Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 9

Forest Conflict Amidst National Controversy in Kenya: Lessons of the Mau Complex

Elijah M Siringi School of Finance and Banking, Kigali, Rwanda

Abstract

Conflict of Mau forest Management continue amidst confusion and dismay in Kenya. Politics being at the centre stage; Mau forest complex has lost about 107,000 hectares, or 25 percent of its forest covers through: irregular and unplanned settlements, and charcoal burning, change of land use from forest to unsustainable agriculture and change in ownership from public to private. This scenario threatens potentials of energy generation; tourism, agriculture and water supplies into Kenyan cities and industry and therefore deteriorate East Africa's biggest economy. The conflict resolution model in this paper describes participatory role of local institutions in conflict management as key, and argue therefore that enhancing communication and developing a framework of negotiation and dialogue among interested parties engaged in conflict will promote meaningful resolution of the Mau conflict. We suggest that Kenya as government need to engage on modern and skilful conflict resolution process that is not guided by politics but rather engage on forward looking process to resolve Mau conflict once and for all. This can be achieved through a conflict resolution management process which mobilizes local capacity through the use of local approaches such as customary laws, local leadership and negotiation skills.

Key words: forest conflict / natural resources / Mau Forest Complex / conflict resolution process/ Kenya

1. Introduction the last remaining forest dwellers, are scattered all over the seven forest blocks. This paper focuses on forest Over the years, almost a quarter of conflicts and sustainable management the Mau forest has been lost to human challenges in Kenya with special settlements, illegal logging, farming and a reference to Mau Forest Complex. The host of other human activities. There are 400,000 hectares Mau Forest Complex more than 25,000 settlers, mainly farmers, sits on aquifers that provide water to who have totally degraded and destroyed millions of people in the Rift Valley and the environment to pave way for their western Kenya. The Mau comprises 16 settlement and farming. These combined contiguous forest blocks, gazetted as activities have caused several rivers to dry forest reserves or trust-land forest. The up permanently. Many research studies forest is divided into seven blocks have unveiled Mau‟s immense value. At comprising South-West Mau (Tinet), East minimum, twelve rivers spring out from Mau, Ol‟donyo Purro, Transmara, Maasai the Mau forest and flow to different Mau, Western Mau and Southern Mau. corners of the country. The rivers breathe These seven blocks merge to form the life and vitality into the world famous larger Mau Forest complex. Of all the Maasai Mara National Reserve, and forest blocs, only the Maasai Mau is not Serengeti and Lake Nakuru National gazetted. The Ogiek community, who are Parks (GOK, 2007)

10 Elijah M.S. / Research Article: 9-22

Currently there is an on-going 2. Conceptual Framework of Mau conflict between the government of Forest Complex Conflict Kenya and the farmers/new settlers and Ogiek community who are believed to In this section, we define our key have lived in harmony with forest concepts and assumptions and discuss biodiversity since immemorial in the some of the issues that have recurred in Kenyan . The farmers/new settlers our work. Conflict is an emotive term that living in Mau Forest were allocated land provokes various images or associations by the previous KANU regime and given amongst people. As with all concepts in land title deeds by the government of social sciences a bewildering variety of Kenya while other group of settlers are definitions co-exist (Wall and Callister, believed to have encroached into the 1995). Daniels and Walker (2001) suggest forest illegally. that all social conflicts are based on The Government of Kenya has differences in things such as interest, taken stringent measures to evict the perception, power and goals. communities living in the Mau Forest Furthermore, Glasl (1999) argues that Complex forcefully and they have conflict only occurs if an actor feels become internally displaced people in „impairment‟ from the behaviour of their own Land. More than 2,000 families another actor. The experience of an are camping along the forest cut-line in actor‟s behaviour as impairment becomes Kipkongor, Terta, Chematich and a prerequisite for conflict, thereby Kapkembu in south western Mau. The providing a clear criterion to distinguish eviction of communities living Mau conflict from non-conflict situations. In Forest complex was enforced by the the context of common pool resource contingent of officers from the Kenya (CPR) management, impairment can be Wildlife Service after expiry of a experienced, for example, in terms of government notice to vacate from the restriction over access to certain forest or forest. Politics has taken the center stage fish products, exclusion from resource of this conflict despite the government of management, pollution due to resource Kenya through the cabinet endorsing extraction, etc. (Ostrom, 1990, Yasmi, recommendations of the task force on 2002, 2003, Peluso, 1994, Adams et al., Mau forest that were adopted by the 2003). There are a lot of factors that Kenyan parliament to evict communities trigger „impairing‟ behaviour such as living in the forest. unclear resource boundaries, scarcity, The purpose of this paper is to population growth and legal pluralism. critically appraise the current Mau Forest For example, conflicts over access to conflict as a challenge to sustainable agricultural land and other productive management of natural resources in uses at forest frontiers are mainly Kenya. The specific objectives of this attributed to the absence of clear paper are to: provide a situational boundaries (Hotte, 2001, Dennis et al., overview of natural forest resources in 2001). If boundaries are in place they are Kenya; assess the potentials of Mau often contested or interpreted differently. Forest Complex and; determine a conflict Access to resources is aggravated by management model for resolving the Mau scarcity and demographic pressures forest conflict. (Homer-Dixon, 1999). In addition, CPR management is often defined by different sets of rules (formal and informal). With all these phenomena conflict is unavoidable. In many places, the costs

Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 11

and consequences of resource conflicts spelt out of fundamental departure from have become unacceptably high (Watch, government ownership and control of vast 1997, Ho, 2006, de Jong et al., 2006, forest estates of both indigenous forests Bogale et al., 2006). Therefore, the call and exotic plantations to more for effective conflict management has participatory management of forest increased. Conflict management includes resources by communities and the private all activities that have the intention to sector. reduce or solve the conflict (Deutsch, Under the new law, communities 1973). Its „ideal‟ goal is to attain desirable living around gazetted forest reserves can positive outcomes (i.e. win-win solutions) establish and register forest user and reduce or eliminate escalation to associations and apply to the Kenya destructive levels (Kriesberg, 1998). Forest Service for joint management Scholars argue that conflict management arrangements of the respective forests. has to mobilize local capacity through the The act also provides for incentives to use of local approaches such as customary individuals and communities to establish laws, local leadership, and negotiation arboreta and forests on privately owned skills (FAO, 2000, Engel and Korf, 2005). land. A key departure from the old law is Local response to conflict is seen as the the requirement that before the first and quickest available conflict government de-gazettes an existing forest management strategy. It is often argued reserve or section of it; it must consult that stakeholders at local level know with the affected communities and seek „best‟ their conflict situations. The “ideal” approval from the parliament. The goal in conflict management is to achieve expected output of this conflict resolution positive changes and avoid unnecessary process captured in our conceptual escalation to destructive levels. While it framework is diverse: Mau will be has been argued that the role of local rehabilitated and restored; security of the institutions in conflict management is forest will be ensured; the size of the central, little is known about how these forest will increase; will institutions could actually deal with increase; water towers in Kenya will be conflict. In our conceptualisation restored; energy generation problems will framework, we argue therefore that be a thing of the past; soil erosion will be enhancing communication and developing controlled; drought incidence in Kenya a mechanism of exchange among may be controlled; tourism activites will settlements engaged in conflict will flourish; Biodiversity will improve; promote better understanding of the pastorism will be enhanced; sequester problem and thus allows improvement in more carbon; timber will be provided to the current approaches in managing local people. Among other environmental; conflict. We base our argument on the social and economic benefits the national current 2005 forest Act enacted by the GDP will increase and therefore Kenya government of Kenya. In this Act of 2005 will become a better place to stay there is a prudent and credible proposal (Figure1).

12 Elijah M.S. / Research Article: 9-22

Republic of Kenya’s Forest Act 2005

Kenya Forest Service Reforce co-management Policy

Mau Forest Strengthen capacity of

Stakeholders‟ co- Mau Forest knowledge though management Complex dialogue with people

living in Mau forest on

Co-management Policy

Protected , restored and rehabilitated Mau Forest  Improved relationship between government of Kenya and victims living in Mau forest  Mau will be rehabilitated and restored  Security of the forest will be enhanced  size of the forest will Increase  Water towers in Kenya will be restored and protected  Tourism Activites will flourish  Pastorism will be enhanced  National GDP will increase Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of Mau Forest Conflict

