Introduction
In March 2018, Kenya’s Cabinet Secretary for Transport, James Macharia dismissed conservationists as “busybodies” for protesting the planned route of the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR) through Nairobi National Park (AFP 2018). He further accused them of attempting to “abuse the process meant to benefit Kenyans” (ibid.). Macharia’s remarks exemplify the tensions between large-scale infrastructure projects and environmental concerns. Across Africa, mega dam and railway projects frequently generate controversy regarding their damaging impacts on local livelihoods, wildlife, environmental and social issues (Liu 2017).
Debates and discourses surrounding megaprojects like the SGR must be situated within current debates of development in the Global South. Classic development thinking posits modernisation and industrialisation as primary drivers for progress. Infrastructure projects such as the SGR are celebrated for enabling connectivity, integration into global markets, and facilitating the transportation of commodities and resources. These logics are reflected in Kenya’s Vision 2030 and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which additionally promote green development and “ecological civilization” (MEE 2021) that supposedly harmonise economic development with environmental sustainability. However, such promises are often challenged by local stakeholders. It is within this context that the notion of “echoes” is employed to highlight how development narratives are taken up, adapted, or contested in the environmental discourse surrounding the SGR.
The SGR, a flagship project under Kenya’s Vision 2030 development blueprint, illustrates these tensions. Commissioned by Kenya and constructed by the Chinese state-owned China Road and Bridge Corporation (CRBC), it was financed primarily through loans from China’s Exim Bank. Construction began in 2013, and its first section, connecting Mombasa to Nairobi, was inaugurated in 2017. In the following years, the line was further extended to Naivasha. While discussions about financing further extensions to the Ugandan border have continued, no final agreement has been made public (MFA 2024; Mboya 2024), despite China signalling support at the 2024 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation.
A growing body of research has examined the SGR’s economic viability, debt sustainability, social impacts, political ownership, and Corporate Social Responsibility (see for instance Carrai 2021, Wang and Wissenbach 2019, Taylor 2020). However, comparatively less attention has been paid to its environmental impacts, particularly as expressed through discursive strategies used by various actors to shape public narratives. This paper contributes to the emerging literature on the environmental impacts and public perceptions of large-scale infrastructural projects. Valuable contributions have been made by Nyumba et. al (2021), May Tan-Mullins (2020), and Liu (2017). This paper builds on their work by focusing on how three key stakeholders – the Kenyan government (GoK), the Chinese government, and Kenyan conservationists – frame and contest the environmental dimensions of this development project. Rather than examining these actors in isolation, valuable insights can be drawn from directly contrasting these narratives.
While many more civil society groups are affected by the SGR project, which include farmers, traders, businesspeople, pastoralists, and communities both near and far from the railway corridor, this paper focuses specifically on Kenyan conservationists as one subset of local actors impacted by the SGR. This group is of particular interest not because it represents all local interests, but because of its distinctive role in shaping the discourse surrounding the SGR’s environmental impact on protected areas like the Nairobi National Park. However, this focus necessarily excludes other local, heterogeneous perspectives, such as those related to land rights, livelihoods, or farmer-wildlife conflicts, which merit further investigation. Although this paper does not represent a comprehensive view of “local” interests, it offers an in-depth analysis of one influential stakeholder group that shapes environmental narratives in the context of this megaproject.
This paper addresses the following research problems around environmental concerns discursively expressed during the construction of the SGR in Kenya. How do narratives and perspectives on environmental impacts differ among the Kenyan government, Chinese government, and Kenyan environmentalists conservationists? Which aspects of the discourse are foregrounded, and which are sidelined? What does the comparison of these narratives reveal about the unequal discursive power of the three actors?
This paper is structured as follows. After the review of relevant literature on the SGR and the agency of Kenyan stakeholders, this paper outlines the research approach and methodology. This is followed by an analysis of the perspectives of the three actors with subchapters corresponding to the discernible themes. The final section discusses the findings through the lens of discursive power and agency, arguing that the ability of Kenyan actors to voice environmental grievances is closely tied to their institutional position in the state hierarchy and political leverage.
Literature Review
Infrastructural megaprojects, such as railways, ports and highways have been a focus of scholarly attention in recent years. This is due to their capacity to transform a country’s landscape and to fuel economic and social development. A significant portion of the debate focuses on economic aspects such as the notion of a perpetuated “debt-trap-diplomacy” on the part of China (Bräutigam 2020), economic dependency (Zajontz 2022), and the nature of economic transactions between China and African states, which is often framed as mutually beneficial “South-South-cooperation” (see for a critical evaluation Bergamaschi and Tickner 2017). These economic dimensions of infrastructure projects have been well researched and will not be reiterated here, given the aims of this paper. While such studies offer valuable insights into the economic implications of railways like the SGR in Kenya, they often fall short in addressing the potential environmental impacts that can arise during their construction and implementation.
