This is response to the opinion piece by Julius Li published in the Star on February 1. While I acknowledge the attempt by China Road and Bridge Corporation to engage with the public on environmental stewardship, this effort falls short of what I would expect as a Kenyan conservationist from a project of this magnitude.
First, the timing of this communication is suspect, coming when the first phase is almost complete, and the majority of Kenyans are only beginning to fathom the SGR’s impact on our environment. This includes the huge ridge on which the tracks are laid, quarrying in protected areas and offshore dredging of sand.
The mitigation measures Li refers to cannot be effective unless their implementation and placement are advised by experts in the field of conservation.
There is also the matter of our heritage and what is important to us as a nation. That is where public engagement and stakeholder consultations come to the fore. The sudden proposal to route the railway through the Nairobi National Park certainly does not point to a railway being “built the green way”.
Indeed, the article and other mitigation actions by the CRBC are much appreciated by the conservation fraternity, but do not point to environmental concerns being part of CRBC’s “genetic make-up” as Li put it. It looks more like a project implementer who is shocked at the alacrity of opposition to plans that seemed to be fait accompli, to quote the KWS board chairman.
Measures to limit environmental impact do not have merit in themselves, but in the context of their application. For example, Li says they have included bridges in the design that can allow free movement of wildlife underneath. It may be helpful in Tsavo, but the bridge in the proposed route across Nairobi National Park is so close to the boundary as to be useless. There is nowhere for wildlife to cross to.
Moreover, the process of building such a structure in a habitat as small as the NNP will completely eliminate the immediate vicinity
as a wildlife habitat. One also wonders what will remain of nature and scenery in the vicinity of a 40-metre high “superbridge” as described by the EIA consultant at a public meeting on the project last December.
It is our appeal, as the Conservation Alliance of Kenya, that CRBC consults experts and civil society groups on conservation, just as they do in relation to parts of the railway that are passing through villages, farms, and other human- dominated landscapes.
We are willing and able to advise on conservation safeguards and ecological needs that go along with the construction of such a major project. What proportion of the project budget, for example, has CRBC set aside towards monitoring, evaluation, and recording of environmental impacts?
In a project this size, even 0.05 per cent of the total could cater for such work. This country suffers from a perception that environmental concerns are just a part of the permitting process for any project and not a principle that governs the processes of development.
An example is Li’s reference to the structures and construction processes, but none at all to the impact of the high-speed, noisy and polluting diesel locomotives that will be running along that track. Or is that a problem that CRBC is deferring to another day, another person, another forum?
A project of the magnitude of the SGR should therefore not be regarded as an environmental challenge, but as an opportunity for Kenya to showcase our claimed leadership in conservation. We can show the world how infrastructure can be built with fidelity to the natural and human environment.
We have the will and capacity in the Conservation Alliance and we challenge CRBC to take us up on this. Li’s description of wildlife drinking water from catchment pits by the railway and the “dramatic” rescue of an elephant from a pit with CRBC machinery are charming anecdotes. But I expect us to have a higher threshold than that for the principle of conservation.
