Forest Dwellers Vs. the Government? Exploring Opportunities for Conflict Resolution in the Case of the Sengwer in Cherangani Hills, Kenya

Forest dwellers vs. the government? Exploring opportunities for conflict resolution in the case of the Sengwer in Cherangani Hills, Kenya

Roy Winkelhuijzen Reg. nr. 930211962030

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Bas Arts Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group (FNP) Wageningen University

October 2017

This page was unintentionally left blank.

Forest dwellers vs. the government? Exploring opportunities for conflict resolution in the case of the Sen gwer in Cherangani Hills, Kenya

Author: Roy Winkelhuijzen Registration number: 930211-962-030 MSc Forest and Nature Conservation Specialisation: Policy and Society Master track: Sustainable Development Diplomacy [email protected]

MSc thesis: MSc Thesis Forest and Nature Conservation Policy FNP-80436 Wageningen University

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Bas Arts Wageningen University & Research WU Environmental Sciences Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group (FNP)

Supported by:

Wageningen, October 2017

Disclaimer: This MSc report may not be copied in whole or in parts without permission of the author and the chair group. This report was written to be as accurate and complete as possible.

Title page: A makeshift house in Kapkok glade, inside Embobut forest. Picture by author.

Acknowledgements This thesis is the result of more than half a year’s work, to finalise my studies at Wageningen University. It has been a very interesting and instructive adventure, which included six weeks of conducting interviews in Kenya. There are many people without whom this report would not have been possible. I would like to thank them here.

First, I thank my parents for their continued support throughout my studies, my two brothers for the relativizing joke in between, and my girlfriend for her love and for pulling me through the more difficult moments in the process.

Next, I thank my supervisor Bas Arts for the interesting discussions and helpful feedback. He has also been the head of my master track Sustainable Development Diplomacy (SDD) which has certainly enriched my studies in Wageningen.

For their financial support I owe gratitude to Stichting Kronendak and FONA Conservation.

Many people have helped me with my research in Kenya. In particular I would like to thank Justin Kenrick, who encouraged me to do research on this topic, Paul Kaino, for his enormous hospitality and driving me around the entire Cherangani Hills, and David Yator Kiptum, who helped me with contacts within the Sengwer community. Before departure, the help of Hanneke Schavemaker was most useful to prepare myself.

I thank the Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies for allowing me as a Research Associate at their Institute, which enabled me to do field work in Kenya.

Lastly, I would like to thank all the interviewees and all the other people who were helpful during my stay in Kenya.

Summary

There have been many conflicts between conservationists and local people in the history of conservation. Even the creation of the world’s first national park, Yellowstone, created a precedent where native people were pushed out of their territories in favour of the wildness of nature. This national park model of “fortress conservation”, where people were separated from nature for the protection of the latter, was followed by almost all countries around the world. Since the 1970s, a scientific debate began to focus more on community-based conservation. Nowadays, the majority of conservation organisations are working together with the local community as one of the key focus areas of their work. However, Africa as a whole remains lagging behind in community conservation. Some countries have had some success, but others, like Kenya, still have little community involvement in natural resource management.

The Sengwer, a traditional forest dweller community in the Cherangani Hills in Kenya, accuse the government and the Kenya Forest Service of evicting them from the forest. The objective of this study to better understand the framing of the conflict situation, the underlying causes of conflict between local forest communities and conservation initiatives in the Cherangani Hills and to identify options for conflict resolution. For this study 44 semi-structured interviews were conducted with actors from all involved groups, varying in length from 30 minutes to 2 hours.

First, this study analysed the framing of different actors in the conflict regarding forest conservation by applying a frame analysis. The Sengwer were supported by human rights NGOs, while the ideas of the government Kenya Forest Service (KFS) regarding the conflict were mostly shared by environmental NGOs, Community Forest Associations (CFAs) and international donors. Kenya Forest Service (KFS) were found to focus more on the national importance of the forest as a watershed. They state the forest is, therefore, too important to be managed by community members. Cooperation between KFS and the community should be done via the Community Forest Associations (CFAs). The Sengwer, on the other hand, state that their ancestral community rules, the bylaws, should be used as the guidelines for forest management. The Sengwer see KFS and the CFA as money-oriented; they do not really care about the forest.

Second, this study analyses the underlying causes by taking a political ecological perspective. The conflict about forest land that we see here is part of a larger tribal struggle, for the Sengwer to achieve recognition. The Sengwer are marginalised; they are generally poor people with little education and there is a lack of government investments in the area. Furthermore, they are not recognised as indigenous peoples. There is also a power imbalance between the KFS and Sengwer, which currently benefits KFS.

Third, this study looked at identifying possibilities for conflict resolution by applying a mutual gains approach (MGA). All parties thought that the conflict would further escalate, especially on the short term, which makes an MGA seem unlikely to be possible. However, to avoid further escalation there is reason to initiate negotiations. This could best be done with a third- party intervention, to increase the lack of trust between KFS and Sengwer. Instead of fighting

5 about the need for land rights (a position), the two sides can agree on forest conservation as a mutual interest. Then, joint fact finding is a crucial step to address the main underlying cause: different viewpoints on the status of the Sengwer, and the implications of that. Also the possible level of sustainable use of the forest, especially by grazing, should be discussed and agreed upon together. Lastly, value needs to be created to “increase the pie” of an agreement. This should focus around forest conservation. The Sengwer could help KFS with extra manpower for conservation, for example by community scouts. Together they could protect the forest. If conflict resolution could be successful, it would boost both the quality of forest conservation and livelihoods of the Sengwer.

In general, there is a lack of political will to return ancestral lands to forest dwelling communities. The mindset of these nature organisations involved in the protection of Cherangani, remains to focus on communities as a problem, rather than the solution. As long as this mindset persists, it will be very difficult for communities to prove themselves as (co-)protectors of the forest. True community-based conservation, then, is unlikely to be implemented in the Cherangani Hills.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 4 Summary ...... 5 List of figures...... 9 List of tables...... 10 List of abbreviations ...... 11 1. Introduction ...... 12 2. Theoretical framework ...... 15 2.1. Frame analysis ...... 15 2.2. Political ecology ...... 17 2.3. Conflict theories ...... 20 2.4. Conceptual model ...... 24 3. Study site ...... 25 4.1. Cherangani Hills ...... 25 4.2. Communities in Cherangani Hills ...... 27 4.3. Overview of the parties in the conflict ...... 27 4. Methods ...... 29 5. Results ...... 33 5.1. Framing of forest conservation ...... 33 5.1.1. Framing of forest condition ...... 33 5.1.2. Framing of best practices for forest management ...... 37 5.1.3. Concluding remarks of section 5.1 ...... 43 5.2. Framing of the conflict ...... 45 5.2.1. Framing of events ...... 45 5.2.2. Framing of substance ...... 52 5.2.3. Framing of self-identity and values ...... 55 5.2.4. Framing of characterisation of the other party ...... 59 5.2.5. Concluding remarks of section 5.2 ...... 64 5.3. Underlying causes of conflict ...... 65 5.4. Conflict resolution ...... 69 6. Discussion ...... 76

6.1. Findings in relation to literature ...... 76 6.2. Theories and methods ...... 81 6.3. Future research ...... 82 7. Conclusion ...... 83 References ...... 85 Appendix 1: interview design ...... 92 Appendix 2: coding scheme for data analysis ...... 94

List of figures

Figure 1. Reaching a win-win solution. 23

Figure 2. Conceptual model. overview of the theories used in this study 24

Figure 3. Map with the location of Kenya’s main five “water towers” 25

Figure 4. Forest cover map of the thirteen forest blocks in the Cherangani Hills 26

Figure 5. Grazing inside the forest by cattle (a) and sheep (b) 36

Figure 6. A nursery managed by a CSO in the Cherangani Hills 39

Figure 7. The CFAs encourage private farmers to plant exotic tree species 40

Figure 8. A community patrols in the forest 42

Figure 9. A makeshift house in Kapkok glade, inside Embobut forest. 48

Figure 10. Burned down forest station in Tangul, near Embobut 50

Figure 11. Overview of the steps towards an agreement 69

Figure 12. A meeting to share knowledge and practices 72

List of tables

Table 1. Overview of the three most important frame categories about conflict 17

Table 2. The most important aspects of political ecology (Robbins, 2004) 20

Table 3. Escalation model of natural resource management conflicts 21

Table 4. Alternative criteria for judging qualitative research 30

Table 5. Overview of the number of interviews per group 31

Table 6. Five stages of data analysis by Pope (2000) 32

Table 7. Overview of viewpoints on issues related to forest conservation 44

Table 8. Overview of the main events in this conflict 45

Table 9. Overview of the frame categories on the conflict 65

Table 10. Overview of the positions and interest of the Sengwer and government 71

Table 11. Categories and factors for successful community forest management 78

List of abbreviations

CFA Community Forest Association CL Community representatives (interview abbreviation) CM Community members (interview abbreviation) E-NGO Environmental NGOs EU European Union HR-NGO Human rights NGOs ICDP Integrated Conservation Development Project KFS Kenya Forest Service KFS-L Kenya Forest Service local staff (interview abbreviation) KFS-N Kenya Forest Service national staff (interview abbreviation) ID International donors (interview abbreviation) MGA Mutual Gains Approach NGO Non-governmental organisation NLC National Land Commission NRM Natural Resource Management REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RRI Rights and Resources Initiative UN United Nations

1. Introduction

Conflicts surrounding protected areas are as old as their creation. The most important example is forced displacement of local communities. When the world’s first national park, Yellowstone, was created in 1872, the Native Americans that previously inhabited the area were removed and excluded in order to preserve the natural wilderness of the area (Nabokov & Loendorf, 2016; Spence, 1999). It was believed that to protect nature, human activities and settlement should not be allowed. Indeed, nature areas were believed to be pristine and devoid of people. This led to a system of exclusion in protected areas which became the blueprint for national parks globally. It is now known as the classical conservation model, “fortress” conservation (term first coined by Brockington, 2002; see also West et al., 2006; Adams & Hutton, 2007) or the “fences and fines” approach (Barrett & Arcese, 1995). Local communities were often not allowed to continue to live or use the protected areas, whereas hunting or other tourism activities were welcomed (Neumann, 2002). How to deal with population displacement for protected areas became a real and significant problem for conservationists, which turned out to be susceptible for conflict (Brockington & Igoe, 2006). Studies have estimated that millions of people have been displaced in the name of conservation – 14 million in Africa alone (Veit & Benson, 2004).

However, in the 1970s a paradigm shift slowly started to appear, spurred by indigenous peoples and their advocates, who claimed that their rights should be recognised and respected. Instead of social exclusion, the new paradigm focused on social inclusion (Hulme & Murphree, 1999). The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank began to financially support ICDPs in the 1980s. These projects fell largely within the protected area idea. The ICDPs were focused at stimulating ways to generate alternative livelihoods in order to decrease the pressure on natural resources by the local community. In the 1990s, the concept of community-based conservation was taken to the next level when a direct connection between conservation and benefits for communities was made. The direct connection then becomes a self-enforcing reasoning for communities to engage in conservation activities, because it enhances their livelihood. The community approach became so popular that relatively early after its adoption, some scholars pictured that soon every rural conservation project would call itself community-based – for better or worse (Berkes, 2007). At the same time, there was increased attention for the position of indigenous peoples in general. This led to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples.

In the scientific literature, there are still proponents from both fortress conservation and community-based conservation. There are several studies to suggest that community-based conservation is as effective, if not more, as the fortress conservation model (Porter-Bolland et al., 2012; Segura Warnholtz et al., 2017; Nelson & Chomitz 2011; Bray et al., 2008). Most forests are, and have traditionally been, inhabited by people (Noble & Dirzo 1997; Heckenberger et al., 2007; Blackman et al., 2017), and it is now widely accepted that the needs of these people need to be taken into account in protected area management plans (Porter-Bolland et al., 2012). When protected areas have positive socioeconomic outcomes, this has been found to simultaneously benefit conservation outcomes (Oldekop et al., 2016). The term community- based conservation is now frequently used, but care must be taken not to herald it as a panacea,

12 as tends to happen with new conservation strategies (Redford et al., 2013; Berkes 2007). Working together with communities can enhance conservation outcomes, but only when other enabling factors are also in place.