Environmental issues are often addressed within the framework of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which involves voluntary actions and measures that companies carry out alongside their projects. One significant study, conducted by Maria Carrai, found that Chinese state-owned enterprises in railway projects in Ethiopia and Kenya (i.e. the SGR) had an adaptive governance approach to the host countries’ conditions and legal regulations (Carrai 2021). This means that enterprises such as the CRBC largely complied with local requirements but did not implement higher standards other than what was required for the mitigation of potential environmental or social impacts. This produced negative consequences as a result (ibid.). These negative impacts were reinforced by the negligence of Kenyan officials. While Kenya has a well-developed legal system, then president Uhuru Kenyatta’s office bypassed guidelines concerning public participation, accountability and transparency due to the “presidential prestige” the SGR held (Wissenbach 2020, p. 218). This means that civil society stakeholders such as conservationists or environmentalists were left out in the processes of the SGR, even as they could have beneficially contributed to the project.
Stakeholder engagement is key to the successful implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects (see for instance Nyumba et al. 2021; Tan Mullins 2020). For instance, the integration of local perspectives and the interests of a variety of stakeholders into the processes of state institutions is crucial in attaining a just and inclusive national development through infrastructure programmes. Not only can this increase the exercise of agency among stakeholders, but it also has the potential to lessen or effectively mitigate community or environmental harm. Comprehensive engagement with stakeholders, for instance in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) is “key for designing and implementing […] sustainable infrastructure” (Nyumba et. al 2021, p. 11). This is also true of private sector-led comprehensive CSR. These policies can be beneficial to various groups, particularly the local communities and stakeholders along the Belt-and-Road-Initiative countries as well as the Chinese enterprises themselves. Stakeholder engagement is the “core pillar” of adequate and good CSR policies and “pertinent to the success” (Tan Mullins 2020, p. 220) of the Belt-and-Road-Initiative. Good CSR will also contribute to enhancing “the image of Chinese companies” (ibid.) abroad, something that the CRBC is keen on fostering.
In Africa–China relations, agency is commonly attributed to Chinese actors, given their role as financiers. When agency of African actors is acknowledged, it is usually attributed to the state, while the agency of citizens and local communities receives far less scholarly attention. Official African policymakers, participating in multilateral summits such as the Forum of Africa and China Cooperation, are described as having agency in the scholarly literature (see for instance Taylor 2011). However, a growing body of literature has been researching the agency of non-state or civil society actors on the African continent. This paper contributes to the broader debate on the agency of stakeholders in Africa by offering a triangulated assessment of the perspectives of the two African actors mentioned above in interaction with the Chinese Government. Specifically, it examines the discursive power and agency of civil society actors pertaining to adverse environmental impacts.
Alden and Large (2011) have focused on China’s exceptionalism in its engagement with Africa. They analysed China’s unique approach to foreign engagement in Africa, which emphasises principles of mutual benefit and win-win cooperation. These principles are often considered as key features of South-South cooperation. They argued that China’s exceptionalism can be a way for African state officials to exercise more agency and power compared to traditional donor-recipient models of development, ensuring “‘ownership’” and agenda-setting of the national development process (Alden and Large 2011, p. 28). Regardless, it is important to consider whether the benefits of ‘win-win’ cooperation are being extended towards local African stakeholders. If not, the question is, how can mutual benefit and ‘win-win’ cooperation “be extended beyond the state level” (ibid., p. 38). Ian Taylor similarly critiques the discrepancy in benefits between African elites and the civil public realm, reiterating Hofmeyer (2013, cited in Taylor 2014, p. 33) who states that “’popular opinion is […] increasingly out of sync’” with the popularity of the Africa Rising narrative in government circles.
Wissenbach and Wang (2017) showed how Kenyan cement suppliers demonstrated their capacity for action through organised pressure and lobbying for the use of local materials in the SGR project. This led Uhuru Kenyatta, the then Kenyan president, to renegotiate an agreement (Wissenbach and Wang 2017), ultimately improving the Kenyan suppliers’ position and bargaining power which indicates the effective enactment of agency. However, the study focused primarily on economic and social issues, and only cursorily examined environmental issues. Also found were the limited efforts to minimise the ecological damage of construction and the limited exercise of agency among environmentalists. The authors conclude by critiquing that many issues could have been dealt with in a more inclusive and satisfactory way, if the elite ownership of the SGR by state officials had been extended to a larger part of the Kenyan society (ibid.).
In another work, Wang and Wissenbach (2019) examined how Kenyan actors exercised agency, facilitated by clientelism, an informal patronage system, during the construction of the SGR. They found that Kenyan citizens, national government agencies, trade unions, and local governments voiced their concerns on labour issues and land acquisition. These actors ultimately exercised agency through productive clientelism when solutions were found in their interests or when CRBC management and the government were held, at least minimally, accountable. Patron-client networks serve as important mechanisms that local people or businesses employed to advance their demands (ibid.: 281). The Kenyan government itself also exercised agency and “[pushed] for desired results for Kenya” (Wang and Wissenbach 2019, p. 296). However, the study did not adequately cover environmental concerns even as they attributed the change in the railway design to accommodate wildlife to the articulation of local communities’ interests (ibid.). The impact on wildlife is one aspect this paper addresses, following the introduction of the methods and data used herein.
