No end in sight for TARDA project

10 July 2008

The People Daily, Wahinya Henry 

{…….as fresh row pits unrelenting Government against community and conservationists…….}

WHILE the Government has declared that work on the proposed multi-billion-sugar project at the Coast will not be stopped, the move has elicited emotions from lobbyists who feel a public watch dog that okayed the project ignored certain environmental concerns revolving around the project.

ANY hope nursed by environmentalists that the Government would succumb to pressure and abandon plans to build a multi billion sugar project in the coast province appears to have evaporated after authorities insisted that construction of the project, which continues to elicit emotions, will not be stopped.

The present stand by the Government is a set back to conservationists and a section of members of the local communities who have spearheaded a campaign to block the building of the project along the pristine Tana Delta in Garsen, Tana River District.

On its part, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) gave the project a clean bill of health when it authorised the Government to turn 20,000 hectares of the Tana Delta into irrigated sugarcane plantations, sparking off renewed enthusiasm among senior ministry officials who left for the Coast to quell possible discontent over the project.

The Shs. 24 billion Integrated Sugar Project is to be undertaken by Mumias Sugar Company and the Tana and Athi River Development Authority (TARDA).

It is estimated to cover an area of 12,400 ha of estate sugarcane farming and later a further 4,000 ha of smallholder sugarcane block, all under controlled farming. New employment opportunities will be guaranteed by the project; 25,000 jobs to be created in addition to saving the country foreign exchange through direct import substitution on industrial sugar and earning foreign exchange through involvement of small holders.  

“Implementation of the venture will go on. This project has suffered and has been fought by un-scrupulous sugar importers who fear they may lose their business if a local sugar company is set up,” stated regional authorities minister Fred Gumo.

The declaration by the minister coincided with initial reports to the effect that a public watchdog opposed to the project at the initial stage had softened its stand and has since allowed construction work to start.

To entice locals, Gumo and his team intends to review the shareholding structure to increase the portion reserved for local communities who have been raising concerns over the likely negative impact of the venture on their livelihoods.

Currently, Mumias Sugar Company is the majority shareholder controlling 51 percent of the project. Tarda holds 30 per cent with 10 and nine per cent reserved for the local communities and "stakeholders" respectively. 

A sugar processing mill with a capacity of 8,000 tonnes per day will be upgraded to 10,000 tonnes per day, a 34 megawatts electric power co-generation using biogase and a 23 million-litre per year ethanol production plants will also be put up.

The project's ultimate goal is to help the company reduce its dependence on a single region - Western Kenya - for its sugar and the company chose the area because sugarcane matures faster in the region - an average of six months as opposed to 12 months for Western Kenya, which means Mumias can have two harvests in one year, thus helping bridge the national sugar production deficit, which currently stands at 200,000 tonnes annually.

Environmentalists have teamed up with other lobbyists in spearheading campaigns for its cancellation to avoid displacing pastoralistsm, claims that Gumo dismissed, saying the project would diversify the livestock-dominated Tana River economy to lift hundreds out of poverty.

Last week’s decision by the Government to proceed with the project sparked a fresh round of controversy that saw lobbyists lock horns with both Gumo and NEMA.

A group of communities under the Wetlands Forum convened a press conference in Nairobi in the wake Gumo’s remarks and demanded the project be halted.

“The Government should halt the project until all fundamental issues are addressed to the satisfaction of communities,” said the chief executive officer, Tana Delta Conservation Organization, Maulidi Diwayu.

Says the executive director of Nature Kenya- Birdlife in Kenya- Paul Matiku: “This decision is a national disaster and will devastate the delta. Tana’s ecology will be destroyed yet the economic gains will be pitiful. It will seriously damage our priceless national assets and will put the livelihoods of the people living in the delta in jeopardy.”

He says: “The environmental assessment for the scheme was poor yet the Government has defied even those very modest recommendations. We refuse to accept that this decision is final. The development must be stopped at all costs”

According to Matiku, the Government's decision to approve the Tana River Sugarcane and biofuels project will not only destroy biodiversity but also threaten rural livelihoods.

He says NEMA also overlooked an ongoing dispute over compensation for farmers and fishermen who would lose their land and fishing rights.

A report commissioned by Nature Kenya and the RSPB (BirdLife in the UK) in May found that the developer’s plans overestimated profits, ignored fees for water use and pollution from the sugarcane plant and disregarded the loss of income from wildlife tourists.

The study said the delta’s ecological benefits “defied valuation” and that the proposal would cause the “irreversible loss of ecosystem services” - benefits such as flood prevention, the storage of greenhouse gases and the provision of medicines and food.

Matiku says: “Until now, Kenya ’s support for global agreements to protect wildlife has been excellent but this development could severely damage Kenya ’s reputation for caring for its environment.”

Conservationists say that an integrated management plan for the entire Tana River basin should precede any development considerations. The lack of project design documents - required by Kenyan environmental law - has been a critical omission in the whole Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

ENDS