Columnists

Regenerating Nairobi goes past bulldozers

demolitions

Let’s talk about conflict resolution. That giddy summit of human achievement where two parties with often conflicting interests come up with a solution they both win from - instead of smashing each other to see who gets what they want, and who does not.

It’s a good time to talk about that, now we are at war – as in, a state of conflict that is seeing homes, community centres and businesses destroyed in the name of justice, conquest and claim to resources.

So let’s begin with an eyeful of our warring parties.

On one side are the 30-metre warriors - dedicated upholders of the rights of rivers to space for their riparian needs. Now these warriors know that a ‘built-near’ river is a sad and miserable river and no human life, venture or activity should be spared in ensuring our city brooks their bubbling tens of metres.

The glory of their mission is one of ‘regeneration’. They are ‘regenerating’ 30 metres either side of the city’s waterways. They are not regenerating Nairobi, or hope, or faith in wise and measured governance.

They are not regenerating our planning system, or the process that saw buildings approved on riversides in the first place. For these are not interesting matters. The interesting matter is their claim to 30 metres. And their enemy is all those who got planning permission to build in that space.

No hunt has been instigated for the signatories and government authorisers of said buildings. No, the enemy is the residents, the landlords, the businesses, the communities who trod on that riparian right, once authorised to do so.

And there, in that one narrative, stands Kenya’s entire strength in conflict resolution. There are no multiple rights to be considered, nor any costs and benefits.

We are not burdened by the need to arrive at smart solutions for our rivers that might serve us socially, economically and environmentally, all at once and together.

Yet for those who do get interested in cohesion, and compassion, and fairness, and the genuine regeneration of cities, communities and entire societies, there are actually more powerful tools than bulldozers.

There are tools like evaluation, impact assessments, and social and environmental audits.

For what is it that rivers, and people, and government gain from leaving six to 30 metres beside water ways?

If we are going to lose community halls that aided victims in terrorist attacks, and banks, and pharmacies, and apartments, and eateries, what are the actual benefits we are securing from all those losses? The stated grounds for the land reservation is to keep the water clean and healthy and prevent soil erosion.

So, what were the buildings demolished so far doing to the water quality and the soil levels? And could that have been resolved in any other way?

Because we have read that the cause of this mass destruction is a committee, but be clear, a committee is not the cause. The cause, when it comes to mandating such huge destruction, must be a reasoned benefit for someone.

So how much soil erosion is this demolition preventing and how? What’s the cost per square metre of dirt in our city in this exercise? Are we paying a million shillings per metre? And were ALL these buildings causing soil erosion, and, if so, how? Even our media doesn’t seem interested in looking at the issues underlying so much devastation.

Yet without assessing the problem itself and who is winning and losing, how can we then balance, or discuss, or negotiate, or find any solution that truly addresses the elements we rate as damaging?

Will we get clean water now?

Such enquiry is an imperative to conflict resolution, which, as it happens, is the foundation of success and stability in a society.

The only facts in any of this are that the causes and consequences of a problem matter, and the consequences of any solution matter too - in conflicts that get resolved, that is. But not in wars.