Research Approach
This study undertakes a discourse analysis of secondary data such as articles, published statements and blog posts. The data encompass not only Chinese or Kenyan governmental viewpoints but also those of civil society actors, namely conservationists and environmentalists from Kenya. Similar to the studies conducted by Lamarque (2023) and Basu-Janiec (2021) which focused on narrative analysis and media discourse analysis around the SGR, this paper aims to give adequate attention to civil Kenyan voices advocating for wildlife conservation and environmental protection. These analyses shift the focus to easily overlooked perspectives compared to the voices of policymakers or enterprises involved in development projects. The local experiences of conservationists should be included if the objective is to identify the popular perceptions of a specific situation (Lamarque 2023) and local people voicing their concerns or grievances that illustrate agency (Basu and Janiec 2021).
The discourse analysis of the environmental consequences of the SGR in Kenya is informed by the critical discourse analysis of Siegfried Jäger (2012) who incorporated Foucauldian premises into his technique. Discourses themselves are not independent entities, uncoupled from the reality they occur in. Discourses create and produce realities or truths (Jäger 2012). It is precisely in this performative nature of discourses where power manifests itself. Discourses always convey and include some knowledge whilst omitting other aspects. This knowledge then informs individual and collective action (ibid.), as evident in the case of the SGR.
As a white researcher from Germany, I acknowledge that my positionality may influence how I approach this analysis. While I aim to prioritize Kenyan voices and perspectives, it is important to remain attentive to how my background might shape the analysis of these environmental discourses. By remaining reflexive, I aim to critically examine the material while avoiding the reproduction of Eurocentric biases. This recognition is particularly important given the focus on civil society and the exercise of agency of the stakeholders, as it stresses the necessity of amplifying the voices of wildlife and environmental activists in relation to official state actors such as the Kenyan and Chinese government.
Some considerations are thus concerned with the way in which the actors exercise discursive power, or in what ways they are unable to exercise power or exercise it with constraint. The discourses analysed reflect power relationships in Kenya and the different abilities of the actors to influence the discourse to mirror their respective ambitions and understandings of the environmental impacts. The agency of the Kenyan stakeholders can be understood as exercised through discursive power and the ability to participate in and shape the discourse, thereby making one’s voices heard. This paper answers the following questions: Who has the power to include certain aspects of environmental impacts in the discourse, while omitting others? Who can frame the discourse to their own advantage and who draws on notions of legitimacy and authority? Which parts of the discourse are more dominant and which aspects are omitted? In short, this paper examines the way discursive power is enacted by the three actors and what it reveals about their respective agency.
Data
Publicly available materials such as statements and news reports are used as data and triangulated against findings from secondary literature. Due to time constraints and this paper’s scope, only publicly available sources were utilised. Additionally, Kiswahili- and Mandarin-language newspapers were excluded due to a lack of proficiency in the languages and the inability to accurately interpret their content. This is inevitably a limitation, as publications in these languages could have reflected different opinions and narratives about the SGR’s developmental impact. To ensure quality and reliability of the newspaper articles, NexisUni Database, a database specifically developed for academic research and providing over 17.000 reliable sources, was used to locate relevant articles. Another important limitation is that, while the objective for this paper was to gather roughly the equal amount for each type of data, i.e. newspaper articles, officially published statements or documents, the official Chinese and Kenyan perspectives produced more official documents or published guidelines than the Kenyan environmentalists. Their view on the discourse had to be acquired almost exclusively through newspaper articles or self-published internet blogs. In general, it is beyond the range of this paper to assess the truthfulness of any of these articles, regardless of whether they are a published statement from official institutions or whether they are an independent blog post. However, judging the validity of the articles is not the focus of this study. Rather, this paper assesses how environmental impacts are perceived and framed, and whether potential differences exist in the discourse among the various perspectives.
For the perspective of the Kenyan state, statements of government officials and state agencies involved in the construction of the SGR were used. These include statements of Kenya Railways Corporation (KRC), the Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS), a speech of then-president Uhuru Kenyatta and two statements by James Macharia, secretary of the Ministry of Transport in Kenya. Additionally, the Constitution of Kenya, stating the legal framework with binding environmental regulations, and the Vision 2030, which outlines Kenya’s broader developmental goals, were consulted. These sources represent the official, governmental perspective on the SGR’s environmental impacts.
The data for the Chinese state perspective consists of web pages, official statements, the CSR report of the CRBC, and interviews given by CRBC managers. In addition, several Chinese media reports on the SGR, published by outlets such as China Daily or Xinhua News Agency, were also included. CRBC was the enterprise responsible for constructing the SGR and was thus directly concerned with potential environmental impacts. As a state-owned enterprise, its economic activity is also directly “intertwined with political interest” (Liu 2017, p. 139) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Since Xinhua and China Daily form part of the state-controlled mass media, with a monopoly on journalistic publications and reporting, they are also under the directive of the CCP. Therefore, both sub-perspectives provide a comprehensive picture of the Chinese government’s view on the environmental impacts associated with the SGR.
