Thoughts on rationalisation

Specialised agencies in any government are vital to addressing specific problems and offer specific and specialised solutions. In Kenya, however, the splintering of the natural resources sector has not been entirely beneficial. We have the National Environment Management Authority, the Kenya Forest Service, the Kenya Wildlife Service, the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service, the Kenya Forest Research Institute, the Biosafety Authority, the Water Resources Management Authority, the National Irrigation Board, and half a dozen others. Efficiency has not been realised; instead, there is duplication of functions and a cacophony of policy prescriptions that cannot all be implemented simultaneously.

Take wildlife protection and conservation. Taken in its broadest sense, wildlife is not just limited to the animals that bring in the tourist dollars. When you include forest resources, fisheries resources and microorganisms, wildlife takes on a more significant sense that must attract a more serious approach. The campaign to stop the slaughter of elephants and rhinos is laudable; but it misses the point by narrowing the national debate to big ticket animals and forgets the other elements of wildlife that have the potential to outstrip traditional tourist attractions in foreign exchange earnings.

It is time that the nation contemplated the consolidation of the national natural resources sector under one umbrella with an integrated policy-formulation and implementation framework to achieve effectiveness, synergy and efficiency. For example, there is no reason why there should be two separate paramilitary forces to "guard" forests and wild animals; the two can be merged with a simplified command structure, training facilities and common rules of engagement.

In Kenya it is difficult to destroy an empire once it has been built. Therefore, there will be great resistance to the idea of placing the management of Kenya's natural resources under one super-agency with specialised directorates. Arguments will no doubt be advanced about the practicality of having every natural-resource-related agency under, for example, the National Land Commission. Yet the benefits can be computed viz. the risks of consolidation. Take consummables for example: the benefits of a common fund for office supplies, cleaning services, transport, etc. and the logic of consolidation starts to  make sense.

But it is in the streamlining of policy that makes sense. If the various specialised agencies are brought together under one management structure, policy-making will be streamlined and synergised. If wildlife policy, forestry policy, water policy, mining policy, fisheries policy, biosafety policy, etc are integrated, then the chances of duplication or conflict are reduced significantly and implementation will take into account the needs of each sub-sector. This is something that should be considered in the ongoing debate about the cost of government that is being undertaken today.