In many countries there has been a shift towards more decentralisation in forest governance: from the national government towards more local government agencies and local communities. If attempts are made to stimulate local enforcement this can lead to a decrease in illegal forest use, which leads to a better condition of the forest (Gibson et al., 2005; Chhatre & Agrawal, 2008). The Rights and Resource Initiative estimates that 15.5% of the world’s forests are fully or partially owned, managed or designated for use by indigenous peoples and communities (Rights and Resources Initative, 2015). In Africa, the amount of forest land under community control remains lagging behind. Several countries, e.g. Zambia and Tanzania, have made important steps towards community-based conservation, but many other countries have been lagging behind, including Kenya. Kenya has not ratified the ILO Convention No. 169; the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, and UNDRIP, the United National Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Kenya has several tribes of forest dwelling people. Most of them have been in a long struggle with the government for recognition of their rights. Since 2005, the new Forest Act gives a more prominent role for the local community in forest conservation, through so-called Community Forest Associations (CFAs). However, there is no mention of indigenous peoples, and they are still looking for recognition. In the Cherangani Hills there is a conflict between a tribe, the Sengwer, who calls themselves the indigenous forest dwellers of the forests in that area, and the government, that does not want them to live inside the forest. Since the 1980s there have been evictions, but the Sengwer claim land rights in the forest and want to stay. Meanwhile, the government wants to move everyone out of the forest for conservation purposes.

This conflict has led to accusations of evictions and harassments. After a donor project in the area by the World Bank, an independent Inspection Panel concluded in 2012 that the rights of the Sengwer were not sufficiently respected by the government. International NGOs have raised the alarm about the treatment of the Sengwer, but the accusations of evictions continue. On top of the social problems, conflict is often detrimental to forest resources (MacDonald & Service, 2007). A conflict over nature conservation often sees two opposing sides: one that focuses on the need to preserve biodiversity, and one that focuses more on human livelihoods and well-being. This does not necessarily imply that the two sides do not understand each other’s arguments, or even agree with them – but in the end their main focus is different (Redpath, 2015a). It is most useful for conflict resolution if a clearer picture is available of how the involved actors see the situation, in other words how they frame the conflict.

To reduce conflict on the long term, it is imperative to have appropriate dialogue and collaboration (Redpath, 2015b). The mutual gains approach is a popular approach to conflict resolution, developed by the Consensus Building Institute. Often people talk about finding mutual gains, or creating a “win-win” solution, but the MGA is not very often used to solve natural resource conflicts in the scientific literature (some exceptions are Ortolano et al., 2016; Beaumont, 2016; Vuokko & Tapio, 2015). By “increasing the pie” for all parties involved in conflict negotiations, it is theorised that parties are more likely to follow through on an

13 agreement (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Moomaw & Papa, 2012). Applying the MGA, supported by other conflict theories, can help to gain valuable insights into how conflict can be managed and resolved.

The research objective and research questions for this study are the following:

Research objective To better understand the framing of the conflict situation, the underlying causes of conflict between local forest communities and conservation initiatives in the Cherangani Hills and to identify options for conflict resolution.

Research questions - Research question 1: How do involved key actors frame nature conservation and the conflict between forest communities and conservation initiatives in the Cherangani Hills? - Research question 2: What are the underlying causes for conflict? - Research question 3: What possible options can be identified to reduce conflict?

2. Theoretical framework To answer the three research questions of this study, three different theories are used. Each question is approached in a specific way, with a theoretical analysis that is most suited for answering the question.

2.1. Frame analysis For the first research question, a frame analysis is used. This theory allows to depict and analyse the different viewpoints of different actors in the conflict in a neutral way; all frames are equally valuable.

What is a frame? The word “frame” allows for multiple interpretation. It is a noun (a frame) as well as it is a verb (to frame). The noun “frame” signifies the outer limit of a (proverbial) picture, which differentiates it from the background. A frame filters information to determine how certain situations are perceived, interpreted and understood. As a verb, “to frame” is about the creation of a frame in the process of communication, either intentionally or unintentionally. It can be employed to make sense of a situation or to manipulate it (Shmueli, 2008). Schön and Rein (1994, p. 33) define a frame as “an institutional actor uses to construct the problem of a specific policy situation”. Frames are used by people and organisations to look at a situation in a certain way. To make sense of a situation, people constantly use frames to “locate, perceive, identify and label” (Goffmann, 1973, p. 21). Frame analysis can help to better understand the way different actors frame a certain situation. Frame theory is grounded in several different disciplines, which have developed the theory in relative seclusion from each discipline. This has led to a division in assumptions. Possibly the most important difference is between scholars that see frames as rational structures, based on memory of the actor, or those who refer to frames as social constructions (Raitio, 2008). The applications of frames and framing are numerous. Gray (2003) identifies four key functions of a successful frame: (i) to define issues; (ii) to influence and construct how actors take action; (iii) to legitimise these actions; and (iv) to mobilise people. Perri (2005) identifies two characteristics of frames: they “organise experience” and “produce a bias for action”.

In a local conflict, people have opposing views and opinions. Framing theory focuses on the struggle of actors to gain hegemony over the prevailing view on the issue (Lewicki et al., 2003), while underlining the dynamic nature of a conflict (Buijs et al., 2011). Framing theory was established in the 1990s as a sociological theory to better understand social conflicts (Buijs et al., 2011). A frame can be regarded as a story that actors tell about their perspective on the conflict (Gray, 2003). This story can be used to make sense of the situation, and unravel the actor’s view of what is at issue (Gamson, 1992). The acquired insights allow for a better understanding of all actors involved, which is imperative before an attempt can be made towards conflict resolution. Framing theory does not differentiate between right or wrong – every frame is just another way of portraying a situation. This study uses the other theor

Framing of conservation conflicts Framing theory is frequently used to analyse environmental conflicts (Buijs et al., 2011; Hoverdas & Korfiatis, 2008; Lewicki et al., 2003; Gray, 2003; Dewulf et al., 2004; Fischer & Bliss, 2009). At the beginning of a conflict, opposing parties tend to focus on different frames of the

15 content of the issue. However, as the conflict progresses the frames tend to diversify in other categories as well. Issues that were initially unrelated to the content now become involved in the framing of the conflict. Framing is of particular use as an analytical approach to better understand environmental conflict because of its focus on clarification, simplification and communication with all involved parties. This can help to create a deeper understand of their positions and interests, which is of use in the process of conflict resolution (Shmueli, 2008). If frames from two parties are dissimilar, it is a potential cause for “frame conflicts” (Schön & Rein, 1994). In fact, these differences in frames, and different comprehension of the same facts and the same situation, are many times the main cause of political disputes (Fischer, 2003). Frames can help to determine whether there is a problem, whether it is appropriate to take action, who should be taking action, how each party sees itself in the conflict, and lastly, often framing gives a moral touch to the viewpoint of one’s own party (Benford & Snow, 2000).

In addition to better understanding the viewpoints of opposing parties in a conflict, frames can play an important role in the later stages of conflict resolution as well. When all actors frame the resolution of a conflict as positive, the agreement is more likely to hold. Reframing a problem by focusing on the opportunities instead of threats can therefore be a strategic way to mobilise more people and start solving disputes (Kaufman & Smith, 1999). Frame analysis is especially useful in conflicts, since diverging frames can be detrimental for achieving collaboration and conflict resolution (Gray, 2004). Framing is not only about differences in information which form diverging perceptions; it also clarifies the underlying intentions and values of each actor (Shmueli, 2008). This has important implications for later in this study, when common ground between the two sides of conflict needs to be found.

Framing in relation to discourse analysis It would have been possible to use a discourse analysis, instead of framing, as a theory to analyse the viewpoints of the actors in the conflict. Several studies have used a combined approach to analyse framing in the context of the larger, overarching discourse (Shmueli, 2008; Buijs et al., 2011). This practice is still largely uncommon, because of the ontological and epistemological differences between the two theories (Van den Brink & Metze, 2006). The aim of combining the two analyses is to better understand how frames emerge and are influenced by the broader, overarching and even global discourse (Somorin et al., 2012). However, this study focuses on better understanding the conflict in Cherangani and the individual perceptions of the actors involved. For this purpose, especially concerning conflict, a frame analysis was deemed more useful. While global discourses are interesting, they are not the main focus of this study. Frame analysis is of particular use to analyse conflict situations (Lindahl & Westholm, 2012; Dewulf et al., 2004). Diverging frames can be detrimental for achieving collaboration and conflict resolution, which highlights the need for frame analysis (Gray; 2004). Lastly, reframing of a conflict or a particular issue can play an important role in conflict resolution, as this study has shown as well.

Operationalisation Studies on environmental conflicts have found that certain framing categories are useful to investigate whether a conflict is entering a prolonged or unmanageable situation (Gray, 2004). Each study tends to use slightly other categories, depending on what is needed in that specific conflict situation. The three most important categories, that indicate how “manageable” a conflict still is, are (i) substance, (ii) self-identity and values, and (iii) characterisation of the

16 other party (see table 1). First, the substance category deals with the issues and events that have occurred, and how parties frame those (Shmueli, 2008). For the purpose of this study, two main sub-categories have been identified: events and the nature of conflict. Events refer to what has occurred so far in the conflict, and how that was perceived by all parties. The nature of the conflict reveals how parties frame the conflict itself, and what it is about. Self-identity and values is about the framing of one’s own identity and values. If a party clings firmly to a particular identity frame that characterises the way they view themselves (generally opposite from the other party), it could hinder the process of trying to find common ground (Gray, 2004; Lewicki et al., 2003). What then happens is that parties view the other side as a threat to their own identity, which provokes defensive behaviour (Rothman, 1997). Therefore, if identity frames are very dissimilar and perceived as a hazard for one’s own identity, the conflict becomes more difficult to manage and prone to escalation (Gray, 2003). Lastly, characterisation of the other party could obstruct constructive conflict management as well. This frame category shows how parties define the actions of other parties in the conflict, and how their relationships are (Shmueli, 2008).

Frame categories in conflict Explanation Substance Framing of events and the nature of conflict (Shmueli, 2008; Shmueli & Ben-Gal, 2003) Self-identity and values Framing of one’s own identity and values (Shmueli, 2008; Lewicki et al., 2003; Buijs et al., 2011; Gray, 2003) Characterisation of the other party Framing of the other party (Shmueli, 2008; Lewicki et al., 2003; Buijs et al., 2011; Gray, 2003) Table 1. Overview of the three most important frame categories about conflict, as used in this study.

2.2. Political ecology The term political ecology was first coined in 1972 by Wolf. It was further established by Blaikie (1985) and Blaikie & Brookfield (1987), in their work on soil erosion. Much of the theory of political ecology is derived from the more “radical” political economy perspective (Adams, 2015), but there are various disciplines that have influenced political ecology. Political ecology therefore is a general term; an overarching theory that is defined in different ways by different people (Robbins, 2011). In their early work in 1987, Blaikie & Brookfield defined political ecology as a theory which “combines the concerns of ecology and a broadly defined political economy” (p. 17). This definition has been adapted and changed by many others afterwards. Watts (2000) describes the explicit focus of political ecology “to understand the complex relations between nature and society through a careful analysis of what one might call the forms of access and control over resources and their implications for environmental health and sustainable livelihoods” (p. 257). Following the previous definition, political ecology is especially useful in studies over environmental conflicts such as this one. Despite the differences between definitions, shared elements can also be found. One of the most important ones is the alternative that political ecology offers to “apolitical” ecology (Robbins, 2011).

Apolitical and political To better understand political ecology, it is useful to first analyse the meaning of apolitical ecology. Robbins (2004) identifies two main narratives for apolitical ecology: “eco-scarcity” and “modernity”. The “eco-scarcity” narrative states that environmental change is caused by population increase. When there are more people, it is argued that this will inevitably lead to environmental degradation, causing problems for both humans and nature. This way of thought has first been described by 18th century English cleric and scholar Thomas Malthus, in his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). Similar arguments were used by the Club of Rome in their influential report Limits to Growth (Meadows, 1972). Environmental problems are then projected as demographic problems, whereby large numbers of people cause environmental degradation. The solution then lies with population control, they argue. The “modernity” narrative argues that environmental degradation will be prevented by the invention and adoption of new, better and more efficient technologies. Proponents of this narrative see technological advancements as the solution. However, this line of thinking is contested by political ecologists. Although population increase and technological developments are projected as apolitical, they are in fact highly political. Political ecology critically looks at environmental change, with a “normative understanding that there are very likely better, less coercive, less exploitative, and more sustainable ways of doing things” (Robbins 2004, p. 20).