The data for the perspective of Kenyan environmentalists and conservationists consists mainly of blog entries and news articles from Kenyan newspapers, such as the Nation Group, supplemented by sources from secondary literature. These news reports are considered reliable owing to the high journalistic professional standards in Kenya (Wang and Wissenbach 2019). Among the actors voicing their viewpoints were Wildlife Direct, an influential non-profit organisation concerned with conservation, and the Kenya Coalition for Wildlife Conservation and Management, which was one of the petitioners in front of the National Environmental Tribunal opposing the construction of the SGR through the Nairobi National Park (NNP) and the KWS. As a state agency, KWS is also responsible for the conservation of wildlife in the NNP, and its perspective is also included. Collectively, these sources provide an authentic perception of a subgroup of civil-society actors on the SGR, bringing the voices of local Kenyan environmentalists into the foreground.
The material was analysed through a manual qualitative content analysis. Blog entries, newspaper articles, and reports were systematically read to identify recurring statements and themes. Themes were codified when particular phrases appeared at least three times across different sources for each actor. When these patterns were consistent, they were abstracted into overarching discursive themes. No software tools were used; instead, coding and categorisation were done manually to enable context-sensitive interpretation.
Analysis of Environmental Discourses
Chinese Government: discursive themes
Emphasis of benefits
The first overarching theme is the emphasis on the positive impacts and benefits the SGR brings. In Chinese media, frequent reference is made to the economic advancement expected from the SGR in terms of improved transportation networks, contributions to Kenya’s industrialisation, and the large number of workers employed (around 30,000) and trained (around 5,000) during the project (Liqiang 2015). It is described as a “good example of environmentally friendly modern construction” (Njoroge 2022). The measures implemented by the CRBC, to facilitate the movement of wildlife, like underpasses, fences and bridges are exclusively portrayed as not interfering with wildlife and their welfare (Xinhua 2016). Animals can still walk freely despite the railway going through the NNP. This view is also confirmed by a spokesperson of Afristar, the Chinese company that operated the SGR in its initial years of operation (ibid.). The way the SGR was constructed is in total “harmony with wildlife” (Njoroge 2022). This discursive strategy positions the CRBC and the SGR as a “major driver of socioeconomic transformation” (Zhao 2016) that only bring about positive economic impacts. Moreover, they were portrayed as being conscious of potential adverse effects on the environment and had systems in place to minimize these.
Obedience to laws
The CRBC is also keen on highlighting its compliance with Kenyan authorities and the requirements of local environmental laws. In press releases on its own website, the CRBC states that it “strictly [observes] Kenyan laws” (CRBC 2016) as well as the international code of conduct (CRBC 2017) for infrastructural megaprojects. In the CSR report itself, the CRBC again refers to abiding by Kenyan laws and regulations (China Road and Bridge Corporation 2018). It claims that construction for projects, including the SGR, only starts after Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) have been conducted (ibid.) and construction was found to comply with environmental protection laws. Steven Zhao, head of external relations of the CRBC, also uses this strategy in a commentary in the newspaper The Standard, a popular and widely-circulated Kenyan newspaper that holds influence on the discourse around environmental impacts. He also mentions that work started with the release of the “certification by Kenyan authorities” (Zhao 2016). The CRBC thus frames itself as a law-abiding and environmentally-compliant organisation. While legal regulations regarding the environment are rather comprehensive in Kenya, supervision, coordination and enforcement policies of the National Environment Management Agency are weak, which poses a loophole in ensuring actual compliance with the law (Office of the Auditor-General 2016).
Omission of environmental controversies
The framing of the discourse by the Chinese omits negative impacts, criticisms, or the controversies that were prevalent in the Kenyan public sphere. It is difficult to reference this precisely, but omissions of relevant information on environmental aspects frame the discourse in a crucial way. It obscures the valid points that had been raised by critics of the project, as well as the controversies that hounded it. This has resulted in only partial knowledge on the topic or even no knowledge of existing controversies. Such omission has the power to influence the discourse on environmental impacts of the SGR as such. None of the Chinese media articles and CRBC press releases referenced in this paper mention the controversies emerging after the plans to route the SGR through the NNP were published in 2015. These controversies led to a stop-work order from the National Environmental Tribunal of Kenya in 2016, following a petition submitted by conservationists.