3. Research Methodology government commissioned a task force to probe the Mau Forest in 2008 and it‟s This is a case study of the Mau report was adopted by the Kenyan Forest Complex that draws heavily on parliament; the United Nations secondary data collected from diverse Environmental programme (UNEP), in sources. The Mau forest Complex has conjunction with Uaso Ngiro South attracted quite a number of research Development Authority, Kenya Wildlife scholars of diverse disciplines and each Service , the Kenya Forest Working has put scholarly and professional Group conducted an extensive research experience to make a contribution in project and has given situational status of resolving the current problem. For this Mau in a report entitled Maasai Mau purposes the available empirical Forest Status Report (2005); National secondary literature has guided our Assembly Official Report that captures research. For instance, the Kenyan the proceedings of the debate on Mau in

Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 13

the Kenyan parliament on Tuesday 12th , government of Kenya for taking the first May 2009; Kenya Vision 2030 ( GOK, step to resolve the conflict even though 2007); Forest Law Enforcement And faced with tough resistance from other Governance In Kenya: A study jointly parties. Engaging the world community is prepared by the Kenya Forest Service a prudent step since Kenya is a signatory (KFS) of the Ministry of Environment and of many conventional environmental Natural Resources; Kenya Natural treaties. What everyone anticipates in this Disaster Profile Report (2005) by United process is commitment and honest Nations Development Program - dialogue/mediation on the part of the Enhanced Security Unit; African Regional government of Kenya. As per the current Expert Working Group On Indicators Of constitution of Kenya, the president is Wellbeing And Indigenous Peoples final in the government decision-making meeting Report November, 2006; process. However, the truth of the matter Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework is that this conflict originated and was for the Western Kenya Community escalated by former presidents of the Driven Development and Flood republic of Kenya taking advantage of the Mitigation Project and the Natural constitution. When Professor Wangari Resource Management Project Final Maathai Nobel Peace Price winner for Report, December 2006, Republic of 2004, and many other non- government Kenya. Considering these and many other organisations were rebuking the previous studies we critically analyse the government of Kenya on dishonest results of this research. decisions of issuing land title deeds to the innocent people of the Republic of Kenya, 4. Results and Discussion the government gave a deaf ear. There is no doubt that the settlers must be 4.1 Approaches to Resolve Mau Forest relocated but considerations regarding the Complex Conflict acquisition of title deeds must be kept in mind. While there‟s no denying that the A model of adaptive conflict settlement was done by previous management emphasising communication administrations and a political party among the parties and a participatory which is today at the fringes, government approach that involves monitoring of the actions supersede individual occupants of conflict resolution outcomes is proposed. high office. A government decision does The recognition that strong perceptions not become illegal just because the person among stakeholders have the potential to who made the decision is no longer in aggravate conflicts is central to the office. This is where the government concept of a inclusionary conflict faces an acid test to prove to the people of management framework, improved Kenya that the government respects land communication between all stakeholders, title deeds issued by the Republic of and better awareness of the context of the Kenya‟s Ministry. conflicts is emphasised in this paper. In If this process of restoring the Mau the analysis the study reveals the interest Forest Complex has been initiated again parties or stakeholders who are at the in 2009, let the government be serious and center stage in this conflict. They include: committed to resolve this matter once and the world community; Government of for all. Current literature on many studies Kenya, the people of Kenya; the Ogiek relating to conflicts of this nature Community and; the farmers/New elsewhere in the world shows that settlers. The government of Kenya must conflicts relating to forests are carefully take lead in this process. We applaud the resolved when the government mobilises