Use of political ecology In the conservation literature, a divide is found between the “natural science-trained conservation planners” and the “social science-trained critics of conservation”. There is a need for both backgrounds to work together and bridge the divide (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Watts & Peet, 2004). It is argued that conservation should go beyond its origin in the natural sciences and incorporate knowledge from other disciplines and actors (Mascia et al., 2003). Political ecology is a theory that focuses on all these issues. It recognises the relationship between the natural and the social aspects of conservation, and acknowledges the deep interlinkage between the two. Furthermore, political ecologists argue that the state of nature and the environment, and even the way we understand and think about these concepts, are the result of political processes (Adams & Hutton, 2007).

Political ecology is diverse, but the key aspect is that it specifically considers power relations (Robbins, 2011). An example of forest and power relations in Kenya is that forests and land rights become a political issue by allocations of government officials to well-connected corporate organisations and individuals (Matiru, 2002). In the political ecology perspective, political and social processes together create environmental change. Even when environmental change is not induced by humans, such as large geophysical processes, social and economic processes will eventually decide where the largest impact will be – usually poor people are more heavily impacted than rich people (Adams, 2015). This understanding is critical to take into account in this study.

Political ecologists oppose the view that all nature is untouched by humans (Robbins, 2004). The ideology behind the fortress conservation model, which excludes people from the land, is deeply rooted in western thinking (Adams & Hutton, 2007). People are not seen as part of the natural world, but as outsiders who negatively affect the landscape. The ontological separation between people and nature legitimates one of the strongest drivers behind the conservation movement: to keep natural areas free from human influences (Schama, 1995; Adams & Hutton,

2007). To make this possible, some commentators state that conservation has been “militarised”, with Kenya as a prime example (Leakey & Morell, 2001; Peluso, 1993). Political ecologists criticise the exclusion of people for conservation, as this negatively affects their welfare and livelihoods. On the other hand, political ecology stresses the importance of environmental knowledge of indigenous peoples, which could play an important role in nature conservation (Dove & Carpenter, 2013). Conservation in former colonies cannot be seen separately from its colonial history and the influence of western thought. On the larger level, the impact of capitalism on the global system is also acknowledged and criticised by political ecologists (Adams & Hutton, 2007).

Political ecologists argue that these issues are extremely political, and the impact that population increase and new technologies will have is a political question.

Understanding underlying causes of conflict Political ecology focuses on the underlying causes of resource conflicts. Often these conflicts are framed around access and control, but there may be more reasons. Other causes can be “masked” (Peluso and Watts, 2001: p.6; Kronenburg Garcia, 2017). Political ecology delves deeper into resource-related conflicts, to identify a more complex, multidimensional structure of causes (Turner, 2004). It takes a critical look to reveal the broader underlying causes of conflict and identify interdependencies between different factors which, at first thought, seem unrelated. For example, Nijenhuis (2013) shows how a seemingly isolated conflict about land in a village in Mali in fact was part of the larger national decentralisation process, and a subsequent struggle for power. Turner (2004) states that, to more fully understand the conflict in the Sahel between farmers and herders, it is important to take into account the relevance of both issues about access and control, as well as the elemental moral viewpoints of the different actors in the conflict.

Operationalisation There are three aspects of key importance for political ecological research: economic, social and political. The political ecological analysis in this study will also be divided into these three aspects. After that, the analysis is compared with the five main “theses” of political ecology, as identified by Robbins (2004; see table 2). These theses are used to operationalise the concepts from political ecology. However, because of the overlap between them, the results are structured in economic, social and political aspects. In this division the separate points of the table by Robbins will be used.

Table 2. The most important aspects of political ecology as identified by Robbins (2004)

2.3. Conflict theories Where political ecology and framing analysis are used to gain a better understanding, the third theory is applied to specifically identify options for conflict resolution. The Mutual Gains Approach builds on insights from negotiation theories, which are rarely used in conservation conflicts. There are exceptions (Madden & McQuinn, 2015; Ortolano et al., 2016) but conservationists can benefit more from the lessons learned in this field.

What is conflict? In order to resolve conflict it is paramount to first understand what it means. Conflicts occur all over the world at different levels and with different actors. The conflict studied here is an example of a natural resource conflict. Conflict is defined as “‘any relationship between opposing forces whether marked by violence or not’’ (Desloges & Gauthier, 1997). It is stressed in literature that this is not always negative. In the case of natural resources, conflict can play a useful role in defining the needs of society and local communities in a struggle over natural resources (Castro & Nielsen, 2001). However, if unaddressed, conflict can undermine the entire structure of society (Suliman, 1999) and regulating conflict becomes a substantial waste of energy, time and money (De Dreu, 2014). Maser and Pollio (2011) provide a good example in their book to show the potential of conflict resolution. It appears that people agree for 80 percent about virtually anything, without knowing that of each other. That leaves 20 percent open for disagreement, which is often the sole focus in a conflict. If people in a conflict are more aware of their similarities of 80 percent, it becomes easier to negotiate the other 20

20 percent as well. If a shared vision is agreed upon, which is beneficial for all, then a conflict can be truly resolved (Maser & Pollio, 2001).

State of conflict The events that occur in a conflict can be divided into different stages, which are helpful to better understand the situation of the conflict (Glasl, 1999). For natural resource management conflicts, a specific escalation model has been created by Yasmi (2006; see table 3). Not all conflicts follow all the steps, but in general escalation in NRM conflicts takes this route. Analysing the stage of escalation is useful information for conflict resolution.

1. Feeling anxiety • Discontent about a certain action by other party

2. Debate and critique • Stakeholders challenge other parties' actions in debate

• Lobbying the other party, or other parties, based on 3. Lobby and persuasion own viewpoints and positions

4. Protest and campaigning • Small and large protests; volatile situation

5. Access restriction •Limit access of other party to secure one's own

6. Court •Going to court when parties cannot reach agreement

7. Intimidation and physical •Intensification of conflict, leading up to physical exchange exchanges such as looting and murder

8. Nationalisation and • Attention for the conflict at (inter)national level internationalisation

Table 3. Escalation model of natural resource management conflicts, as identified by Yasmi (2006)

Rubin et al. (1994) identify six main options to settle a conflict: (i) domination, where one side (tries to) impose its will on the other; (ii) capitulation, one side gives in, the other side appears to be victorious; (iii) inaction, where one side does not do anything; (iv) withdrawal, where one side leaves the conflict; (v) negotiation, two or more actors in the conflict come together and try to settle the conflict by getting a mutually acceptable agreement; (vi) third party intervention, where an outsider group to the conflict comes in to try to bring all sides closer together and reach an agreement. Of all these options, only (v) negotiation and (vi) third-party intervention are truly constructive because they include conversing with the other side and taking opposite viewpoints into account (Rubin, 1994). This study focuses on negotiation. The two main types of negotiation are described below.

“Distributive” negotiations Rubin (1994) describes two main theories of negotiation in his literature review: (i) the “distributive” or “concession-convergence” model, and (ii) the “mutual gains” model. The

21 distributive model argues that the best way to negotiate is for two parties to start off with outlining extreme positions, and then towards the end of the negotiations these two sides come closer to each other. The initial positions do not indicate what parties are truly willing to offer. For example: in a negotiation about the price of a certain object, the seller would initially ask for a higher price than he is willing to accept, whereas the buyer would start with an offer that is lower than his maximum. The distributive model was the standard method of negotiations for most of the 20th century. Political ecology also tends to take a similar “zero-sum” approach to conflict resolution, where one party loses if the other wins. By focusing on the power imbalance between communities and the state, political ecologists often try to find ways to empower the community to fight the state, rather than looking for benefits for both sides (Rubin, 1994).

Mutual Gains Approach It was not until the 1960s, and most notably since 1981 when Fisher and Ury’s best-selling book “Getting to Yes” was first published, that the paradigm shifted in favour of the mutual gains approach (Rubin, 1994). The mutual gains approach aims to reach agreement that is mutually beneficial to both parties in a negotiation. Instead of taking a zero-sum approach, it aims to increase the value of the final agreement (Fisher and Ury, 1981). The central idea is that parties are more likely to abide by an agreement that they regard as positive and can see the benefits of, as compared to an agreement that focuses on the costs that are required for implementation and follow-up (Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987). Instead of focusing on positions, there should be a focus on the interests of parties (Fisher and Ury, 1981). Positions only indicate how much of something parties want, whereas interests focus on the underlying cause of why parties want something. Knowing the underlying motivations enhances the chance that a solution can be identified where all parties gain, which enhances the value of the total agreement (Susskind et al., 1999; see figure 1).

Getting to Yes spurred an increasing attention for negotiation theories in academic circles as well (Rubin, 1994). The mutual gains approach has now been adopted by Moomaw et al. (2017) as a diagnostic of Sustainable Development Diplomacy, which is an increasingly popular way of looking at the diplomacy of sustainable development from an inclusive, multi-level and multi-actor approach.

Figure 1. Reaching a win-win solution. Graph by Redpath (2013). Graph (a) on the left depicts a conflict that is caused by different positions of conservationists (1) and another party (2). Graph (b) shows the options for conflict resolution. If an agreement is not reached, both parties will end up losing (3). An agreement can consist of trade-offs in a zero-sum game (4) or win-win by value creation and finding mutual gains (5).

Operationalisation The mutual gains approach is characterised by four steps: (i) preparation, (ii) value creation, (iii) value distribution, (iv) follow through (Susskind, 2006). These steps are for individual negotiators to prepare themselves for an agreement. The objective of this study is not to prepare a single party for the negotiations, but rather to identify possibilities for conflict resolution as a whole. Therefore, this study uses the four steps and other key concepts of the mutual gains approach as a guide to identify a pathway towards conflict resolution.

The first phase, preparation, refers to the time the negotiators have before the negotiation start, to prepare themselves. They need to decide how they will enter the negotiations, whether they will overstate their initial demand, define their interests, think about the interests of the other party, identify their best arguments that could resonate with a neutral party and prepare their BATNA: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Negotiators should have a clear mandate from their organisation. The second step is value creation. This is a key characteristic of the mutual gains approach, as it aims to “increase the size of the pie” (Susskind, 2006) to make a future agreement more valuable for all parties involved. The negotiations can be started by a neutral third party, to reduce tensions. This is a moment to be creative in finding new ways to add value to an agreement. Negotiators need to look for these new ways by back- and-forth questioning what they want, and what the other party needs to accept that. If one party wants more of A and less of B, then it could be possible that the other party accepts, but only if there is more of C as well. This style of negotiating is aimed at finding the biggest value for both sides. Third, after creating the value, it needs to be distributed. That is a difficult step, even in the light of a mutual gains approach. Trust between the parties is key in this phase of the negotiation. At this point, a mutual gains approach breaks with a “win-win” approach, because if one party gains by achieving one point, it is likely the other will take losses. Not all parties can get all they want. The key for a mutual gains approach is to find the highest possible value for all parties. Lastly, the follow through. The idea behind the mutual gains is that all parties benefit, and therefore it becomes easier to honour a made agreement. Still, it is good to think about

23 mechanisms of implementation. The parties need to agree on arrangements for monitoring and continue to invest in their relationship. Also, in case of non-compliance by a party, measures can be agreed upon.

2.4. Conceptual model This study is based on three theories (see figure 2 for the conceptual model). When a study focuses on conflict resolution by applying the mutual gains approach, it seems not logical to first do a political ecological analysis. These two theories differ significantly in their beliefs. However, this study attempts to use the strengths of each theory to reach better conclusions. Political ecology is applied to critically analyse the underlying causes of conflict. This, together with the frame analysis, then leads to a better understanding of the conflict, which leads to more informed conflict resolution. Political ecology aims to unravel all the pieces of the conflict and find out how they fit together (Adams, 2015).

Figure 2. Conceptual model: overview of the theories used in this study. Frame analysis is used for RQ1, after which the findings are used as input, together with the researcher’s perspective, for RQ2, using a political ecological approach. Together, frame analysis and the political ecological analysis provide input for RQ3: conflict resolution by applying the mutual gains approach, while supported by other conflict theories.

RQ1: Frame analysis RQ2: Political ecology

Neutral theory to depict Theory to critically analyse the

viewpoints from the involved situation, based on the

parties researcher’s perspective

RQ3: Mutual Gains Approach

Theory to identify options for a mutually beneficial agreement. Supported by other conflict theories

3. Study site

4.1. Cherangani Hills The Cherangani Hills are one of the five main “water towers” in Kenya (see figure 3). Water towers are highland freshwater ecosystems with indigenous montane forests, where all major rivers of the country originate from. They play a critical role to ensure water supply and quality downstream, especially in the dry season, and prevent flooding. Combined, the five water towers provide more than three quarters of the renewable surface resources in the country (Nyingi et al., 2013). To the north, the rivers Kerio and Turkwell flow into Lake Turkana, while the Nzoia river flows to Lake Victoria in the south, eventually ending up in the river Nile.