The articles and press releases were published after 2020 when this controversy had already died down. Although highly contested, the critical discourse in Kenyan media and the public was ignored by the Chinese builders. Steven Zhao also omitted the environmental controversies from his commentary in The Standard (Zhao 2016), as well as in another interview he gave the same newspaper published before the stop-work order of the tribunal. This came after the public outcry regarding the proposed route through the NNP. In the interview, he was asked about the challenges CRBC encountered during construction. He answered that “no significant challenges came up” (Mwiti 2016), even with the public outcry against the construction. When the interviewer pressed him about the strikes of Kenyan workers during industrial action, he admitted to some difficulties. However, there was no further mention of additional conflicts related to environmental impacts or conservationists criticising the SGR, despite their clear existence. By not being transparent about the possible negative effects on the environment and wildlife, the discourse around the SGR is narrowed, focusing primarily on economic aspects and much less on potential detrimental effects on the environment.
Kenyan Government: discursive themes
Kenyan regulatory systems
To better understand the actions of the individual politicians and state agencies of Kenya, it is important to provide context through a brief overview of existing legal framework. Kenya Vision 2030 (n.d. a), launched in 2008, aims to achieve a “high quality of life to all citizens […] in a clean and secure environment.” It consists of three main pillars: Economic, Social and Political. Environmental considerations are subsumed under the social pillar as one of eight key sectors but are not mentioned separately. Among the environmental aspects, the document notes that human activity has been identified as detrimental to wildlife habitats and states that, going forward, ecosystems should be maintained to ensure better wildlife conservation (Kenya Vision 2030 n.d. b).
Kenya’s Constitution, enshrined in 2010, contains several articles that ensure environmental protection and conservation. For instance, article 42 states that “every person has the right to a clean and healthy environment” (Republic of Kenya 2010) and the government is obliged to eliminate processes that damage the environment (ibid. Art. 69 g). The GoK is required to acknowledge the role of public participation for national development that is sustainable and to encourage participation (Mwenda and Kibutu 2012), as stated in Article 69d. These are just a few regulations that set the frame for ecological protection.
Emphasising economic advancements
One discursive theme that can be identified for the Kenyan state is similar to the Chinese state perspective that emphasises economic advancements and growth. The Kenyan Railway Corporation (KRC), owner of the SGR and a state corporation under the Kenyan Ministry of Transport (MoT), defines its mandate as the provision of transportation technology, railway development, and “to leverage [their] assets to grow business” (Kenya Railways Corporation n.d.). Transport and the creation of profit through the delivery of railway services is emphasised, as it is mentioned under the core values and the mission of the KRC. In a Nation article sponsored by the KRC itself, the same transportation mandate is highlighted. The article largely consisted of KRC listing rejuvenated infrastructure and the development of new projects, alongside figures of freight and passengers transported (Kenya Railways Corporation 2021). When referring to the SGR, there was only mention of economic benefits such as the Inland Container Depots in Nairobi and Naivasha, the subsequent decongestion of the port in Mombasa, and a “seamless transit of goods” (ibid.) in the East Africa Region. Environmental aspects, even positive ones such as the comparative environmental benefits of rail transport, are sidelined.
Uhuru Kenyatta framed the railway as a “key [cornerstone] to Kenya’s transformation to an industrialized […] middle-income country” (Kenyatta 2017: 01:30) in a speech he made at the launch of the SGR in 2017. He also emphasised the importance of the SGR to the economic advancement of Kenya, along with prosperity for the Kenyan people, direct and indirect job creation, and new opportunities. James Macharia, cabinet secretary of the MoT, on the other hand, presented the “Sustainable Development in Kenya” in a correspondent article (Macharia 2019). He referred to Kenyatta’s Big 4 Development Agenda for Kenya to become an “upper middle-income country” (ibid.). These include food security, affordable housing, healthcare, and employment. To achieve these, there is strong emphasis on stable economic growth rates and job creation, even in sectors such as “oil, mining and gas, iron and steel” (ibid.) which often have detrimental effects on the environment. He went on to note that Kenya is investing in infrastructure, motivated by reducing the cost of doing business and enhancing efficiency. The SGR is mentioned as having a significant material impact that would translate to economic benefits such as boosting tourism and job creation. Overall, many of these projects and incentives, while crucial for development, are portrayed by the Kenyan government officials primarily in reference to their economic advantages while leaving out the question of sustainability. This is surprising considering the emphasis on environmental conservation in the national development programme Kenyan Vision 2030 and the Kenyan Constitution. It also brings to question whether the economy should take precedence over environmental integrity.
Reframing of ecological impacts
Another discursive strategy is the omission of negative ecological consequences in the discussions. The KRC, in its Nation article, excluded ecological aspects in favour of economic growth and industrialisation. There was no mention of the controversies surrounding the NNP, even though the article was published as late as 2021, and the issues were still discussed in the Kenyan public sphere at that time. Kenyatta also failed to allude to the controversies or challenges relating to environmental protection of the SGR as was observed in James Macharia’s article. Ecological impacts that conservationists underscored were not addressed. Moreover, they focused on it as development project that would have a positive impact on Kenya. According to Macharia, the SGR is “engineered to minimize the impact on the environment” (2019: 175), ensuring that wildlife moves freely. In these statements, negative impacts on wildlife or ecosystems in the National Park were strikingly absent in the discourse, creating a lacuna in knowledge on environmental issues hounding the project.