14 Elijah M.S. / Research Article: 9-22

the local capacity through the use of local  Formulate a framework to tackle approaches such as customary laws, local the problem leadership and negotiation skills. For this  Nominate people of integrity to reason, we have attempted to develop a engage in a dialogue process model that is workable and which can  Finance the negotiation conflict guide the management of the Mau Forest resolution process of Mau Forest. conflict resolution process to its logical  Engage all stakeholders in the conclusion (Figure 2). However, before negotiation and dialogue process the government of Kenya engages in this to be part of the solution. process, there are critical factors that must  As much as possible, let the keep in view: resolutions of the dialogue process  Respect of human rights as spelt in be implemented no matter how the Constitution of Kenya painful they may be.  Respect of land title deeds issued  Adopt the resolutions and to the Kenyan citizens by the formulate a new policy on Mau. Government of Kenya in  Compensate victims living in Mau accordance with the law of Kenya Forest.  Respect for environmental world  Resettle all victims living in Mau conventional treaties signed by the to safer places to re-start their Government of Kenya. lives.  Respect for the Ogiek community  Adopt co-management strategies as a people of Kenya who live in of all forests in Kenya. the forest for their livelihood. This  Guarantee indigenous peoples‟ is in accordance with “Report of (Ogiek) and local communities‟ the African Commission‟s (farmers/new settlers) territorial Working Group on Indigenous, rights. Populations / Communities”.  Ensure participation of indigenous  Lead an honest and trustworthy peoples and local communities in negotiation /mediation process policy negotiations relating to the freely without prejudice assisted Mau Forest Conflict. by world community participants  Strengthen and redefine state duly nominated. functions by promoting regulatory  Restrain politicians from entering and control systems over forests in mediation/negotiation process Kenya.  Focus on restoration of Mau Forest only and resist double Role of the world community in the standards while making critical conflict resolution process of Mau Mau Forest Complex decisions. Forest  Maintain Respect for customary leaders and incorporate them in  Provide expertise resources to help the mediation process. in the conflict dialogue process  Let mediation/negotiations be  Sponsor conflict resolution through a stakeholders‟ dialogue stakeholders‟ workshops. process and a win-win situation.  Conduct capacity building on the need of restoration of Mau Forest Role of the Government in Mau conflict Complex through evidence-based resolution process research.  Donate compensation funds to victims living in Mau Forest.

Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 15

 Assist the government of Kenya in dialogue with the government to devising a modern system of end the conflict. resettling victims of Mau Forest  Be a watchdog of the victims living comfortably though donations and in Mau so that their rights are not counselling and capacity building violated processes.  Ensure that the government  Ensure the conflict resolutions that conducts a just and truthful conflict emerge from the dialogue process dialogue to its logical conclusion. are implemented to the letter.  As much as possible avoid  Assist to formulate a modern politicising the Mau conflict but policy on Mau forest that conforms rather be a part of the solution to other world conventional treaties  Ensure that a new policy on Mau to which Kenya is a signatory. does not infringe in any way  Fund a participatory Mau Forest common citizens‟ human rights. restoration project for planting trees  Ensure that victims living in the involving the local people and the Mau Forest are compensated Ogiek community as a sustainable  Help the government to resettle co- management strategy. victims living in Mau Forest.  Help the government to formulate a Role of the political class in the co-management policy strategy on resolution of the Mau Forest conflict forests in Kenya that conforms to world conventional treaties to  Sensitise victims living in Mau on which Kenya is a signatory. the need to engage in construction

Government World of Kenya Community

Political Class

Ogiek Farmers/New Community Settlers

-Compensation -Resettlement -Co-management -New policy on Mau for protection

Figure 2 A Workable Approach to Resolve Mau Forest Conflict

Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 13

Role of the Ogiek in the resolution of Mau Forest conflict Although this paper has identified key roles for all stakeholders in the Mau  Agree to engage the government conflict resolution process; it must be on new treaty that protects emphasised that the process of restoration human right violations that of the Mau is a strategic priority that conforms to indigenous requires substantial resources and political marginalised community living will. What the Interim Mau Forest Task- in forests in Kenya. force calls a ten-point strategy can work  Participate in the conflict smoothly when the conflict resolution resolution process as process incorporates stakeholders in a stakeholders and be part of the participatory decision-making process. I solution on Mau Forest. find no fault with the key intervention  Be a signatory of new policies measures but caution strongly that politics on Mau forest that aim to protect must be kept out of this process. The and restore its original beauty government of Kenya must be applauded  Agree to co-manage Mau Forest for such effort. With the launch of the with the government as the only $400 million appeal to save the Mau community that depends on Forest with the U.N. Environment forests in Kenya as a home and Programme (UNEP), Kenya‟s ambitious for livelihood. strategy in the year 2009 to bring the Mau conflict to rest may be achieved if the Farmers/new settlers’ role in Mau following key interventions are Forest conflict resolution implemented:

 Conduct census to establish the  Creation of effective institutional number of land title deeds issued frameworks by the government of Kenya to  Strategic management plan for farmers living in Mau the Mau Forest Complex  Produce land title deeds as  Public awareness and community evidence to establish genuine sensitization farmers living in Mau Forest for  Boundary surveys and issuance purposes of compensation. of title deeds for forest blocks  Participate in conflict resolution  Monitoring and enforcement dialogue and be part of the  Relocation and resettlement solution  Livelihood support and  Enter into agreement with the development for poverty government of Kenya on alleviation modalities of compensation and  Restoration and replanting of resettlement process. degraded Sites  Be willing to be resettled  Private sector investment elsewhere by the government and  Resource mobilization re-start new life.  Participate in the planting of As political leaders and elders in trees at Mau Forest as a Kenya have rightly noted in various sustainable management strategy forums: political rallies, churches and in of the Mau restoration project parliament, the issue of settlers in the Mau programme. Forest must be handled with extreme

Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 17

sensitivity and through a just mechanism. forest estates of both indigenous forests Unless justice and compensation are and exotic plantations to more handled to the satisfaction of the settlers, participatory management of forest the government could easily be laying the resources by communities and the private grounds for armed conflict that could sector. have major repercussions on the stability At the conflict resolution of the Kenyan state. negotiation level, we have designed a All over the world, the mishandling model that defines the role of each of problems similar to what we see in the interested party in the Mau conflict: the Mau has led to rebel movements such as government, the world community, the the ones we saw at Mt. Elgon recently and political class, the Ogiek, and the possibly the toppling of the government. farmers/new settlers. The formula is The Mau crisis of the 1950s was in large simple if the rules of the game are part attributed to the manner in which the followed. Let each party play its role in British colonial authorities mishandled the conflict negotiation process and Kikuyu land grievances. We must learn prudent resolutions will be reached. We from history so as not to repeat similar have suggested that politics must be kept mistakes. out of Mau conflict negotiations process so that stakeholders can formulate 5. Conclusion and Recommendations workable policy measures on Mau Forest through participatory decision-making Mau Forest conflict can be best process. A win-win situation in Mau understood and resolved by looking at the conflict negotiations must be the guiding historical background that surrounds the principle to moot a new policy. We whole episode. The Government of Kenya recommend that the new policy on Mau through its intervention efforts has the must therefore: mandate to resolve this conflict. What is 1. Be implemented to the letter required now is a prudent approach that whether painful or not through ensures participation of indigenous intervention policy measures by the peoples (Ogiek community) and local government of Kenya. communities (farmers/new settlers) in 2. Increase the range of livelihood policy negotiations. Let the government alternatives for forest-dwelling show commitment in this process and at communities. all cost restrain the political class of 3. Increase the share of benefits to people who have taken advantage of Mau local communities from timber and other conflict to gain mileage in politics. In the forest products. conceptual framework, it is argued that 4. Provide economic incentives for enhancing communication and developing sustainable timber harvesting and logging a mechanism of exchange among operations. settlements engaged in conflict will 5. Strengthen local land rights that promote better understanding of the combat forest degradation because problem and thus allows improvement in traditional forest management by the current approaches in managing local communities often prevents overuse conflict. The argument is based on the of resources. Institutions that mediate current 2005 Forest Act enacted by the between parties, monitor compliance, and Government of Kenya. In this act there is enforce sanctions can help sort out a prudent and credible proposal spelt out competing land and vegetation rights. of fundamental departure from 6. Reform the forest sector; government ownership and control of vast establish sustainable Forest Management