Of the five water towers, the forests in Cherangani Hills are perhaps the most degraded and fragmented. There are many inhabitants in the area and because of the favourable soils and climate, the area is considered to have the best-growing fields for maize in the country (Nyingi et al., 2013). Besides agriculture, the Cherangani Hills are well-suited for keeping livestock in the montane grasslands (Schavemaker, 2010).

Figure 3. Map with the location of Kenya’s main five “water towers”: forested highlands where all major rivers originate from. The location of Cherangani Hills is highlighted in red (from: Schavemaker, 2010).

The Cherangani Hills are located in three administrative districts: Trans-Nzoia, West-Pokot and Marakwet. There are thirteen forest blocks left (figure 4). The total forest area is 95,600 ha, of which 60,500 ha is closed-canopy forest (Kenrick, 2014). The forests are mostly indigenous, which enhances their value for protection.

All forests were gazetted by the colonial government as state forests. This means that they are government property, and therefore managed by the Kenya Forest Service. After the Kenyan independence in 1963, the forests remained property of the state.

Figure 4. Forest cover map of the thirteen forest blocks in the Cherangani Hills. Data comes from Global Forest Watch: forest cover is green, increase in forest cover is blue and decrease in forest cover is pink. The names of the forest blocks are: 1: Kapolet, 2: Kiptaberr, 3: Kapkanyar, 4: Lelan, 5: Embobut, 6: Kerrer, 7: Kipkunurr, 8: Kaisungurr, 9: Toropket, 10: Chemurokoi, 11: Sogotio, 12: Cheboit, 13: Kapchemutwa.

4.2. Communities in Cherangani Hills There are 34 traditional forest dweller communities in Kenya. They are divided over five cluster groups: the Ogiek of Mau Forest, the Ogiek of Mount Elgon, the Sengwer of the Cherangani Hills and the smaller Boni and Yaaku (Alden Wily, 2016). The Forestry Department has had problems to deal with these communities ever since the establishment of the first forest reserves. Their presence was either overlooked or unwanted (Wass, 1995). There have been numerous evictions throughout the country to move them out of the forest, without much success (Chepkorir Kuto, 2016).

The Sengwer are an ethnic minority inhabiting the Cherangani Hills. They were the first inhabitants of the forests. They are a traditional hunter-gatherer community and refer to themselves as the indigenous ancestral inhabitants of the forests in Cherangani, especially Embobut forest. The total number of Sengwer has been estimated at 30,000, although there used to be more. They have a strong connection to the forest and depend on it for their livelihood, medicine use and cultural practices. Traditionally their livestyle was based on bee keeping, hunting small animals and gathering fruits and other food in the forest (Kenrick, 2014). In the rainy seasons some of them used to go down to the grasslands, and then come back to the forest in the dry season. With the colonialists, other communities came into the Cherangani Hills as well, mostly the Marakwet and Keiyo, who were farmers. However, the Sengwer managed to stay in the forest by using a system for trade with these other communities (Schavemaker, 2010).

The Sengwer feel the forest belongs to them. They are the traditional inhabitants, and they are the best guardians of the forest because of their deep connection to it. However, Sengwer rights are not acknowledged by the state and Kenya Forest Service, who therefore regards them as squatters and illegal settlers in the forest. There have been evictions as recently as December 2016, performed by the Kenya Forest Service, to drive the Sengwer out of the forest. However, because of their strong connection with the forest, they keep coming back (Chepkorir Kuto, 2016).

4.3. Overview of the parties in the conflict There are many different parties active in the area that play a role in the conflict. An overview of all the parties that feature in this study is presented here.

Sengwer The Sengwer are the traditional forest dwellers of the Cherangani Hills. They are not allowed to live in their ancestral forests anymore. The Kenya Forest Service is evicting them from their houses inside Embobut forest. The Sengwer inhabit a part of Kapolet forest as well, but the other forests in Cherangani are currently uninhabited. The Sengwer representatives that are mentioned in this study are not the official leaders of the Sengwer, because they are not a very hierarchical society. However, the representatives in this study were chosen because they represent the Sengwer in court cases and their (inter)national struggle for land rights.

Kenya Forest Service (KFS) Kenya Forest Service is the forest agency of the Kenyan government. Their mandate is to manage public forest – which includes all forests in Cherangani – on behalf of all Kenyans. The organisation was established in 2005, when the old Forest Department was reformed into the current Kenya Forest Service. When there are international donor projects in the area, KFS tends to be the implementer.

International human rights NGOs (HR-NGOs) There are several human rights NGOs active in the Cherangani area who specifically target the Sengwer, and support them in their struggle for land rights. The HR-NGOs help the Sengwer with trying to establish dialogue with other parties and prepare lawsuits against the government and KFS.

Community Forest Associations (CFAs) The Community Forest Associations are currently the only legal entity through which KFS is supposed to work together with the community, according to the Forest Act of 2005 and the new Forest Conservation and Management Act of 2016. Every station ought to have one CFA, but in Cherangani the CFAs are not very active, both because of internal and external issues. The CFA only recognises people who are living adjacent to the forest, which is a problem for forest dwellers.

National environmental NGOs (E-NGOs) There are several Kenyan environmental NGOs that are active in the Cherangani area. They do not work with the Sengwer in particular, but they mostly do community work through civil society organisations (CSOs) or community forest associations (CFAs) in Cherangani. In general they are willing to cooperate with communities, but do not think that the Sengwer should get land rights in the forest.

National Land Commission (NLC) This special commission deals with land issues and can advise the government on redistribution of land. KFS cannot give land rights to the Sengwer, even if they wanted to, but this organisation has far more influence.

International donors (ID) When international donors in Kenya put money into conservation efforts, they mostly choose the wildlife sector on the savannahs. However, the Cherangani Hills and other towers have also received substantial attention from donors, because of their importance as water towers. The donors are not the implementers of the project, they restrict themselves to funding activities from local partners. In Cherangani this has often been KFS, because they are the official managers of the forests. Other implementing agencies that have been funded by international donors are local environmental NGOs.

4. Methods This thesis is a qualitative study and uses the case study as study design. A case that is selected should be representative for similar cases of a specific type. The case can then shed more light on the occurrences and situations of that specific type of cases from which the case was chosen (Kumar, 2014). Here, as case study the conflict situation between the Sengwer and the government in the Cherangani Hills is chosen, as an example of similar cases in Kenya, and other parts of Africa, where there are problems between local communities and conservationists. The main benefit of using a case study design is that it allows for in-depth analysis. The design allows for a more detailed analysis than would be possible if a larger sample is used. The case study design is of particular use for extensive exploration and understanding, instead of searching for confirmation and quantification. It is useful to explore a situation which is not yet well-known, or to analyse a certain situation in a holistic manner. A disadvantage of only looking at one situation (N=1) is that it becomes more difficult to generalise the outcomes of the study (Gilbert, 2008). All cases are different, and the findings of one case could not apply to another one, even when the situation appears to be similar in nature.

The case study design is an example of qualitative research. While quantitative research is characterised by structured research designs and can be tested on validity and reliability, qualitative research does not have these characterisations. Qualitative research is less specific and exact than quantitative research. Maxwell et al. (2013: 3) provide a description of qualitative designs:

“To design a qualitative study, you can’t just develop (or borrow) a logical strategy in advance and implement it faithfully. You need, to a substantial extent, to construct and reconstruct your research design, and this is a major rationale for my design model. Qualitative research design, to a much greater extent than quantitative research, is a “do-it-yourself”, rather than an “off-the-shelf” process, one that involves “tacking” back and forth between the different components of the design, assessing their implications for one another. It does not begin from a predetermined starting point or proceed through a fixed sequence of steps, but it involves interconnection and interaction among the different design components.”

The main focus qualitative research is to “understand, explain, explore, discover and clarify situations, feelings, perceptions, attitudes, values, beliefs and experiences of a group of people” (Kumar, 2014: 132). Often the research design in qualitative research are not as rigid and inflexible as quantitative designs. A quantitative research could be done in a lab and produce the exact same result every time the experiment is done. However, qualitative research is different, and much has been written about ensuring the “quality” in qualitative research (see Seale, 1999; Patton, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Qualitative research takes a naturalistic approach to comprehend events in situations that are context-specific, often in the real world, in a constantly changing environment (Yilmaz, 2013). This brings specific challenges to ensure the quality of the research, different from quantitative research. Criteria for quantitative research, such as validity and reliability, are based on a positivist paradigm, which is rejected by some qualitative researchers with a constructivist view. According to constructivists, there is no single “truth”. Rather, they see knowledge as a social construct which is formed depending on the circumstances (Golafshani, 2003).

Therefore, a set of alternative criteria for qualitative research was developed by Lincoln & Guba (1985; see table 4): credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. This study uses these standards. Despite the “old age” of their work, the criteria are still commonly acknowledged as the “golden standard” in qualitative research (Yilmaz, 2013; Whittemore et al., 2001). Internal validity is replaced with credibility, which means that the results of the study are believed, or regarded as true, by the participants in the study. The participants are the only ones who have the legitimacy to decide this, because the purpose of qualitative research is to describe their perspectives. External validity is replaced with transferability, which stands for the possibility of transferring the results of the study to other settings. The transferability can be enhanced by thoroughly describing the environment in which the research was conducted, as well as the assumptions beforehand. Reliability is replaced with dependability, which deals with the repeatability of the study. However, in qualitative research it is not possible to measure the same situation twice, since the situation changes constantly. Dependability is a criterium that deals with describing the changes in the environment during the study, and what that means for the research. Lastly, objectivity is replaced with confirmability, which refers to seeking confirmation by others, called auditors, that the outcomes of the study are a logical and transparent result from the collected data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yilmaz, 2013).

Traditional Criteria for Judging Alternative Criteria for Judging Quantitative Research Qualitative Research Internal validity Credibility External validity Transferability Reliability Dependability Objectivity Confirmability Table 4. The traditional criteria for judging quantitative research, compared with alternative criteria for judging qualitative research (based on Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Data collection The main method of this research is semi-structured interviewing. In semi-structured interviews, questions and answers are not fixed in advance but the outline of topics is. The interviewer identifies a number of topics for discussion, which are firstly addressed in an open-ended question. The interviewer subsequently asks more relevant follow-up questions to delve deeper into the issue (Kumar, 2014). A logical sequence for the subjects was identified before the interview. However, this order was adjusted during the interview if that benefitted the conversation. An overview of the interview design is given in Appendix 1. A total of 44 interviews were conducted for this study (table 5). 41 were conducted in person during field visits in Kenya, both at the national level in Nairobi, and the local level in and around the Cherangani Hills. The remaining 3 interviews were conducted over Skype. Most interviews were conducted with the two actors most directly involved in the conflict: Kenya Forest Service and the Sengwer. However, other actors exert influence on the process as well, and are therefore interesting to interview. The last group of interviewees were informants: experts with knowledge on the situation but who are not directly involved in the conflict. This group consists of academic researchers. Because of the conflict situation, some interviewees were found to tell contradicting stories, or even lying in response to a question. It was therefore important to interview many different groups, with as many respondents per group as the

30 time for this study permitted. This allowed for a better analysis of all the stories, and gave a better chance of identifying semi-true and untrue stories, which was crucial to better understand the conflict. All groups have been earmarked with a specific code. For example, the second respondent of KFS at the national level becomes KFS-N2. The language spoken during the interviews was English. Most interviewees spoke English, but to community with some community members I used a translator from the same village.

Groups Number Number of of interviewees interviews Code in text KFS national 4 4 KFS-N KFS local 7 8 KFS-L Sengwer community 4 4 representatives CL Sengwer community 12 13 CM members Community Forest 6 11 CFA Associations Human rights NGO 2 2 HR-NGO Environmental NGO 3 3 E-NGO International donors 2 3 ID Other governmental 2 2 NLC & agencies KEFRI Academic researchers 2 2 N/A Total 44 52 Table 5. Overview of the number of interviews per group.

Data analysis The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed afterwards. This resulted in a large amount of unstructured information. To analyse the results in a structured way, the five steps of Pope’s (2000) framework were used: familiarisation, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting and mapping and interpretation (table 6). After transcribing the interviews, the data analysis started by familiarisation with the transcripts. This gave a good first indication of the statement of the interviewees. Then, a thematic framework was identified to identify the most important themes from the interviews. This was done both beforehand (based on the theoretical framework; deductive) and after interviewing (based on answers of respondents; inductive). The adding of extra themes is a result of being flexible in the research design, which is important in explorative research, when the outcomes are not completely known (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The themes were applied to the transcripts by indexing or coding. Parts of sentences or paragraphs that referred to a specific codes were marked in the transcripts. It was possible for one sentence to have multiple codes. An overview of the used codes is given in Appendix 1. By charting the data, it was rearranged and summarised into accounts for the different groups that were interviewed, and for the different themes that were found. The final step was to map and interpret the data by visualisations and showing the connections.

