Doing, and not doing

Having funded and reviewed an “independent investigative impact assessment report,” the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) is urging the government of Kenya to block the Kwale titanium project of Tiomin Resources. The animal-rights group says Tiomin’s proposed ship-loading facility at Shimoni “would have irreversible adverse effects on the area’s rich biodiversity and ecosystem.” It believes the proposed project has the capacity to introduce “invasive, exotic marine species” and that, once these invaders come, “nothing can be done in mitigation.”

In the next breath, however, the IFAW concedes that it was “impossible” to make a decision on social costs and benefits from the “available inadequate information.” Furthermore, the IFAW-commissioned report was not able to reveal the full impacts of the proposed shipping facility, ostensibly because the project “suffers from lack of full scientific certainty.” But rather than correct these alleged shortcomings, the IFAW has urged the Kenyan government to adopt the “precautionary principle in favour of the biodiversity and ecosystem at Shimoni.” The better-safe-than-sorry recommendation was passed along to members of an inter-ministerial committee formed to review the EIA report for the project as proposed by Tiomin.

It is no surprise that IFAW has made use of the latest mantra of the global environmental movement. The precautionary principle is the centrepiece of numerous policies advocated by non-government organizations (NGOs) and green groups, including the Kyoto Protocol devised to combat global warming. The gist is that, yes, the scientific evidence may be incomplete and inconclusive, but if we don’t take action now, the consequences could mean the demise of the planet. Sadly, the media lap up such nonsense, further undermining scientific debate and the public’s ability to make rational decisions. As a result, the precautionary principle has become a one-sided, dogmatic means to a pre-determined end, instead of a reasoned and balanced assessment of the risks attached to acting and not acting, and whether one source of risk is more or less serious than the other.

In the case of Tiomin’s titanium project, the proper application of the precautionary principle should include an assessment of the consequences of not developing the project, and whether these may be worse than the ecological risks outlined by IFAW. It is not enough to suggest that “invasive, exotic marine species” may take over the eco-system or that a shipping accident would cause “irreversible adverse effects.” If such one-sided arguments are accepted, then no port should be built anywhere in Kenya, or anywhere in the world for that matter. Fortunately, reasonable people know that all nations rely on trade to build their economies, that trade relies on transport, and that there are risks associated with such activities. Doing nothing seems a woefully unimaginative solution for an impoverished nation that desperately needs to strengthen its economy and improve the lives of its citizens. Yet that seems to be the short-sighted approach of a growing number of social and environmental activists, including those who have pulled out all the stops to derail the Kwale project.

The opposition to trade and development makes little sense given Kenya’s current economic woes. Earlier this month, President Daniel arap Moi suffered a major defeat while trying to pass anti-corruption legislation that would have restored at least US$500 million in aid from foreign donors. In 1997, aid payments were suspended by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other Western donors in the aftermath of the infamous Goldenberg scandal, described by The Boston Globe as “the longest-running and most egregious case of massive high-level corruption in Kenya’s history.” Numerous high-ranking officials were implicated in the looting of up to US$1.1 billion from Kenya’s Central Bank and Treasury.

Since then, Kenya has done little to improve the perception that loans are rarely used to help the nation’s poor, or even for their stated purpose. Meanwhile, the government’s heavy borrowing (mainly for debt repayment) is putting pressure on domestic interest rates, which, at more than 15%, are cooling Kenya’s already faltering economy. The real gross domestic product growth rate is minus 0.5% — bad news indeed for a government facing a cash-flow crunch and few prospects for aid relief.

Furthermore, the New York-based Global Policy Forum says the Kenyan government has done little to inspire the confidence of foreign investors, “essential for an economic takeoff.” Foreign NGOs and environmental activists must shoulder some of the blame too. Tiomin’s Kwale project could, if given the chance, bring badly needed economic and social benefits to Kenya. Instead, it is being denounced at every turn by activists who have presented little scientific evidence for their oft-repeated claims that the project would irreversibly harm the environment. Kenyan citizens have problems that go well beyond the chance risk that a “invasive, exotic marine species” might take up residence in a small ship-loading facility at Shimoni.