18 Elijah M.S. / Research Article: 9-22

(SFM) practices, and build capacity for A. Aboud, (eds): Natural Resource government services, law enforcement Management in African personnel, and civil society. Agriculture. Wallingford, UK: 7. Establish a publicly accessible, CABI. nationally centralized forest database. Barrett, F. Place, A. Aboud, 2002. 8. Promote alternative local Natural Resource Management in livelihood initiatives for poverty African Agriculture. Wallingford, alleviation. UK: CABI. 9. Consider the legitimate interests Barrett, C. J. Lynam, F. Place, T. of all stakeholders when developing forest Reardon, and A. Aboud. 2002. legislation. Chapter 22. Towards improved 10. Enforce laws and improve natural resource management in forest-related governance, including African agriculture. In: C. Barrett, accountability, transparency, and F. Place, A. Aboud, (eds): Natural law enforcement. Resource Management in African 11. Strengthen forest conflict Agriculture. Wallingford, UK: resolution institutions and mechanisms at CABI. different levels and scales of conflict. Bogale, A., Taeb, M and Endo, M. 2006. 12. Ensure that local communities Land ownership and conflicts over and key stakeholders are aware of and the Use of resources: implication for able to exercise their forest-related household vulnerability in eastern rights, entitlements, and responsibilities. Ethiopia. Ecological economics 13. Support policy research and 58(1): 134-145. forest management, and also capacity Collins, A. 2007. Community-based building with conflict mediation, natural resource management in mitigation, and resolution. The strategy Kenya. Alberta: Canada Emerald promotes consensus-based policy for a Group Publishing Limited. national forest program through Duke, L. 2004. From the Ground Up participatory activities, including multi- Wangari Maathai's Plan For stakeholder workshops, seminars, and Daniels, S.E. And Walker, training programs. G.B.(2001):Working through environmental conflict: the 6. References collaborative learning approach. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut. Adams, W.M., Brockington, D., Dyson, J. Cultivating Peace is Taking Root in and Vira, B. 2003. Managing Africa. Washington Post, P, D01. tragedies: Understanding conflict 2006. [Online]. Available: over common pool resources. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- Science 302: 1915-1916. dyn/articles/A24008- Barrett, C. 2002. Natural resources 2004Dec24.html [Accessed on 3 management in CGIAR: a meta- January 2006]. evaluation. Washington D.C.: De Jong, W., Ruiz, S. And Becker, M. World Bank. 2006. Conflict and communal forest Barrett, C., F. Place, A. Aboud, and D. Management in northern Bolivia. Brown. 2002. Chapter 1. The Forest Policy and Economics 8(4): challenge of Stimulating adoption 447-457. of improved natural resource Deutsch, M. 1973. The resolution of management practices in African conflict. New Haven: Yale Agriculture. In: C. Barrett, F. Place, University Press.

Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 19

Dennis, R., Colfer, C.J.P., Puntodewo, A. Mitigation Project and the 2001. Forest cover change analysis natural Resource Management is a proxy: Sustainability Project Final Report December assessment using remote sensing 2006. and GIS in West Kalimantan, Government of Kenya. 2007. Kenya Indonesia. In: Colfer, C.J.P And Vision 2030. Byron, Y (eds): People managing Government of Kenya. 2005. Maasai Forests: the links between Mau Forest Status Report 2005. human well-being and Government of Kenya. 2009. National sustainability. Washington, DC.: Assembly Official Report: RFF. Tuesday, 12th May, 2009. Drucker, P. 1999. Management GLASL, F. 1999. Confronting conflict: Challenges for the 21st Century. a first-aid kit for handling confl US.: Harper Business. ict. Goucestershire: Howthorn FAO. 2000. Conflict and natural Press. resource management. Rome: Mogaka, H., Simons, G., Turpie, J., FAO. Emerton, L. and Karanja, F. 2001. Engel, A. and Korf, B. 2005. Negotiation Economic Aspects of Community and mediation techniques for Involvement in Sustainable Forest natural resource Management. Management In Eastern and Rome: FAO. Southern Africa. IUCN Eastern Emerton, L., Karanja, F. and Gichere, S. Africa Programme. 2001. Environment, Poverty & HO, P. 2006. Credibility of institutions: Economic Growth in Kenya: , social conflict and titling in What are the Links, and why do China. Land Use Policy 23(4): 588- they Matter? Nairobi: IUCN - The 603. World Conservation Union, Eastern Homer-Dixon, T.F.1999. Environment, Africa Regional Office. scarcity, and violence. New Jersey: Kigenyi, F., Gondo, P. and Mugabe, J. Princeton University Press. 2002. Practice Before Policy: An Hotte, L. 2001. Conflicts over property Analysis of Policy and Institutional rights and natural-resource Changes Enabling Community exploitation at the Frontier. Journal Involvement in Forest Management of Development Economics 66: 1- in Eastern and Southern Africa. 21. Forest and Social Perspectives in Jansen, R. 2003. Background to the Conservation No. 10. IUCN Ogiek Case. [Online]. Available: Eastern Africa Programme. http://www.ogiek.org. Kigenyi, F., Gondo, P. and Mugabe, J. Kamau, J. 2005. The Ogiek: An In- 2002. Practice before Policy: depth Report for Rights Features analysis of Policy and Service. [Online]. Available: Institutional Changes Enabling http://www.ogiek.org. Community Involvement in Kalande,W. 2008. Kenyan Land Disputes Forest Management in Eastern in the Context of Social Conflict and Southern Africa. IUCN Theories. FIG Commission 7 Eastern Africa Programme. Annual Meeting and Open Government of Kenya. 2006. Indigenous Symposium on Environment and Peoples Planning Framework For Land Administration. „Big Works The Western Kenya Community for Defence of the Territory’ Driven Development and Flood