Appealing to national interest
The final discursive theme appeals to a larger national interest to justify the government’s actions. Kenyatta (2017) highlighted unifying aspects of the railway, such as “prosperity and win-win cooperation for all” and often used the personal pronoun “we”, thereby fostering a sense of community among Kenyans. Indeed, the government even framed the SGR as an “example par excellence of South-South cooperation and win-win partnerships” (Taylor 2020, p. 29). This theme was employed not only by the Kenyan government but also by the Kenyan Wildlife Service. This is evident in a joint press statement together with KRC and the National Land Commission – all Kenyan state agencies. In it, they evaluate the route of the railway through Nairobi National Park as a “pragmatic solution” and a necessary compromise that reflected the broader national interest (Kenya Wildlife Service 2015). The use of “pragmatic” here implies that the KWS, along with other state agencies, found the best outcome for Kenya in a situation with external constraints on their decision-making process. These constraints might have originated from the Kenyan government itself. The GoK disregarded some of “its own governance principles” (Otele 2018, cited in Wissenbach 2020, p. 207) and legal standards while pushing for the completion of the railway. The KWS then mentions measures that would be implemented to minimize negative impacts on the environment and wildlife. Additionally, they highlight the financial savings from laying the route through these state-owned lands, framing this as a national benefit for the taxpayer (Kenya Wildlife Service 2015).
James Macharia also employed the notion of Kenya’s larger national interest to frame controversies around the SGR as illegitimate. Commenting on the protest of conservationists against the planned route and construction through the NNP (AFP 2018), he accused the protesters of harbouring malicious intentions and vilified them. He prioritised a certain national interest over the interests of the individual conservationists, which he dismissed as irrelevant and illegitimate. Macharia’s definition of national interest however runs counter to Article 42 in the constitution, where every person is entitled to a clean and healthy environment (Republic of Kenya 2010), which includes the protection of wildlife habitats as well. This exclusion of the ecological concerns of environmentalists and conservationists involved the dismissal of grievances that were deemed as unimportant to larger national interests. This discursive act has the effect of undermining the concerns of conservationists as questionable. The discursive power of Macharia lies in his institutionalised position in the MoT.
Kenyan conservationists: discursive themes
Voicing wildlife’s and environmental concerns
One overarching discursive strategy the environmentalists displayed is the voicing of concerns for wildlife, environment and conservation efforts. The Kenyan Wildlife Service, the state agency responsible for the upkeep of the National Parks in Kenya, raised concerns over affected wildlife in the Tsavo National Parks (Mkanyika 2019). Although underpasses have been installed to facilitate animal movement, animals take a long time to find these routes. The railway line, especially the fence built around it, poses a “barrier to normal wildlife movement” (ibid.). This statement is important since the KWS promised that the impact on wildlife would be minimal (Kenya Wildlife Service 2015). Similar concerns regarding the wildlife in NNP were voiced by environmentalists a few months later. The installed tunnels would not help, and elephants got stressed by the raised railway, said an activist from the East African Wildlife Society (Mutanu 2019). This would negatively affect their reproduction and their behaviour at large. Two environmentalists from the Africa Network for Animal Welfare in Kenya also called into question the effectiveness of the underpasses, stating that there was “no reliable basis” (Mwanza and Chumo 2019, p. 6) for assuming that these mitigation measures would yield positive results.
Tobias Nyumba (2021), conservationist, environmentalist and author of the study on ecological impacts mentioned above, also stated in an article that elephants displayed “aggression and avoidance of the railway,” which were signs of behavioural modification. Apart from impacts on wildlife, there was further environmental damage in terms of degraded and fragmented ecosystems caused by soil erosion, flooding and pollution. This discursive strategy of mentioning environmental impacts was also indirectly identified by other researchers. They found that conservationists were concerned about the number of trains passing through the nature reserves could negatively affect certain species (Wissenbach and Wang 2017) or saw conservation and biodiversity threatened (Carrai 2021). By doing so, the activists tried to draw attention to topics that have been overlooked, or even deliberately omitted, in the discourse about the SGR. They attribute importance to wildlife and environment and consciously include these aspects by voicing their concerns.
Questioning the EIA report
A second discursive theme can be seen in environmental activists questioning the adequacy and propriety of the EIA report that was produced for the second phase of the SGR, from Nairobi to Naivasha through the NNP. The report was dismissed by conservationists and civil society actors as biased (Carrai 2021), and Kenyan’s MoT was also seen as biased since it had a vital, economic interest in the completion of the SGR (Otele 2021). Another point for critique was that the National Environment Management Agency, the agency that commissioned the EIA report, excluded other state agencies responsible for the upkeep of the affected areas and important stakeholders from conducting the assessment (Achuka 2022). If agencies such as the KWS or the Kenya Forest Service had been included, the project’s outcome would have been better and impacts on environment or wildlife would have been reduced (ibid.).