Five stages of data analysis (Pope, Explanation 2000) 1. Familiarisation Becoming familiar with the raw data by listening back to recordings and reading transcripts or summaries 2. Identifying a thematic framework Identifying the most important themes in the data 3. Indexing Applying the themes to the transcripts (coding) 4. Charting Abstraction and rearrangement of data 5. Mapping and interpretation Final step to analyse and visualise the data and provide explanations Table 6. Five stages of data analysis by Pope (2000).

Ethics In a conflict situation, much of the information that is gathered through interviews is sensitive. This study aimed to handle sensibilities with respect and care. The names of interviewees are anonymised to keep identities secret and respect privacy. During the interviews there was sometimes gossiping about the other side in the conflict. This information was used for a frame analysis of the characterisation of the other side, but care was taken not to harm individuals or groups. Interviewees were never paid to conduct an interview. This was made clear from the start, and all people accepted it. Once, the transportation costs from an interviewee were paid to come to the place of the interview. However, in general the interviewees were visited at their homes or on the street to minimise the amount of time and stress that the interview could cause. Before each interview, informed consent was sought by giving a short introduction of the research, after which the interviewee was asked for his approval for conducting the interview. Care was taken not to give away too much information that would affect the outcomes of the interview.

5. Results This section presents the results found in this study. It starts with a frame analysis of forest conservation (section 5.1) and the conflict (section 5.2), by all key actors involved. The framing sections consist of many quotes from the interviews to give a better feeling of what their framing was like. To enhance the clarity, both section 5.1 and 5.2 end with concluding remarks to compare the different groups with each other. Then, a political ecological analysis sums up the underlying causes of conflict (section 5.3), after which all the results are combined to identify options for conflict resolution (section 5.4).

5.1. Framing of forest conservation All parties involved in the conflict have their own way of understanding the situation, in other words, they frame the situation differently. Here, the frames of all parties regarding forest conservation are discussed. Two main sides can be identified for framing of forest conservation: the forest dwellers (Sengwer and HR-NGOs), versus the government (KFS, other governmental agencies, E-NGOs and international donors). The frames are divided into two categories: forest condition (section 5.1.1) and best practices for forest management (section 5.1.2). Not all parties are mentioned in all frame categories: this depends on the relevance of the group and their statements on that topic. The last sub-section provides concluding remarks to compare the two sides with each other.

5.1.1. Framing of forest condition Framing by Sengwer The Sengwer are mostly concerned with Embobut forest, as this is the last forest where they are still living inside. Sengwer representatives are all concerned that the state of the forest is deteriorating, and most community members shared this opinion. In general, they see that the forests in Cherangani are threatened, but in Embobut the Sengwer indicate the situation is improving.

"Before the evictions of 2014, the forest was destroyed. As by my observation, forest is growing and returning now. More than before." (CM-9)

As the main reason for this improvement, it is mentioned that agriculture stopped when other communities left the forest. It is interesting that most Sengwer agree the biggest reason for the regrowth has been the evictions of 2013-2014. The Sengwer themselves are still there, but that is not regarded as a problem.

The Sengwer identify two main threats to the forest: agriculture and the burning of Sengwer homes by KFS. Agriculture is framed as a threat that was brought in by other communities. The Sengwer have adapted to grow potatoes and maize themselves as well, but originally they were no farmers. Their bylaws don’t allow farming inside the forest. A Sengwer community member states that agriculture used to be a threat, but because other communities have left, it is better now:

“Yes, we had agriculture, in fact, we were selling some potatoes in Tangul [the village next to Embobut forest]. We were using some donkeys to transport from the forest to here. So there was a lot of farming inside the forest, but those who were doing that were not Sengwer. Sengwer were looking after his animals, his honey…he was not doing agriculture. But those who have gone, are those who were cultivators.” (CM-6)

Sengwer representatives point to KFS as the main threat for the forest. Local communities are seen as “encouraged” (CL-3) to exploit the forest. Community members state that “big trees have been destructed by people to build houses” (CM-4), which is seen as an increasing problem because of the burnings by KFS:

“The more times they burn, the more times the forest is destructed. Because if they come to build a house, they just fell a tree.” (CM-5)

When the forest guards burn houses, the local Sengwer then need to cut more wood to rebuild their houses. They blame KFS for the subsequent loss of trees. Sengwer state that timber is also used for other purposes, such as to make poles and fences, but in their statements they focused on timber for houses. Another reason for forest loss that is mentioned by the Sengwer is corruption by KFS. This can lead to illegal activities:

"When you go to the forest, the main threat to the forest is KFS. Not the locals. Because of this corruption, the KFS can just collaborate with those who are using timber. They go to the forest, clear a part of the forest, they pay the KFS something small, or bribe them, and they get away with whatever they did. But now, the local residents, who are Sengwer, they don’t like that. That’s why the main people who are destroying the forest, is the government, or KFS themselves.” (CM-5)

Although agriculture is seen as a threat, the Sengwer do not see overgrazing as a problem. The large majority of local community members agree that keeping animals inside the forest is not a problem. However, they also see that there are many animals inside the forest. Community representatives hold a different perspective compared to the local community, and state it would be good to have a limit on the maximum amount of animals per person, in order to prevent overgrazing. One representative thought keeping too many animals could be detrimental to the forest, because “"how can trees go when cows and sheep are still there?" (CL-2).

Framing by human rights NGOs The human rights NGOs emphasise the role of KFS and government as threats to the forest. The present-day forest is seen as under threat and already declined in total area. The HR- NGOs stress that in other parts of Kenya, e.g. Mt. Elgon, the forest cover has declined less rapidly or remained stable, because the forest dwellers of that area have more autonomy to practice forest conservation in their own way. When the state becomes involved, the HR- NGOs fear this leads to unsustainable forest exploitation. Lack of perceived ownership is also detrimental to the forest, because it leads to destruction by other communities:

“With a lack of recognition of Sengwer community rights, the Sengwer are unable to enforce their accompanying community bylaws and responsibilities, and instead outsiders are able to treat their forests as “no-man’s land”.” (HR-NGO-1)

Framing by Kenya Forest Service (KFS) KFS states that the forest is severely threatened; probably the most of all major water towers in Kenya. However, they feel that recently the situation has improved and the forest is now recovering. They state that the main reason for this recovery is the decrease of agricultural activities in the forest, of which the 2013 evictions were seen as the main cause in Embobut:

“There was a lot of open clearings; people had farmed those forests and cut down trees. That was in up to 2013. Up to 2013 and below there were still people that occupied the forest as well; they were farming, but this degraded the forest. You need to cut it down so that you can farm. Now, that is reversing at the moment. A lot of those areas are naturally recovering.” (KFS-N2)

Because of the evictions, it is commonly stated that “nowadays the forests are going back to their former glory, during the 70s and the 80s” (KFS-L3). The recovery is also said to be due to improvements in policy and laws, and by strengthening KFS:

“But I think about ten years [ago], we have come together [as the government] and realised we have a problem. So one of the first things we did is to fix the policy, and the law. And this law made it easier for us to engage with stakeholders on the ground to support conservation and sustainable management efforts. This was the Forest Act of 2005, which has now been revised in 2016. And these policies and registration all seek to strengthen conservation. So Kenya Forest Service has for example been strongly strengthened to provide protection, to enforce the law and to support community engagement.” (KFS- N1)

Another reason why the pressure on the forest is decreasing, according to KFS, is by planting of trees on private farms of the local community. This reduces the pressure on natural forests.

Despite the tendency of KFS to be positive about the forest recovery, they still see various obstacles on the way. Encroachment and overgrazing are seen as the main directs threats of deforestation and forest degradation, followed by illegal timber extraction. However, many more threats were mentioned, including forest fires, plant diseases and invasive species. There used to be some farming inside the forest (mostly in Embobut, where people settled inside the forest) but this is thought to have stopped since the 2013 resettlement scheme. However, they still see encroachment into the forest edges as a big problem throughout Cherangani:

There are things that are happening that we think can threaten the forest. One of them is overgrazing. The communities there are keeping large stocks, which can really become a threat to the forest. (KFS- N2)

“If you keep grazing in an area over and over, you will never have a forest” (KFS-N2)

“People adjacent to the forest still push further, to convert forest into agriculture. They do it slowly by slowly, killing the trees, by removing the bark. And then slowly slowly you find they have burned the area.” (KFS-L3)

The many animals inside the forests of Cherangani are seen as a problem by KFS (figure 5). The Sengwer can “keep as many as 500 animals inside the forest. Is that still subsistence?” (KFS-N2). KFS stresses that overgrazing is the reason that many glades have been formed in the area. In

35 their view, most of the glades are therefore unnatural, and if these grass areas would be left alone, forest vegetation would come back.

(a) (b) Figure 5. Grazing inside the forest by cattle (a) and sheep (b) is one of the major problems according to KFS.

Local communities are seen as the main actors to do these harmful activities. Often, poor community members adjacent to the forest are being used by businessmen from the cities further away, to extract forest resources such as timber illegally.

“Because the business men, like those for cedar posts – they are used for fencing. The cedar posts you see over there were taken [from the business men]. So business men are encouraging the community to buy logs and timber.” (KFS-L2)

Framing by Community Forest Association (CFA) The CFA states that encroachment and grazing are the two main drivers of deforestation. Furthermore, they refer to a lack of perceived ownership by the community as a reason of deforestation. However, in their eyes that has changed since the new Forest Act in 2005, and especially since the capacity building activities of the CFA.

“Due to the capacity building of the CFA and the community, we’ve come to know that this forest belongs to us. We need to care. But initially, someone could just set fire on the forest. Because it belongs to the government. Then the whole forest gets burned.” (CFA-3)

Framing by environmental NGOs (E-NGOs) The environmental NGOs are worried about the state of the forest in Cherangani. They see local communities as the main actors who drive deforestation, especially given the “bad economic situation” (ENGO-1), which then leads to all sorts of unsustainable practices and extraction from the forest. They agree with KFS and the CFAs that agriculture/encroachment and grazing are the two main threats to the forest.

On agriculture: “On encroachment: the economic activities of the adjacent communities is very much relying on potato and maize plantations. So they need more fertile land; then they push into the forest. sometimes the potato business is booming; then they get good returns. So then they clear to forest. and the way they push the boundary is slowly, so that it cannot be noticed. Slowly by slowly. And then at the end of the day, it will have created a large area that has been encroached.” (E-NGO-1)

On grazing: “The major problem in Cherangani is overgrazing. It is uncontrolled now. The communities are all around the forests, so animals come from all directions.” (E-NGO-1)

Framing by international donors International donors mostly rely on KFS and other government sources for their information about the forest. Therefore they do not have their own vision about what is happening in the forest.

5.1.2. Framing of best practices for forest management Framing by Sengwer Protecting the forest is critical for the Sengwer, because of their direct dependency. The Sengwer, especially the community representatives, focus on the power of the bylaws to control the activities of community members. The Sengwer state that, contrary to KFS guards and CFA members, the bylaws are not prone to corruption, because they are regarded as an accepted institution by community members. An example of why the bylaws can regulate grazing is presented in the following quote:

“Since long time ago, we know that whatever happens, you should not go against the bylaws. Anybody who is going against the bylaws… If I have 10 heads of cattle, and the next day I have 20, my clansmen, or the elders, will just come to my place and ask me “whose animals are these? For the last 15 years, you were able to reach this far, to get 10 cows. And now you take three days to get another 10 cows. Why did you do that? Take them to wherever you came from.” (CM-5)

Furthermore, the community members state they are open to discuss the number of livestock with KFS, or anyone else. "And also we will look at the number of livestock. So if someone asks that we reduce the animals to a sustainable level, then we could do that” (CL-2). However, if a limit were to be set, Sengwer state it should be imposed and enforced by the Sengwer themselves; they do not think it would work if it were a government initiative. The Sengwer also focus on the need to do zonation in accordance with the bylaws. They state this zonation assures that no overgrazing will occur and that the forest and the glades can sustain many animals.

