Tana sugar project not economically viable

By FRANCIS AYIEKO
Special Correspondent

Barely a month after it was approved by the National Environmental Management Authority, the Tana Integrated Sugar Project at Kenya’s Coast has come under fresh attack by environmentalists and local leaders, who say its environmental and social costs at $59 million far outweigh its projected benefits of $19 million.

The Ksh24 billion ($381 million) project is to be undertaken by Mumias Sugar Company and the Tana and Athi River Development Authority. The project is designed to grow sugarcane for both sugar and biofuel.

But last week, environmentalists under the Kenya Wetlands Forum, local leaders and community representatives asked the government to stop the project, saying it would destroy the environment and also lead to intercommunal conflicts.

The project, they argue, is illegal since the National Environmental Management Authority approved it without first addressing “pertinent issues” raised by environmentalists and the local community.

The Authority gave the project the green light in May after conducting an EIA. But according to environmental lobbyists, the environmental impact study “lacks vital information”.

“We think the project, as currently designed and proposed, is ill-advised, will destroy 20,000 hectares of a key biodiversity area, damage priceless environmental assets, and may lead to communal conflicts,” Paul Matiku, executive director of Nature Kenya, a Nairobi-based conservation group, said last week.

During a press conference called last week by the Kenya Wetlands Forum, Mr Matiku said the current value and benefits of the area’s biophysical resources are higher than those the project would bring.

According to Mr Matiku, a report commissioned by Nature Kenya and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in May found that the current and future environmental and social benefits stand at Ksh3.7 billion ($59 million) compared with Ksh1.2 billion ($19 million) that the Mumias Sugar Company promises to generate.

“The National Environmental Management Authority and the Mumias Sugar Company have defied basic business principles. If the costs of destroyed ecological functions, goods and services are added, then the loss will reach unprecedented levels,” he said.

He added: “We refuse to accept that this decision (to implement the project) is final. The development must be stopped at all costs for the benefit of present and future generations. Wario Ali, a politician from the region, said that growing sugarcane in the area would not improve the lives of the local community economically.

“Sugar has never been a solution to the poverty problem. We have never seen any case study from any part of the world to prove that growing sugarcane can alleviate poverty,” Mr Ali, a former member of Parliament, said last week.

The project, he said, would fail because it ignores the views of the local people.

But Mumias Sugar chief executive Evans Kidero defended the project, saying it is vital to the attainment of the country’s Vision 2030 as it will enhance economic growth in the Lower Tana River area where it is to be implemented.

The project’s ultimate goal is to help the company reduce its dependence on a single region — western Kenya — for its sugar.

It will be located along the highly fertile but virgin Tana River Delta. It is understood that Mumias chose the area because sugarcane matures faster in the region — an average of six months as opposed to 12 months for western Kenya.

Ordinarily, this 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.