Demolitions in Nairobi: Not a Smart Idea

Contributing to the Debate on Demolitions in Nairobi: The Solution lies with Free market environmentalism.

In Kenya today, seeing a bulldozer parked near your property can send shivers down your spine. This is mainly because of the demolitions of buildings that have been going on in Nairobi. In an effort to protect the environment, especially the Nairobi River, the county government and the Ministry of Environment have increased efforts to bring back Nairobi’s lost glory. Nairobi City was, in the 50s and 60s, known simply as the Green City Under the Sun. Somewhere along the line, Nairobi lost its status as the city with the most pristine environment. Much of the blame has been placed on poor city management and the degradation of the land through human encroachments, constructions, and other economic activities.

Today, the conversation on bringing back Nairobi to its unsullied, and beautiful state, has been reawakened. However, policymakers and regulators seem to be fixated on clearing buildings around the Nairobi River environs; an area commonly known as the riparian land. My humble submission is that bringing down buildings is not a sustainable way to deal with the environmental problem facing the Nairobi River and its environs. Instead of punishing people who own property along the river, we should give them a reason to want to protect the river. Through property ownership regulations, the “investors” along the River should have a stake in environmental protection. Don’t get me wrong, I am not suggesting that the course of the river should be diverted. All I am saying is that Nairobi city should adopt the policy of free-market environmentalism as a way of solving the problem. Free market environmentalism is the most sustainable “win-win” solution to this problem.

Free market and environmental protection sound like two completely opposite concepts. Even some economists contend that the two concepts are oxymorons. After all, the environmental problems facing the world today have been associated with economic growth, and “free marketism.” Think of industrialization and the age of mass production, and their legacy on global carbon footprint. The relationship between economic development and environmental quality was first hypothesized in the 1950s by Simon Kuznets. Using his famous curve, the Kuznets Curve, Simon Kuznets argued that as an economy develops, the environmental degradation increases, up to a certain point, before it starts to decline. Perhaps the city of Nairobi has been a victim of the “Kuznets phenomenon” in so far as the environment is concerned, but that does not mean that the situation cannot be turned around. Free-market environmentalists such as Anderson Terry have proposed an alternative way of looking at the relationship between free-market activities and environmental protection. The main argument by the free market environmentalists is that giving people a stake or ownership in the environment will increase the motivation to protect the environment. The analogy of “rental car,” provided by Anderson best captures the thinking of free-market environmentalism. Let me explain.

The central issue of free-market environmentalism is the concept of property rights to natural resources. According to Anderson, people treat the environment differently based on whether the right of ownership of the environment is with the individual, a corporation, a communal group, a non-profit environmental group, or governments. Even though government regulations play an important role in ensuring that shared natural resources are not exploited in an irresponsible manner, it is precisely this overregulation that makes people irresponsible with the natural resources around them. The thinking that “after all, it is not mine,” best sums up the “Tragedy of Commons” that natural resources face.

The concept of free-market environmentalism is inextricably linked to certain characteristics of human nature. For example, humans are mostly self-interested or self-centered. Based on this principle, people would tend to protect things that they own or have a big stake in. Take the rental car analogy, for example. According to Tery Anderson, “no one washes a rental car.” This analogy aptly captures the thinking of many people, especially Africans, when it comes to how they handle the environment or any other thing that they do not personally own. The people who own natural resources, such as a stream in their ranch, would treat such a resource like an asset, and not a liability. He or she would make sure that the stream is not polluted, and may even grow fish in the stream and make a profit out of it.

This kind of thinking will save the stream and the people who depend on it downstream, while also benefitting the owner of the ranch. Most importantly, the decision to take care of the stream will preserve it for posterity.

The problem with the exploitation of resources by people who have no stake or nor ownership is what is known as the Tragedy of Commons. This has been one of the biggest problems in economics since the beginning of time, and it is not bound to change. Government regulations can only try, but will never solve the problem of the “Tragedy of Commons.” However, when people individualize environmental resources, it becomes easy for them to cooperate with the environmental protection agencies to achieve the best possible outcome for themselves and for the environment. And may I add, for the future generations.

Terry Anderson talks about the relationship between sustainability and profitability. The argument, which I find quite compelling, is that if someone wants to make anything sustainable, the best way is to make it profitable. This is the kind of thinking that guides the free market environmentalism movement. In other words, people need to have a stake, such as ownership and profit-making motives, in their natural resources in order to get the motivation for protecting such resources. Living in constant fear of “demolition” makes it hard for an owner of a mall, for instance, to invest his or her money in protecting the environment where the mall is built. The justified instinct and perhaps the most prudent business logic adopted by most investors, in such situations is to extract as much value as possible from the resource while you still can, using whatever means necessary; the impact on the environment notwithstanding.

In conclusion, free-market and environmental protection, which are concepts largely thought of being oxymorons, is what I propose as the best and smart approach to sustainable environmental protection. There is growing evidence to show that environmental protection can be sustainable if conservation is shifted from the domain of charity to the domain of profit. The people need to be given ownership rights and a real stake in their natural environmental resources. Using force and bringing down buildings in the name of protecting riparian lands will only lead to unintended consequences, such as making investors shy away from investing in the city. And just a thought, what happens when there is no longer the political goodwill to support the “the work of the bulldozers?” In my humble submission, the demolitions of buildings is not a sustainable solution to our problems. We will continue going round in circles, even politicize the process; meanwhile, our desire to bring back the glory of Nairobi will continue eluding us.

The writer is an environmental enthusiast and a resident of Nairobi.