“The Sengwer say that when bamboo is regenerating from the ground, no animals are allowed to graze there. When animals go to the forest when bamboo are regenerating, they will destroy the seedlings. So they [the herders] are asked to graze in the other side, until the bamboo has grown big enough. That is an ancient method of conservation.” (CM-5)

In the past, the bylaws were not written down. “It was passed [orally] from one generation to another” (CL-2). However, in order to show the bylaws to outsiders as well, they were written

37 down in 2014. The Ogiek in Mt. Elgon were taken as example: “We were told that in Mt. Elgon [the Ogiek] have been allowed to live in the forest. In fact, those rules that we wrote [the bylaws], we copied them from those people. How they do and live in the forest. We take that to the county government” (CM-6).

The Sengwer are willing to engage with KFS to do co-management in the forest, although some community representatives first want to have land rights. Below follows an description of what KFS should help the Sengwer with through co-management.

“First of all…what we need from [KFS] is law enforcement. Although we would also be having our scouts, that is the time they come in to do co-management together. And also the animal population, to find balance. Because now, a layman cannot balance the forest and the animals who are living inside. Basically, that is what we need to co-manage together. Although we [the Sengwer] also know, from the knowledge we have, that these animals cannot be sustained in this forest. So we have to find a way to somehow dispose of them. That is the support we need from KFS. But little, not much. Because we know how to control ourselves, we have our own scouts, we have our own bylaws.” (CL-2)

The Sengwer near Embobut are very much against the concept of the CFA as it is now, “because in the CFA act, they say that anybody living adjacent to the forest is a member of CFA. But they [the CFA act] don’t clearly say anything about people who are living inside the forest. They [the people living inside] are not recognised by the CFA. So that’s why the Sengwer are saying they are not part of the CFA" (CM-5). Apart from this position in the law, most Sengwer do not have any problems with other aspects of the CFA, e.g. the creation of a management plan, although the Sengwer would want such a plan to be based on the community bylaws. In other parts of Cherangani the resistance against the CFAs appears to be less urgent, because the Sengwer do not reside inside the forest in those areas.

Framing by human rights NGOs This group does not advocate for a specific type of activity that needs to be done to protect the forest; the key issue for them is that the Sengwer are allowed conserve the forest according to their own rules and traditions: the bylaws. They state this benefits the living standards of the Sengwer while simultaneously the forest will be better protected. The human rights NGOs repeatedly focus on the science to strengthen their argument, because “conservation science shows that forests protected by communities are better protected.” (HR-NGO-1)

Framing by Kenya Forest Service For KFS, government should play a central role in forest protection. They mention that a government can afford to have a long-term vision and that “policies coming from the central government are needed” (KFS-N1). The importance of the forest is emphasised by KFS. Staff members refer to all communities downstream who depend on the water from the Cherangani Hills as one of the five major water towers in Kenya. At the national level, KFS staff even mentioned the far-flowing effects of the river water, even as far as flowing to Egypt through the river Nile. Another reason of forest importance that KFS refers to is the target in the Constitution to have at least 10% forest cover. At the moment, the government identifies 7% of the land as forest, which KFS views as an extra reason to protect the forests that are left.

KFS focuses on the fact that conservation needs to be done according to the law, which states that KFS is the custodian of the forest on behalf of all Kenyans. Therefore, KFS sees itself as the only manager of the forest. The main tasks that KFS talks about in their management on the ground are patrolling in the forest and doing rehabilitation. First on patrolling, KFS stresses the need for surveillance to encounter any illegal activities inside the forest. They mention that this involves a lot of talking with the local community as well.

“I normally visit the farmers, go to private farm forest, advise the farmers on how to conserve their own forest in their farms…and at the same time, we talk with the community with protection of the gazetted forest.” (KFS-L1)

Figure 6. A nursery managed by a CSO in the Cherangani Hills. The seedlings can be sold to KFS and private farms.

KFS staff, especially at the national level, stress the need to involve the community in conservation. They state that the only way for them to work together with the community is when they are organised in a Community Forest Association (CFA).

“At the moment we have a national model where we establish CFAs. And when those are established, we create forest management plans. Those are legally binding, to implement those activities. That is the only tool that is available for communities to become involved in conservation.” (KFS-N3)

“Once they become a CFA, then we single them out as an entity that we can engage with. We cannot deal with every single individual in our programme.” (KFS-N3)

Figure 7. The CFAs encourage private farmers to plant fast-growing exotic tree species on their land, to reduce dependency on the forest and have an additional source of income.

All KFS staff members do not think that degazetting the forest, to hand over ownership to the local community, would not work for conservation. The law would prevent it from happening, but even if it were possible KFS would be firmly against it. Some of the mentioned reasons are:

Against development: “Most of our development is hinged on protected area systems. So the moment we change that management and give it back to communities, I think we will risk the momentum of economic growth in our community.” (KFS-N3)

Too expensive for the community: “Forest conservation is expensive. Even the government is currently subsidising the activities of KFS. And if you look at a community that is neighbouring the forest, I don’t see them able to get all the resources to positively manage the forest.” (KFS-N3)

And, mostly mentioned, the community would be too destructive: “When the Sengwer were given the land, they cut the trees and started doing agriculture.” (KFS-L5)

When forest guards notice an illegal activity, they have the option to choose between arresting the community member, or to talk with him to make him aware of his illegal actions. KFS states it is not authorised to give fines. In the field, KFS states they usually follow the latter strategy. “We want to advise them. We want to tell them why what they’re doing is wrong” (KFS-L1). Arrests do occur, but KFS states that in the entire Cherangani area, they are rare.

The second focus of KFS is to do rehabilitation. They see the forest as degraded in many places because of community activities such as grazing, which need to be reversed. However, KFS states that it is for the time being still difficult to implement rehabilitation activities. They see challenges that need to be addressed first, such as overgrazing. Vegetation can grow back naturally, but KFS sees a need to “increase speed” to achieve a recovery of the forest. This could be done by planting, but at the headquarters KFS is also looking into “more innovative activities” (KFS-N1).

KFS state that grazing should officially not be allowed, because it is a water tower. However, on the ground KFS says they are permitting community members to bring their animals to the forest. Community members are required to pay a fee for grazing, but KFS guards indicate this rarely happens because there is little enforcement.

“We don’t allow goats in the forest. and donkeys. They are the worst [because they browse]. And for cows and sheep, they have to pay a fee. One cow is 100 shillings per month, and one sheep is 40 shillings. But people don’t pay.” (KFS-L3)

KFS states that conservation cannot be done by the local community. Community-based conservation would not work, according to the vast majority of staff members.

“You cannot allow it to go to any small community. You would be creating a recipe for chaos. There are many stakes around it. They tried to do something similar in Mt Elgon. And what happened? There were communities going there and demarcated chunks of land. And they pushed the forest to the very small forest that is today.”

One local KFS officer mentioned the use of electric fences around the forests as the “only lasting solution” (KFS-L3) to prevent encroachment. This officer also thought a fence would be useful to regulate grazing inside the forest.

“Fencing of the forest by using electric wire. That is the only solution. Because we have been doing surveys, and then you find that they move the beacons. So this is the only lasting solution.” (KFS-L3)

All KFS staff state that no farming activities are allowed inside the forest. However, at the local level some foresters seem to think that a more effective way of trying to halt encroachment is to not destroy the crops immediately, but to do enrichment planting in collaboration with the encroachers. This method is called PELIS, Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme, but is usually only practiced outside the forest. However, these foresters argue to also use it within the boundary of the forest when there has been encroached.

“Sometimes KFS does like a firefighter approach. When they find encroachers, they slash everything and maybe use chemicals, so that they move away. But it is like chasing away flies from a pie. The other day you’ll still find these encroachers. But I told the next EC, these are our neighbours. We know them. Why don’t we make an agreement with them that they do indigenous trees planting, and then after some time they will leave. Then they receive some money for that. Now, what my idea is, although it is illegal, and my boss would crucify me, is that I also encroached with these encroachers. They encroach, and then we go in to plant with them. We bring in indigenous trees; we decided to bring in Croton, to get a good tree cover.” (KFS-L4)

Environmental NGOs Environmental NGOs focus on ways to keep the local community out of the forest. By fencing the forest, the environmental NGOs hope to prevent encroachment and regulate the amount of animals that enter the forest.

“The best thing is to sensitise the community on the importance of the forest. The second thing is to realign the forest boundaries by surveyors from both the KFS and ministry of Land. And of course the community. They all need to work together. And then, it is necessary to fence the forest. Then there is agreement about the boundaries.” (E-NGO-1)

The environmental NGOs state that the strategic management plan, developed by Nature Kenya for the Cherangani Hills for the period 2015-2040, needs to be implemented. That was seen as a multi-stakeholder approach to also help the community. Furthermore, what is important is “to have management agreements, also on benefit sharing. The government is gathering a lot of benefits, but little flows back to the community. So that should be addressed as well” (E-NGO- 2).

One of the main focus areas of environmental NGOs is “to establish enterprises outside the forest, to limit the amount of people going inside the forest” (E-NGO-2).

Community Forest Associations (CFAs) In areas where there is overgrazing, the CFAs state that zonation should be done. Because “for now, everything is free-range. You can graze where you want, you tap water where you want, you can take fuelwood wherever you want, you can fell a very big tree…” (CFA-3). Some CFAs tried to implement zonation, but they found it to be difficult to sensitise the community. The plans for zonation by the CFA were “never done. That’s the problem.” (CFA-2). The CFA therefore argues that more attention should go to zonation.

Community forest scouts are seen as very useful for conservation and patrolling. That is mentioned as the main contribution of CFAs to conservation in Cherangani.

“What we normally do…we plan for patrols. The scouts and the KFS rangers. Together. And normally we look at blocks where illegal activities are high. We normally go there for patrols.” (CFA-2)

Figure 8. A community patrols in the forest and encounters an illegally poached tree.

International donors International donors mostly rely on KFS and other government sources for their information about the forest. Therefore they do not have their own vision about what is happening in the forest.

5.1.3. Concluding remarks of section 5.1 Broadly, two main sides can be identified in the framing of forest conservation (see also table 7). First, there is the side of the forest dwellers, consisting of the Sengwer and supported by HR-NGOs. The second group is the government, consisting of KFS and other governmental agencies, while E-NGOs and international donors mostly share their vision. The forest dwellers group is a proponent of community-based conservation. They focus on unsustainable practices that are done by both KFS and other communities from “outside”, which are said to deteriorate the forest. They argue that better conservation outcomes can be achieved by giving more power to the Sengwer themselves, because they are the ancestral owners of the forest. The Sengwer representatives and the HR-NGOs advocate for land rights. They state this would also give the best results for forest conservation. The vast majority of Sengwer indicate they are willing to co-manage the forest with KFS.

The government, and especially KFS, are less open to community participation and still mostly see the local community as an obstruction to do forest conservation, rather than an opportunity. Their framing of conservation is more similar to fortress conservation. Environmental NGOs and international donors talk more about communities in conservation, but they do not want people to live inside the forest. KFS focuses on its own role in forest protection, as written down in the law. They are willing to cooperate with communities, but this has to be done through the only legal institution for communities: the CFAs.

Topic Framing forest dwellers Framing government State of the forest Forest recovering in Cherangani as a whole is Embobut threatened; recovering in Embobut Main threats to forest Agriculture and KFS Grazing and agriculture Grazing There is no overgrazing, and Grazing should be allowed if there is, then the and regulated by KFS community can do zonation themselves Settlement Claiming land rights inside No settlement allowed the forest; settlement inside inside the forest; people is no problem should preferably be kept out by fencing Who manages? Forest should be managed KFS is the custodian of the according to the community forest for all Kenyans and bylaws should therefore lead forest management

Role of other party (KFS or Willing to co-manage with Communities as “helpers” Sengwer) KFS of KFS, e.g. by planting seedlings Community Forest CFA is unwanted because KFS willing to engage with Association they do not recognise forest the community, but only dwellers’ rights and they do through the CFA (which not represent the whole aren’t established just yet) community Table 7. Overview of viewpoints on issues related to forest conservation from the forest dwellers group and the government group.

5.2. Framing of the conflict This section presents how all involved actors frame the conflict. There are many different stories about the conflict, and sometimes they do not add up. However, by carefully analysing all interviews per group of actors involved, their framing is presented here. Three main frame categories were found: substance (framing of events and what the conflict is about: section 5.2.1), self-identity and values (framing of own party: section 5.2.2) and characterisation of others (framing of other parties in the conflict: section 5.2.3).

5.2.1. Framing of events The evictions began in the 1980s, after which the conflict unfolded. The different parties tell different stories about the events that have occurred. A general overview of the events is given in table 8, and the framing of the events per party is presented in the following section.

