When President William Ruto lifted the ban on logging in the Mau Forest and other gazetted forests on October 27, he called it a “rational economic decision.” He claimed it was not about destruction, but about “harvesting mature trees” to feed local furniture industries and create jobs.
Yet beneath this rhetoric of “sustainability” lies a dangerous contradiction of betrayal of Kenya’s climate pledges and a step backward in the hard-fought gains against deforestation.
The Mau Forest is not just another woodland; it is the beating ecological heart of Kenya’s hydrological system. It feeds rivers that sustain millions of lives as the source of the Mara, Nyando, Sondu Miriu, Yala, South Ewaso Ng’iro and Njoro among others
To meddle with the Mau, therefore, is to tamper with the nation’s ecological security. And to justify logging in the name of job creation is to ignore the far greater economic cost of deforestation, which include soil erosion, erratic rainfall, biodiversity loss, and climate-induced disasters.
According to the FAO’s 2025 Global Forest Resources Assessment released on October 21, Kenya had shown encouraging progress in forest cover restoration after years of decline. Forest cover climbed 1.47% yearly in the past decade, reaching 3.914 million hectares in 2025, up from 3.741 million in 1990. This equates to about 6.7% of Kenya’s land area, a modest but critical buffer against climate woes in a country where forests underpin water security and generate livelihoods for millions. The lifting of the logging ban now threatens to undo that progress.
FAO warns that unsupervised or poorly monitored “selective harvesting” often opens pathways for illegal logging, forest fires, and habitat degradation. In other words, there is no such thing as “limited logging”.
President Ruto’s environmental posture has always been global in tone and political in practice. On the international stage, he has styled himself as Africa’s green ambassador, championing the continent’s transition to renewable energy and the 15-billion-tree-planting campaign. He has even led discussions on carbon markets and green finance, positioning Kenya as a model for climate resilience. Yet, at home, his actions often tell a different story.
By lifting the logging ban, President Ruto has undercut his own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, which commit Kenya to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32% by 2030. Forests are central to this target as they act as carbon sinks, absorbing millions of tonnes of CO₂ annually. Destroying or even disturbing them for short-term economic gain negates these commitments. The contradiction is clear: you cannot plant trees with one hand and cut them with the other.
This double speak reflects a broader pattern of environmental populism, where conservation rhetoric is used for diplomatic credibility, while domestic policy bows to political expediency.
Timber traders and allied political interests have long lobbied for the lifting of the ban, arguing that mature trees “go to waste.” But mature forests are not idle assets; they are complex ecosystems that regulate rainfall, nurture biodiversity, and store carbon.
Moreover, the argument for job creation through logging is shortsighted. Studies by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and UNEP show that sustainable forest management, ecotourism, and non-timber forest products such as honey, bamboo, and medicinal plants create more long-term employment than timber extraction.
The way forward requires scientific discipline and political honesty. Kenya must return to the ban on logging until a transparent, data-driven forest inventory is completed. Any harvesting should follow strict environmental impact assessments, monitored by independent conservation agencies and local communities. The government should prioritize plantation forestry on degraded lands rather than logging natural forests. This would meet timber demand without compromising biodiversity.
Equally, the 15-billion-tree initiative must be more than a political slogan. It requires mapping of degraded landscapes, tracking of survival rates, and community ownership of reforestation projects. The Ministry of Environment should integrate FAO’s satellite monitoring tools to ensure real-time accountability for forest cover change.
Most importantly, Kenya must align its domestic policies with its international promises. Climate credibility is not built in conference halls, but it is rather earned in forests, rivers, and fields.
