energy requirements.  This reality should be properly managed.  Charcoal burning, which is criminalised, should be formalised and commercialised into an organised and regulated business.

Yes, Kenya has an obligation to play its international role to reduce climate change.  However, we have more immediate priorities to combat climate change impacts already in our hands.

We can safely assume that climate change funding will be forthcoming.  To prepare for the funding, we need to start addressing our perennial problems of accountability and governance, as international project and budget funding will only flow into Kenya if we address these problems.  To address these realities, we will have to introduce new regulatory frameworks to take into account new activities.  This is why we need to focus less on politics and more on running the government machinery.

*  George Wachira works with Petroleum Focus Consultants