EDITORIAL: Rethink relocation of cargo to Naivasha port
What you need to know:
- Cargo handlers, clearing and forwarding agents, traders and those in the logistics chain based in Mombasa have vocally opposed the move, and on several occasions, and mounted protests to express their rejection.
- For them, the transition is a straight loss of business. And that affects a long chain of other players.
The government’s directive on the use of Naivasha inland port for transit goods has sparked debate in recent weeks and should be resolved as it has serious implications on regional trade. Several issues have come to the fore. At the core is the question of viability and cost-effectiveness of the transit port. Equally, concerns have been expressed regarding the quality and adequacy of facilities at the Naivasha port.
The rationale for Naivasha inland port is that it provides an easy and direct transportation of goods from Mombasa through the Standard Gauge Railway. It eases congestion at the Mombasa port and expedites the turnaround time of freight movement. Moreover, it’s part of the Northern Corridor transport system that is collectively being promoted by EAC Heads of State. To be sure, the resolution to use Naivasha inland port was ratified at a recent meeting of regional Presidents last month.
Notwithstanding the political agreements canvassed at the highest level, there are serious practical issues that have to be addressed. Uganda, which is among the top users of Mombasa port, has twice written to Kenya in recent weeks to express objection to the use of Naivasha port on the grounds that it will raise freight costs and consequently increase the cost of doing business. Which raises the question of whether the countries are really committed to the relocation or only do that for political convenience, but have other considerations.
Cargo handlers, clearing and forwarding agents, traders and those in the logistics chain based in Mombasa have vocally opposed the move, and on several occasions, and mounted protests to express their rejection. For them, the transition is a straight loss of business. And that affects a long chain of other players.
This week, Infrastructure Cabinet Secretary James Macharia sought to clarify the issues as he met MPs, explaining that he was simply executing a directive by the Heads of State. Moreover, he indicated that the directive was part of the strategies to avert Covid-19 infections by easing congestion at the Mombasa port.
Right from the start, it is acknowledged that Mombasa port, which has served the region for years, is riddled with many challenges, some historical, technical and political, but which collectively have undermined its capacity to offer effective service. Which makes it necessary to explore other options.
However, pertinent issues have been raised which Mr Macharia and his team have to address. When key stakeholders raise issues, they deserve a hearing. Relocation to Naivasha inland port should be properly thought through.
