Imenti Forest: Public participation forum shouldn't be a rubber-stamping exercise

Kenya needs infrastructure. Roads, airstrips, public utilities and other investments can support development, improve access and strengthen public service delivery. But where such projects affect public forests and sensitive ecosystems, the question is not only whether development is needed. It is whether decisions are made lawfully, transparently and before irreversible actions are taken.

This is why the proposed airstrip in Upper Imenti Forest requires careful public attention. The Kenya Forest Service (KFS) invited members of the public and stakeholders to participate in the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment process for the proposed airstrip at Meru Forest Station, Kithoka Beat. The meeting was held yesterday at the Meru ASK Showground Pavilion.

On paper, this was an important step. Environmental assessment and public participation are central safeguards in environmental decision-making. They allow citizens, communities, experts, professional bodies and public institutions to examine whether a proposed project is necessary, lawful, appropriately located, environmentally sound and consistent with the wider public interest.

But public participation must be meaningful. It should not come after key decisions have already been made, after site clearing has occurred, or after construction timelines have been publicly announced. If the public is invited to participate only after a project has effectively moved forward, the process risks being viewed not as consultation, but as post-facto validation.

The credibility of the July 8 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment meeting will therefore depend on whether the public was invited to influence a live decision, or merely to comment on a project whose direction may already have been decided. That is the concern in Upper Imenti Forest.

Media reports and public statements have already suggested that works may have commenced, that parts of the forest may have been cleared, and that timelines for the airstrip had been publicly indicated. The proposed airstrip has also been discussed alongside reported plans for a State Lodge and golf course within the wider Imenti Forest area. At the same time, the matter is before court, with interim preservation orders reportedly issued to maintain the status quo and prevent activities that could alienate, degrade or waste the forest pending further directions.

Against that background, the first responsibility of the KFS, the National Environment Management Authority and the relevant public agencies is full disclosure. The public should be told clearly what has already happened on site, what works, if any, have been undertaken, what approvals or authorisations have been issued, what legal basis is being relied upon, and whether the ongoing assessment process can still influence the location, design, scale or continuation of the project.

An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment should not be treated as a procedural shield for a decision already taken. It should be an evidence-based process that examines the need for the project, viable alternatives, ecological and social impacts, mitigation measures, restoration obligations and long-term monitoring. It should also assess whether less environmentally harmful alternatives exist outside the forest, including whether existing aviation infrastructure in the region could serve the intended purpose.

This is particularly important because Upper Imenti Forest is not ordinary land. Forests regulate water, protect soils, store carbon, support biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience and provide public goods whose value is often ignored in conventional project planning. Once forest land is cleared, fragmented or converted, the ecological loss may be difficult and costly to reverse.

The public should therefore not be asked to comment blindly. Before and during yesterday’s meeting, the relevant authorities ought to have made available the project concept, site maps, ecological assessment, alternatives analysis, minutes or records of prior consultations, approvals already issued, correspondence between agencies, and any forest access licence, easement, wayleave or authorisation relied upon.

The process should also answer basic questions. Why was this site selected? Were alternatives outside the forest considered? What area has already been cleared, if any? What is the current status of works on the ground? What court orders are in force and how are they being complied with? What ecological impacts are expected? What mitigation, restoration and monitoring measures are proposed? How will public comments be analysed? And what happens if the public raises serious objections?

This is not an argument against development. Kenya needs infrastructure. But public interest is not measured only by what is built. It must also include water security, biodiversity protection, climate resilience, community rights, intergenerational equity, the rule of law and the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.

The Forest Conservation and Management (Amendment) Act, 2026 has made these questions even more urgent by creating clearer legal avenues for certain infrastructure-related uses within forests. That makes safeguards, transparency and accountability even more important. A legal pathway should not become a shortcut around environmental assessment, public participation or judicial oversight.

The Upper Imenti process is therefore a test of environmental governance. If the proposed airstrip is lawful, necessary and environmentally sound, full disclosure and meaningful public participation will strengthen its legitimacy. If there are serious legal, ecological or procedural concerns, the public participation process should help identify them before further harm is done.

The KFS and Nema and the relevant authorities should use the outcome of yesterday’s meeting and further public participation process to do more than explain the project. They should disclose the facts, respond to public concerns, respect the court process, and demonstrate that public participation can still influence the outcome. Public forests are public trust resources. Decisions affecting them should not leave citizens guessing. Development decisions must be anchored in law, science, transparency and genuine public participation.

Views of the National Alliance of Community Forest Association (NACOFA) a voice of communities in the forest sector in Kenya.