"TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE:

In spite of extreme inequalities in land and economic resource allocation, settlers did not initially profit and made little more than sustenance (33). In the 1920s, increased settlement lead to explicit market protection and expansion through preferential policies including the restriction of competition, expansion of agricultural efficiency and increased taxes on Africans

Clark, Ralph. “East African Coffee Policies.” Agricultural Planning in East Africa. Nairobi, Kenya:

Maize is described as the “backbone of Kenyan agriculture (Monke et al 50).” Maize is the largest crop produced in total area planted and value (ISNAR 4-5). Annually, Kenya produces 2.2 to 2.7 million tonnes of maize (Esipusu 1). 900,000 tonnes are traded each year, mostly to Tanzania. Commercial imports are constrained by the high world prices and the current international duty charge of 25% charged on maize imports (5).

However, as production has increased, so has the need and use of water. One of the fastest drying bodies of water is Lake Naivasha, which has the nation’s largest concentration of flowers and the hub of one of the nation’s largest exporters (Mbaria 1). Riverside farmland has expanded six acres from January 2001 to December 2002 (1). Many NGO’s, including the National Resource Monitoring, Modeling and Management, advocate that “the greatest problem has been due to the increase in horticultural productions, which puts an unstainable demand” on rivers and lakes (2). While flowers producers have been denying responsibility for the water shortage, farms abstract 33.2 million cubic meters of water per year (2).

Winter-Nelson, Alex. “A History of Agricultural Policy in Kenya.” Agricultural Policy in Kenya.

Another large problem has been deforestation. The Mau Forest supplies Kenya with around forty percent of its water supply, however it not enough to cover many of the rural areas (Redfern 1). A plan by the Kenyan government to cut down 150,000 from the already-depleting forest was met with strong reaction by Survival International and other NGOs. The plan would force 20,000 Oriek natives from their homes inside the forest. According to Survival, “if the government scheme goes ahead, the Oriek will simply join the numbers of Kenya’s dispossessed and die out as a people. The plan also threatens Kenya’s environment, as the Mau forest is a vital water catchment area. Drought is already endemic in Kenya’s and experts agree that the loss of forest cover will worsen the problem. By going ahead (with the forest excision) the Kenyan government is defying international opinion, its own legal system and the Ogiek’s rights under international law (1).” The Oriek have taken their case to court, but a case has not been heard. Survival continues to seek international support for the Mau.

Some topics in this essay:
Land Ordinance, World Bank, Kenyans Environmental, Coffee Agreement, According Survival, WWF Kenya, Survival EU, Virtually Kenya’s, Policies Coffee, Finance Corporation, 19 2003, east african, large-scale farms, world bank, 2002 19, agricultural policy, kenyan government, 2002 19 2003, water supply, international coffee agreement, university press, university press 1995, cornell university, lakes rivers drying, agreement fell apart,