Year Event 1980-2000s Infrequent evictions – once every 2,3 years 2007-2012 Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP) by World Bank; entry of human rights NGOs 2010s-ongoing Court cases initiated to demand land rights for Sengwer, still on-going 2013 Resettlement payment by government, followed by large-scale evictions to get everybody out of the forest 2013-ongoing Frequent evictions and harassments by KFS; burning of houses April 2017 Attack on community representative; burning of two forest stations Table 8. Overview of the main events in this conflict. The framing of the events differs per party.

Framing by Sengwer The Sengwer emphasise that they have been living inside the forest for over a century already. Community members in Embobut still remember that their grandparents received a document from the colonial government that acknowledged the presence of the Sengwer. However, it was long unclear to the community what the exact meaning of that document was.

“But that was only a grazing permit, we came to understand. But my grandfather was telling us, long ago, we have been given permits to live inside the forest. When people were given our lands to live outside the forest, then we were given those rights to live inside the forest. So we thought it was a title deed to live inside the forest, for them to live there permanently without disturbance.” (CL-2)

After Kenya became independent from the UK, many communities all over Kenya were hoping that they could now officially get their land back. However, this never happened for the Sengwer, and the state forests that had been gazetted by the colonial government remained government property. Still, the Sengwer indicate they were relatively left at peace until the 1980s. This is the period when the first evictions started to appear on a more regular basis. In those days, the Sengwer remember that KFS came back every two or three years to evict them from the glades in Embobut forest, but after such an event KFS would leave the area again and people were able to return to their houses in the glades, and if necessary to rebuild them. The community members still remember the early days of the evictions:

"And in 1990, 1992, we were evicted. The government of Kenya used to be burning our houses, used to be evicting us. We would simply go away for six months, and then come back to the forest. Then we stay for about two years, and the government say “no” [and comes to evict again], and then we go [away again]. They burn the houses. And then after some time we rebuild and stay there. It was since my birth that I stayed in Embobut forest. Until 2013, that the government said no to staying there. We were evicted there completely." (CM-4)

Another community representative in Embobut has had similar experiences with evictions:

“I’ve seen it since ’89, and in ’93, with KFS coming in. I remember even that my mother was putting water on our house that was burning. Back then there were no fires like this [nowadays], but I remember that people just started running when KFS came. They just run. I remember that time, that my mother couldn’t run away. And my father got arrested that day, and was sent to prison for almost 27 days. After they had burned the house. But the evictions were not frequent, like now. They even [went away] for three years, for five years…and then they just come [back]. Especially like now, in election years, they just leave things because they don’t want to disturb. And then two, three years after the elections they just come again.” (CL-2)

World Bank project The Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP) by the World Bank project, from 2007- 2013, is remembered with mixed feelings by the Sengwer. Some community members stress the benefits that were delivered to the community, such as dairy cows for a higher yield of milk. It was even noted that community members saw their relationship with KFS improving, at least for the time of the project:

“The government started respecting the Sengwer community, because of that clauses of the World Bank, the safeguard policies. That you are not supposed to interfere where we are implementing a project. So when they were implementing the livelihood project within the tree glades, there were no evictions, people were living in the glades peacefully. Immediately after that project was over, way back in 2013, then they started mass evictions again.” (CM-5)

However, Sengwer representatives state that donor projects also have a responsibility to check what is being done with their money. After complaints by a selection of Sengwer representatives, an independent Inspection Panel by the World Bank concluded that the rights of the Sengwer were not sufficiently respected. As a result, the representatives are currently opposing other donor projects, if they cannot improve the situation of the Sengwer by halting the evictions:

“What gives us troubles mostly is these conservation funds. Like now the EU, and the World Bank before. First of all, they have to stop that. Because that is fuelling the government to come to fight us harder." (CL-2)

Court case Several Sengwer representatives have started a court case against the government to claim land rights over their ancestral lands and to stop the evictions. They had little trust in the government to solve the issue without external pressure, which is why they decided to start a

46 court case. They feel strengthened by the new Constitution, as article 63 2, d, ii states that lands traditionally occupied by hunter- gatherer communities are community property:

“You know, Forest Act 2005. Yes it says that [people cannot live inside the forest]. But we have a new Constitution. As indigenous peoples we fought for the new constitution, because of that one Article 63 2, d, ii, which recognises our ancestral lands as hunter-gatherers. So for them [KFS and government], they are still clinging to that old law [the Forest Act]. But for us, we have a new existing law.” (CL-3)

Resettlement In 2013, the government decided to try to settle with the forest dwellers issue for once and for all, and offer the Sengwer who were living inside Embobut a resettlement payment. The Sengwer were not happy with this process. Some perceived the resettlement payment as compensation money, for the previous evictions and subsequent damage that was done to them. On top of that, according to the Sengwer there was corruption in the process of handing out the payments, which meant that some genuine forest dwellers were not compensated, while as far as in the coastal area outsiders received money.

“There was corruption taking place. You can pay something, and then you can get the resettlement payment. You could even pay 150,000, and then they pay you 400,000. And those who were not able to pay, they were not benefitted." (CM-6)

Sengwer also mention that they have nowhere to go, because these are their ancestral lands they belong there.

“People were no longer allowed to live in the glades. […] And around 80% of the Sengwer were not compensated. And you are now saying, just move out of the forest? Where are we going?" (CM-5)

“We are still living there, because our great grandfathers were there. So we have nowhere to go, except living there.” (CM-9)

However, some Sengwer that did receive the 400,000 resettlement payment used the money to buy land elsewhere, not too far away. Here some of them grow crops, and sometimes the wife and children live there because it is safer than in Embobut. Currently, the Sengwer say there are mostly temporal structures inside the forest, because of KFS harassments. People are still living there, but they need to hide for KFS:

“When you burn a house today, what I need to do is to put up something temporary. Because I cannot put up a new house today. Because tomorrow they’re burning again, and the other day. So to avoid the costs, you need to put up a temporary house. And people were living there. When you go to the forest now, you have more than 2,000 people living there, inside the forest. But you cannot see them, because they are just living inside the glades. Some of them are living below some trees." (CM-5)

Figure 9. A makeshift house in Kapkok glade, inside Embobut forest.

The last escalation in the conflict took place in April 2017, when a community representative was attacked by KFS guards, according to the Sengwer community. All community members are familiar with the story:

“They shot [at] him, and he started to run away from where they were. All of a sudden he fell down, broke his knee…but one forest ranger came and broke his upper arm, using a rifle. […] After hearing several gunshots, the Sengwer community raised the alarm. After suspecting he had been shot dead, most of the community that were annoyed came to Tangul forest station, and they erased all the station. They burned everything. The whole of the buildings, the vehicles, whatsoever, after suspecting that their community representative had been shot dead." (CM-5)

Framing by human rights NGOs (HR-NGOs) The human rights NGOs are very negative about the evictions. The resettlement payment of 2013 “was an imposed 'solution' and therefore was bound to be unworkable as well as illegal” (HR- NGO-1). However, because of their strong connection to the forest the Sengwer remain in Embobut, also after the 2013 evictions:

“No non-Sengwer remain in Embobut, and that Sengwer remain despite extreme harassment because of the importance of their home to their identity, community and future.” (HR-NGO-1)

In the description of the escalation of conflict in April 2017, when a community representative was attacked, the human rights NGOs focus on the violence used by KFS against the community:

In April 2017 KFS guards attacked a community representative, shooting at and then severely wounding him, because he was taking pictures of the guards burning houses/makeshift structures in the glades. In response to what the community thought was the murder of a key human rights defender, the community burned down the local forest office in Tangul, while allowing the forest guards to leave unharmed with their weapons.” (HR-NGO-1)

Framing by Kenya Forest Service (KFS) KFS states that some areas in the Cherangani Hills, especially Embobut Forest, have a longstanding squatter problem. Therefore KFS has been trying for a long time to get these people out of the forest. However, for KFS the squatter problem was “settled” by the 2013- 2014 resettlement payments of the government. At the national level, KFS staff expected all forest dwellers to move out of the forest by 2013, since that was part of the resettlement agreement:

"Because, in the year 2013, everyone who was living there and the communities I was talking about, were compensated to move out of the forest. Of course, there are issues to whether that did happen etc, but the thing is: there was that agreement, which they were a part of, to be compensated to move out of the forest". (KFS-N4)

At the national level the general viewpoint is that everybody has left the forest, and therefore no evictions are currently carried out. “Evictions are not happening, because there is no-one living to be evicted” (KFS-N2). So, the claims of Sengwer and NGOs that there are evictions taking place are stated to be untrue by KFS. KFS states that the “houses” that are being burned are in fact temporary structures or makeshift shelters, where no-one lives and that need to be brought down by KFS because otherwise criminals might make use of them:

"Evictions are not happening, because there is no-one living to be evicted. You know the eviction, that you have been told about...houses being burnt, for example. We don't burn those houses. That's not true. I'll tell you what happened. You remember the conversation that I told you [about the evictions]? After the conversation, everybody moved out. You know, they have shelters. They refused to help us to pull down those structures. So what happened? Other community elements, who were not Sengwer, took advantage in the shelters. And they came to use these houses. But now, the people that we are talking about here are not good people. They are people from the other side, maybe cattle hustlers, who would use that as a stop camp to raid communities on this side and steal animals. So it was decided: get rid of these shelters. So some of them were pulled down, others were just burnt out. So that's what people looked at and was then published very negatively as burning people's houses. But by that time, nobody was supposed to have been there, because they had been giving money and they accepted to move. Of course, you find a few people that are problematising." (KFS-N2)

However, at the local level KFS staff states that there are still people living inside Embobut, although the exact number is unknown to them. It is not admitted that evictions are taking place, but they do experience an aggressive community. One of the main examples is the recent burning of the forest stations in Tangul and Kambeli. The following quotes explain how local KFS staff frames this event:

"And also, in April, we had rangers, who were protecting the forest, and the community was trying to attack them. And two camps were burned down, in Tangul and Kambeli. It was [burned down] because…the rangers were patrolling in the forest. And there was someone who was taking pictures inside the forest, while our rangers were moving around. So when he saw those rangers, he tried to run away. While he was trying to escape, his leg broke down. So, after getting an injury, a report came out of people who were living inside the forest, and rangers have shot somebody, a man inside the forest. So the community mobilised themselves. And they were trying revenge. So during the revenge, that is why they burned down the two camps." (KFS-L1)

“Now we’re trying to rebuild the camp, so that we bring the rangers back, to assist in the protection of the forest, especially encroachment, and also those who want to go back and live inside the forest.” (KFS- L3)

Figure 10. In response to the injury of a community members, the community burned down the forest station at Tangul, near Embobut.

Some KFS staff members mention the role of their own organisation, to push people out of the forest, as contributing to the conflict that is currently happening.

“I get the impression that, if we for example allowed the things that were happening in Cherangani 15 years before, if they were happening today, we would not be talking about that ecosystem. Because it would have been destroyed, because of the level of encroachment that was happening. So definitely somebody had to come in and push back. Some of that push back, perhaps…I’m only sharing my opinion…some of that push back might be one of the reasons of the problems we see.” (KFS-N1)

Framing by Community Forest Associations (CFA) The CFAs do not perceive the forest dwellers issue to be of large importance to them. Most CFAs indicate that everyone is welcome to join their CFA, also the Sengwer. And in some places the Sengwer have already joined the CFA, although it should be noted that the Sengwer that joined do not live inside the forest anymore, which made it possible for them to join.

The CFAs in Cherangani are more often in conflict with KFS. These disagreements revolve mostly around benefit sharing, which is seen by the CFA as a “very big issue” (CFA-2). According to the CFA, KFS wants to keep the benefits largely for themselves, while leaving too little for CFA members.

Text box 1 – The “helicopter incident”

The two opposing sides often have different interpretations of events that have occurred. An example is the story that all Sengwer representatives and KFS nationals seem to know, about a large, multi-day meeting in 2015, between forest dweller groups and several governmental agencies. During the meeting, the Sengwer accused KFS of burning the houses in the glades of Embobut. Government officials decided to check whether this was true, and they ordered a helicopter to fly directly to the area and investigate the situation themselves. On board were representatives from both the Sengwer and the government, but they tell completely different stories about what happened in the helicopter, and what they saw as a result.

