The accusations followed a high profile meeting of ‘The Friends of UNEP' in Paris which newspaper reports say Kenya and South Africa did not attend. Whether this absence was occasioned by non-invitation or by a refusal by the African nations to attend has not been made clear by Kibwana, but is truly peculiar considering the recent Climate Change conference in Nairobi, and the fact that Kenya has hosted the UN body since 1972. 

The UNEP explanation has been that the Paris meeting was not inter-governmental and that the invitations were made to civil society leaders, including Kenya's Wangari Maathai.   

As the dust settled, and following rigorous denials both from the French and the UNEP Executive Director in Nairobi Achim Steiner, Kenyans have been asking themselves exactly what it is they stand to lose if the UN body was to leave Nairobi. As it is the UNEP and the Centre for Human Settlements -Habitat are the only UN agencies headquartered outside of the western world. This ironically it is claimed, is one of the extenuations held up by those seeking a transfer, the claim being that with the major conventions related to the environment, i.e. the Convention on Biological Diversity , the Convention on Desertification and the one on Climate Change were all headquartered in the West, specifically in Canada and Germany. Shifting the UNEP headquarters to Europe is thus seen as a logical move with a view to easing operations. 

Nairobi's paranoia, though dismissed by the French and Steiner is not without precedent. Not too long ago, Nairobi's increasing insecurity and her C-station status for hardship and security, were the reasons behind another move to relocate the two UN bodies to safer climes.  As Nairobi's security situation worsens, and with it the cost to the world body of having two of its world headquarters there, it is time we asked ourselves, what exactly do we get out of this, and is the privilege and income we derive not worth fighting to retain?