We need honest debate on shamba system
A man cultivates some few metres from the source of River Sagana at Mt Kenya on March 3, 2015.
Recent remarks attributed to Deputy President, Rigathi Gachagua alluding to the return of the shamba system of forest plantation establishment have elicited diverse opinions from ordinary Kenyans and environmentalists.
Opponents have unequivocally rejected the reintroduction of the system claiming it will lead to the decimation of forests, loss of forest services such as climate amelioration, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, lead to drying up of rivers and generally exacerbate global warming.
Proponents, on the other hand, have argued that the shamba system addresses the problem of food security and helping the country attain its goal of 10 per cent forest cover.
Perhaps, to arrive at a consensus, the protagonists on both divides would need a deeper understanding of how the system works. The shamba system was first introduced as a tool for forest plantation establishment in Kenya in the early 1900s. Generally, the system was effective in forest plantation establishment.
The system is not used in conservation forests but only in afforestation of open parcels or replanting of harvested forest plantations. It is, therefore, misleading to hear opponents say it will be used in such high forests as Kakamega, Mau or Mt Kenya.
Basically, farmers are temporarily allocated a portion of forest land and allowed to practice agriculture alongside forest development. They till the land and the plant food crops as guided by the forest managers and the existing law. The forest department provides tree seedlings for planting. Hence, the farmers benefit by growing food crops. In return, the forest department gets free labour to plant, weed and generally tend the tree seedlings. Once the forest canopy closes, the farmers are moved to new parcels..
Where the system has been successfully implemented, the socio-economic welfare of the community improved because of increased food security and enhanced income. Tree seedling survival and plantation establishment on the other hand greatly benefitted the forest managers and the environment.
However, the system is open to abuse. Notably, farmers have been accused of deliberately killing seedlings in order to continue farming on the allotted parcels. Others have forcibly occupied sections of the forest claiming ownership. Foresters have been accused of bias and corruption in allocating plots leading to backlash from those left out.
If professionally implemented and closely supervised, the shamba system has great potential to address the twin problems of food security and the vagaries of climate change. It will also help Kenya attain 10 per cent forest cover. Sober debate and extensive consultation should be allowed before a decision is made on whether or not the shamba system should be returned.
Langat Arap Laboso, Bomet