The way the EIA was conducted was assessed by activists and environmentalists negatively. It was criticised for not being properly carried out. They claim the assessment was done superficially since “negative impacts on nature […] are not being appropriately assessed” (Nyumba and Bignoli 2021). The East African Wildlife Society even said in a magazine post that although the report was “voluminous, [it] was shambolic” (Vishwanath, 2017). Another referred issue was the lack of meaningful public consultation where local communities can voice their concerns. Here again, the exclusion of local stakeholders was obvious, which in extension was seen as a void in the EIA report. Another flaw that was found in the EIA was that it also did not consider all possible routes the SGR could have taken. Some routes would not have gone through the NNP at all, but these were not considered by the proponents of the SGR as they would have been too expensive (Mwendwa 2017). Mwanza and Chumo argue that these alternative routes would have had a lesser impact (2019). Once again, this poses a deficiency in the EIA that the conservationists draw attention to by voicing their grievances.
Appealing to the law
The third discursive strategy the conservationists resorted to is appealing to the law and the rhetoric framing of certain actions as unlawful. Many activists doubt that the “CRBC complied with Kenyan environmental laws” (Otele 2021, p. 7) and some respondents travelling with the SGR mentioned environmental concerns side by side with other criminal activities in Kenya (Lamarque 2023). In both instances, they pointed out the unlawfulness of the construction and other criminal activities. A group of activists also influenced the discourse on environmental impacts more directly by submitting a petition to stop the construction of the SGR in the NNP. This action brought environmental issues to the attention of the other actors in the discourse and led to the inclusion of environmental concerns that had, until then, not been part of the reality created by the discourse. Activist Okiya Omtatah and the Kenya Coalition for Wildlife Conservation and Management filed a petition against the National Environment Management Agency, KWS, CRBC and KRC and achieved a stop-work order that was issued by the National Environment Tribunal, to which the petition was submitted (Correspondent 2016).
The National Environment Management Agency was further criticised for “secretly [issuing] the EIA licence” in 2016 (Vishwanath 2017), with conservationists bemoaning a lack of transparency. The court injunction was seen in favour of the environmentalists, positioning the activists as being right, therefore, in opposition to the government. What sparked even more outrage was that construction continued in the section for which the stop-work order was issued. Activists framed this as a “complete contempt of court orders” (ibid.), the Kenyan government and the CRBC were portrayed as violating laws and regulations they are supposed to uphold. This was echoed by activists from Wildlife Direct and the Africa Network for Animal Welfare who said that their government was “hell-bent on getting its way”, even though it is “openly breaking the law” (AFP 2018) by pushing for the completion of the project. The government even tried to amend the law that enabled the stop-work order. Although the High Court ultimately overruled this amendment, this attempt was highly criticised by the activists. With this discursive theme, the conservationists demonstrated rhetorically that their actions were not only morally right, but also lawful. This gave more leverage and power to their claims and brought their concerns into the discourse around environmental impacts of the SGR to a higher level.
Discussion
The analysis of discursive power among the Chinese government, the Kenyan government, and Kenyan conversationists reveals complex dynamics shaping the discourse on environmental impacts. Civil society actors were able to exert agency through their respective discursive power, though with significantly less scope than state actors. They employed various strategies to highlight the environmental impacts they deemed noteworthy, leveraging public opinion, the press and legal frameworks to voice their grievances and to draw attention to the less dominant environmental concerns. The legal case submitted to the National Environment Tribunal by Kenyan civil society actors exemplifies the use of legal avenues to challenge their own government’s decisions and powers. The petitioners exercised their environmental rights as stipulated in the constitution by appealing to transparency, accountability and public participation, all elements they found lacking in the official discourse around environmental impacts of the SGR. By referring to the legal and moral imperatives of environmental conservation, they sought to challenge the dominant narratives of that discourse that prioritized economic values. The activists filled gaps deliberately left by official narratives, showing that the GoK and the CRBC’s self-portrayal as environmentally conscious and law-abiding was incomplete.
However, their discursive power – and agency – remained limited by their access to resources. The Kenyan government possesses more resources and channels to promote its perspectives and could also make use of its institutional authority, giving their discourse more credibility. Moreover, the GoK marginalised the perspectives of environmentalists more actively. It bypassed governance challenges that were institutionally required to ensure environmental protection and stakeholder engagement. “Kenyatta’s office was crucial in speeding up construction” (Carrai, 2021, p. 16) which restricted the conservationists’ agency. James Macharia’s framing of environmentalists as “busybodies” (AFP 2018) illustrated the dismissive attitude of the government when environmental concerns clashed with their own development goals. The legitimacy of such issues and the people who voiced them was diminished in the discourse, making it difficult to achieve credibility and bargaining power. The GoK framed environmental concerns as a hindrance to national development rather than a necessary and important protection measure for the environment.