20 Elijah M.S. / Research Article: 9-22

Verona-ITALY, 11-15 September Cambridge: Cambridge University 2008. Press. Kenya Map – Africa. [Online]. Available: Peluso, N.L. and Watts, M. (eds.). 2001. http://kenya.africa-atlas.com. Violent environment. New York: Secretariat of the Convention on Cornell University press. Biological Diversity. 2009. Peluso, N.L 1994. The impact of social Sustainable forest Management, and environmental change on Biodiversity and Livelihoods: A forest management: a case Study Good Practice Guide. Montreal. from West Kalimantan, Sang, J.K. 2001. The Ogiek in Mau Indonesia. Rome: FAO Community Forest-Kenya; Conference Forestry Case Study Series No. 8. discussions: Kenya, Tanzania, and Peluso, N.L. 1992. Rich forests, poor Uganda. people: resource control and Yasmi, Y., Yuliani, L., Indriatmoko, Y., resistance in Java. Berkeley: Heri, V. and Colfer, C.J.P. 2007. University of California Press. Conflict management approaches Peluso, N.L. 1990. A history of state under unclear boundaries of the forest management in Java. In: Commons: Experiences from Poffenberger, M. Keepers of the Danau Sentarum National Park. forest: land management West Kalimantan. alternatives in Southeast Asia (pp UN. 2008. The Kenya 27- 55). Connecticut: Kumarian Economy US$300M: United Press. Nations on Environment. Daily Wall, J.A. Jr. and Callister, R.B. 1995. Nation Kenya, July 2008. Conflict and its management. Fujisaka, S. and White, D. 2004. Ex-Post Journal of Management 21(23): Methods to Measure Natural 515- 558. Resource Management Research Ben, W. 2002. Tropical Secondary Impacts. Forest Management in Africa: Geller, S., McConnell, R. and Wanyiri, J. Reality And Perspectives Kenya 2007. Linking National Forest Country. FAO. Programmes and Poverty Maathai, W. 2004. Nobel Peace Prize Reduction Strategies, Kenya: winner, 2004. FAO. Walubengo, D. 2009. Deforestation to MENR. 1994. Kenya Forestry Master Re-afforestation: Turning around Plan: Development Programmes. Kenya’s Forest. A concept paper Nairobi: Ministry of Environment [Online]. Available: and Natural Resources. http://www.fanworld.org/art_fserv.h Obare, L and Wangwe, J.B. 2009. tml [Accessed on 2 Decemder Underlying Causes of 2009]. Deforestation and Forest Yasmi, Y. 2002. Conflict in forest Degradation in Kenya. [Online]. management: a study for Available: collaborative forest management http://www.wrm.org.uy/deforestatio in Indonesia. M.Sc. thesis, n/africa/kenya.html) [Accessed on Wageningen University. 12 November 2009]. Yasmi, Y. 2003. Understanding conflict Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the in the co management of forests: the commons: the evolution of case of Bulungan Research Forest. institutions for collective action. International Forestry Reviews 5 (1): 38-44.

Environment and Natural Resources J. Vol 8, No.1, April 2010: 9-22 21

Appendix 1 ��WWWW����������������������������������� �����������

���������������������������������������� Why Mau Forest complex is called a Water Tower

22 Elijah M.S. / Research Article: 9-22

Appendix 2

Extent of Destruction at Mau Forest complex