The Chinese government similarly constrained the environmentalists’ exercise of agency. The state-owned CRBC framed the SGR as a “good example of environmentally friendly modern construction” (Njoroge 2022). This strategy sought to pre-emptively counter criticism regarding environmental damages and enforces this strategy by emphasising its strict compliance with Kenyan laws. This restricted potential grounds for critique that could be voiced by Kenyan environmentalists. Framing the CRBC as an environmentally responsible project contractor discursively weakened the claims and protests of conservationists. Their narratives are now directly opposed to those of the CRBC, and environmental concerns will not have as much footing in the discourse. This illustrates the power-knowledge relations: the CRBC allocated financial resources for communication and was keen to control the narrative of its environmental engagement in Kenya. In turn, this framed the discourse in a way that was beneficial to the enterprise and contributed to constructing what was perceived as reality.
These differences in the perspectives within the discourse reflect broader power imbalances. The Kenyan government holds greater influence on the discourse given its access to state resources, its official position, and its institutionalised power to frame the environmental discourse to its own liking. While this enabled the GoK to exercise agency, it limited the agency of civil society actors, as the practices of “African elites often undermine and subvert state’s institutions” (Taylor 2014, p. 7) that were supposed to include Kenyan non-government stakeholders in the SGR’s construction. The Chinese government had a similar advantage as the Kenyan government. Through its control over media narratives in China and the considerable resources it can allocate to framing the discourse in Kenya as well, for instance through its CSR report and CRBC communication managers, these perspectives could be more easily distributed. Although these factors diminished the discursive power of Kenyan environmentalists, they nevertheless, despite their marginalised position, succeeded in mobilising public opinion and securing a court injunction in their favour. This represented their own way of exercising agency.
Conclusion
This paper examined how the Chinese government, Kenyan state officials, and Kenyan conservationists and environmentalists framed the environmental impacts of the Standard Gauge Railway. The analysis identified distinct discursive power and varying degrees of agency. The main findings consist of the strategies and discursive themes the three actors utilised with their different perspectives. The Government of Kenya predominantly frames the SGR as crucial infrastructure for national development, emphasising economic growth, job opportunities and other material benefits, while conveniently omitting environmental concerns. Furthermore, the GoK has portrayed conservationists and their actions as hindrances to national advancement which delegitimizes environmental and wildlife advocacy. The strategies of the Chinese government are similar to those of the GoK insofar as they also emphasise economic benefits while omitting environmental impacts or related controversies. On top of that, they highlight compliance with Kenyan laws and regulations which frames the construction of the SGR and CRBC and, by extension, the Chinese government as environmentally responsible.
Kenyan conservationists, in contrast, highlight impacts on the environment and wildlife as these issues have not been a dominant aspect of the discourse. They use legal channels to lend weight to their claims, with the National Environment Tribunal ruling in their favour. The conservationists critique the EIA and point towards its deficiencies, which have constructed the discourse and the reality in favour of the GoK and CRBC. The government perspectives of China and Kenya have overall similar strategies; they differ due to their respective position in the localised Kenyan context. The perspective of the environmentalists is different in that it fills the gap left intentionally blank by pointing towards actual environmental impacts that have previously been sidelined.
The dominance of economic narratives over environmental grievances in discourses on development infrastructures illustrates a broader tension often observed in the Global South: balancing the imperatives of rapid economic development and the conservation of ecological systems. However, this tension is not always clear-cut. In Kenya, for instance, conservation is closely linked to the tourism sector, itself a crucial sector of the national economy. Despite this alignment, environmental concerns can still get sidelined when they are perceived as hindrances to flagship projects deemed vital for national development, such as the SGR.
These findings contribute to the body of literature on the exercise of agency of key stakeholders in Kenya, especially the agency of non-state and civil society actors who promote environmental concerns in the face of large-scale infrastructure projects in the continent. The Kenyan government successfully exercised agency when pushing for the completion of the SGR project. However, this agency proved detrimental to conservation goals. Despite protests and petitions, the construction continued through the Nairobi National Park, without legal consequences for the GoK. Kenyan conservationists were limited in their power, but still able to use certain outlets to exercise agency as civil society actors.
Some limitations of this paper open avenues for future research. The reliance on secondary data, such as newspaper reports or statements from secondary literature can be seen as limitation since the circumstances under which they were collected could not be ascertained. Future research could address this by incorporating interviews and fieldwork to ensure nuanced understandings of the (public) perceptions of certain contested issues. Another limitation lies in the paper’s focus on conservationists as one aspect of local interests. Expanding the analysis would capture a broader range of local voices such as farmers, pastoralists and others whose interests may diverge from environmental advocacy.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a research paper the author wrote for the undergraduate course ‘South-South cooperation then and now – zooming in on Africa-China relations’, which was instructed by Dr. Tim Zajontz at the University of Freiburg. The author would like to thank Dr. Zajontz for his support during the writing process and for his encouragement to publish this paper. Additionally, the author thanks Ilya Mulders as well as the peer reviewers of this journal for reviewing the paper and offering valuable feedback.
Competing Interests
The author has no competing interests to declare.