Sengwer story “There were some meetings in Eldoret one day. Then the chairman said there is no one living in the forest. Then our representatives told them, let us go and see. Then they just come with a helicopter, from Eldoret. And they just see there is people, there is animals…I don’t know what they want to see more. Because when you tell these people the truth, they just come in another different way, beating people, doing what. They don’t want to be told the truth. Because if you go to the forest now, you can tell there are some people. But when they come in, they say there is no people in the forest.” (CM-6)

“One of the Sengwer representatives threatened to bring the whole helicopter down if they did not go any lower. So then they said, let us go down and see. They see [people], but when they go back, they now say there is nobody. They don’t want to be told the truth.” (CM-6)

Government story “What the chair of the meeting at that particular time did, they got on a chopper and they went to check the various lands. They found out it was more about a false alarm, other than anything else. They did not see anything. And when moments like that occur during meetings, the agenda begins to change. It changed temporarily at that point from an issue about access of ancestral land and ownership, to a human rights violation." (NLC-1)

As a result of these alarms, “the meeting was disrupted. So meanwhile, you’re not focussing on the agenda that brought you there, but you’re now going into a human rights violation. And I think for the next of that afternoon and the day after, we didn’t really have a meeting. They were addressing the symptoms, but not really the root causes.” (NLC-1)

2013 resettlement payment One CFA member was involved in the Task Force that was charged with investigating how the government could best handle the resettlement of the Sengwer. He states that many mistakes had been made in the process of the resettlement. The Task Force first convened in 2008, and started by doing a census of all the people inside Embobut and the glades. They came to a total of 19,500 people. The CFA member said that the Task Force originally recommended that each family head should be given 10 acres of land somewhere, outside the forest, which should be enough to feed the family. The Task Force compiled a list of almost 3,000 names of the family heads, who should be given the given the compensation. However, the CFA member saw that the recommendations of the Task Force were not followed. The list was altered:

“Because of corruption, there were different names on the list. About 25 percent of the original people were changed with others, even people from far away. Some people from the coast even received the resettlement payment.” (CFA-4)

Furthermore, instead of providing the beneficiaries with the 10 acres of land as recommended, the government decided to give a monetary compensation of 400,000 Kenyan shilling (about $4,000).

Framing by environmental NGOs The environmental NGOs work together with the communities in Cherangani, but they do not target the Sengwer specifically. They are no advocates for community ownership and therefore agree with KFS that the Sengwer should leave the forest, but they do have doubts about the way that these evictions have been taking place, also after the resettlement payment in 2013:

“The problem is that when KFS tries to move them out of the forest…also some time ago there were issues about compensation, to leave the forest. They were given money, but the time frame was not very clear, when they should leave.” (E-NGO-2)

5.2.2. Framing of substance The framing in this section refers to how parties frame the conflict itself, and what the conflict is about.

Framing by Sengwer For the Sengwer, the conflict is about recognition of (land) rights for the Sengwer (viewpoint from the representatives and part of community members). Most community members who live in or adjacent to the forest say that the most important thing is to be left alone and being able to live in peace. Whether they obtain land rights is of less direct importance to them; their main objective is to use the forest for grazing. They want user rights to do grazing, rather than land rights, because that also provides them with what they want. Furthermore, the Sengwer feel that the government should recognise that the Sengwer are there, and that they have

52 rights; not refer to them as Internally Displaced People (IDPs) or vulnerable and marginalised communities.

“The most important thing is [for the government] to recognise that Sengwer are there”. (CM-5)

The conflict for the Sengwer is also about finding ways to manage the forest. They want to do that themselves, and are against the concept of a CFAs because those institutions do not recognise forest dwellers. However, the concept can work in places without forest dwellers:

"As representatives we were saying that “we are not against conservation at all. We embrace conservation. But let’s look for another alternative, another structure, that we can be able to use to carry out protection and conservation, other than the CFA.” Because, the CFA does not recognise communities that live inside the forest. That is the reason why we said we cannot accept the CFAs, because then we would be in support of the Act, and acknowledging our non-existence. So we say no to CFA. Let’s look for other ways which you can use for conservation. The CFAs can work for Sengwer in other places, where they do not live inside the forest." (CL-1)

Human rights NGOs For the human rights NGOs, the key priority is to ensure that the rights of the Sengwer are respected. They actively support the Sengwer representatives in their struggle for land rights, focusing on the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples. They see the evictions as human rights violations that need to be stopped immediately.

Kenya Forest Service KFS sees the Sengwer issue as only a small part of total KFS agenda on conservation. The Sengwer issue should not get any specific attention, because they are only one specific group. KFS looks at the entire ecosystem and all communities at once; it cannot afford to give more attention to one group alone. Furthermore, current laws do not permit anyone to live inside the forest, and it is often repeated that KFS needs to obey the law, like everyone else. And currently, the KFS can only deal with communities through the CFA.

“Yes, you have to target them [the Sengwer] specifically. But who do you target? That's what I'm saying: you have to organise in an organised form [through the CFA], within the existing laws. Because as KFS, or anybody, if you act without the law, you are breaking the law yourself. There is no right to engage against the law." (KFS-N2)

KFS states that the Sengwer should come out of the forest in order to do conservation. In the past, everyone used to live inside the forest, but now it is time for the Sengwer to live outside, like all other communities have done.

“Of course the Sengwer might claim that at some point, they were maybe inside, which could be true. I have no doubt. And those are not only Sengwers; for your information. My ancestors in Mt. Kenya - I come from Mt. Kenya - were living in the forest. You go to my place today, where they were pushed out by the colonial government. There were wars with the Brits, and they were removed from there. But that

53 is different, because once they were removed, they accepted their status as of that particular point, and they exploit the forest from outside.” (KFS-N2)

“This land is not ancestral to the Sengwer. Yes, they used to live in the forest. But all Africans used to live in the forest.” (KFS-L2)

KFS stresses that the dependency of local communities on forest resources is problematic.

“The community should be involved in livelihood improvement schemes. So that the funding that comes from the forest goes directly to the community, to enhance their livelihood. So that after a long time, the community will have their livelihood improved, so that they will live in harmony with the forest. They will then stop depending on the forest resources, and they will actually contribute positively again to conservation. But for the time being, they need that facilitation in alternative livelihood programmes. There are some examples, like REDD+.” (KFS-N3)

Framing by Community Forest Associations (CFA) For the CFAs, the conflict is more about their struggle with KFS than about finding a way to deal with the forest dwellers. There are some Sengwer active in the CFAs, and they are welcomed. However, these Sengwer do not take part in the struggle for land rights. The CFAs state that the Sengwer are welcome to join if they want to. The most important worry for the CFAs is that KFS does not want their influence. Many CFAs are worried about the signing of the management agreement, which KFS needs to do before a forest management plan becomes active. Some CFAs state they have finished drafting this document years ago, but it is still not signed.

Framing by environmental NGOs (E-NGOs) The E-NGOs acknowledge the problem of bad treatment for the Sengwer, but also agree with KFS that they should leave the forest. The E-NGOs are very interested in working together with the community. To work with the Sengwer, they state it would be easier if they join the CFA.

Framing by international donors The international donors are concerned about the conflict and do not want any human rights violations to occur. It is also important for them that their names are not criticised by the human rights NGOs. The international donors state that they have little to no influence about the outcome of the conflict, but they do not think the Sengwer can be allowed to live inside the forest because of the laws:

“The legal interpretation of the Forest Act of 2016 and the Constitution article 65, 67 and 69, which talks about land and environment, and the issues about surrounding ownership and land injustices; establishing the NLC. When you look at all these things, even the Land Community Bill, they never favour the community. KFS and the government will always win.” (ID-2)

5.2.3. Framing of self-identity and values

Framing of Sengwer The Sengwer people see themselves as indigenous to the forests in Cherangani. They emphasise that their ancestors have lived there for centuries already, and that they belong to the area. They feel they have the largest connection to the forest and the biggest incentive to conserve it.

“We are not farmers, we could not even do that. It was not until recently, when we got influenced by other communities that came and brought farming inside the forest. That is now when people started to adapt to this kind of cultivation.” (CL-2)

Because of the cohesion of the community, Sengwer will prevent someone from breaking the law, or ignoring the bylaws.

"[…] the land is from a certain clan, and the people from that clan will ask you [if you do anything illegally] “who are you; why are you here? Just leave, this is our territory”. So there is no cutting down of trees. And the fear that Sengwer are having is that, if we leave this forest in the hands of KFS, in the next 2 or 3 years, they will just cut everything down, say they want to rehabilitate, plant exotic trees, and in the next 20 or 30 years, you would never have any natural tree in this forest." (CM-5)

Furthermore, the Sengwer stress that they are the best conservators of the forest, because they have done that constantly over time.

“If not without those [Sengwer] communities, that forest could not be there. Everywhere in Kenya there was forest. But what happened to the other forests? [Many were destroyed.] With an exception of this one. Because people were living in there. Our grandparents were living there before Kenya was colonised. Then what happened to the other forests, while this one remains? So they should have that sense that people who protect the forest are Sengwer and other communities.” (CL-3)

Part of the local Sengwer community that are still living inside Embobut indicated that they could leave the area in the future, if the opportunity would arise.

“Would I be paid, I would be out completely. I would move somewhere else. (…) That would be better.” (CM-9)

However, for now they do not have the opportunity to move somewhere else. Most other community members stated that Embobut would always be their home, and even if they would move away they would always come back to visit.

Some Sengwer representatives state that community members are susceptible for money, because of their own poverty status. The community members are then more interested in their own short-term gain, than in the greater good.

“There was a meeting in Kapolet, from another donor project. And the way these people [from the project] were talking, to some of us [the Sengwer representatives] it was not right. So we had a lot of

55 questions. Some of the community members were angry. Because already they were told that after the meeting they would get some allowances; some money. So some of these community members did not want many questions. Because then they might leave without giving the money. So the money was the most important thing.” (CL-1)

Community representatives think that giving money to poor community members, as compensation for them to leave their ancestral land, will never work, even when they agree. They will say yes, but they do not really want to leave.

“Believe me, even if there are people who want to get money to go outside the forest, for that moment they will say yes, but when they go out they will sell that land and go back to the forest.” (CL-3)

“In Embobut forest for example…this is a community that has never been exposed. Very few people have gone to school. All along since the 1980s up to 2013, they saw their homes were burned; then tomorrow they have to cut more bamboo and more trees and build new homes, and they cannot complain anywhere. They have never even thought about going to court. It is due to lack of exposure and education. They just rebuild their houses.

Framing by human rights NGOs The human rights NGOs see themselves as supporters of the Sengwer, according to the concept of their self-determination. They support the quest for land rights because the Sengwer want it.

Framing by KFS KFS sees itself as the knowledgeable organisation that educates the ignorant community. Within KFS there is a lot of knowledge about forestry, but also other aspects that are relevant at the landscape level, but the community does not know anything about, for example climate change. KFS portrays their own knowledge as the truth, which has to be transferred to community members for their own benefit, and for the benefit of conservation. KFS guards acknowledge their shortage of manpower. As a solution, they state CFAs can help with that:

“KFS doesn’t have enough manpower to have people everywhere on the spot. But if we involve the community, the CFA, then we will be very OK, because then we have an interest group with members.” (KFS-L1)

KFS has been strongly strengthened, which they see as one of the reasons why the forest currently recovering. The forest guards are framed as important guardians of the forest. However, it is also noted by local guards that sometimes there is a lack of fuel, or a lack of manpower, which prevents staff from doing their work properly. KFS guards at the local forest stations mention that patrolling is their main task, but it requires preparation, for their safety and because of efficiency:

“So on a daily basis, the most important thing we do is just to make plans for patrols. So we have to get information from certain places. We cannot just go anywhere. We need to have information first. From

56 informers, or even ourselves. And then, when you’re clear with your information, you need to go to that area, where destruction is being done.” (KFS-L5)

KFS sees itself as manager of the forest for "the benefit of all'. The government represents all people, and therefore KFS is able to manage the forest on behalf of all people - including the people downstream. The Sengwer are not able to do that. They focus on implementing the law. They aim to have partnerships with many different organisations, within the government and beyond, to aid them in their task.

“The individual down there would like to change things immediately. He may not be interested to invest in something that gives returns in 5 years. He’s poor, he’s hungry… But the county government perhaps can invest 5 years down the line. And the national government can do it even longer.” (KFS- N1)

At the local level, it was acknowledged that some KFS guards are corrupt. "Hmm, yeah. I never denied, there are some…that’s why I was saying; not everybody is clean" (KFS-L1)

Framing by Community Forest Associations (CFAs) The CFA feels their dependency on KFS for the signing of the management agreement, because if KFS refuses to sign the agreement will not come into force. For financial reasons the CFAs are often dependent on KFS as well.

However, the CFAs also feel a position of power, given to them by the Forest Act in 2005, for designing a management plan. They know how powerful such a document can be: “once signed, it becomes like the Bible” (CFA-1). Once it is signed, everything that is stated in the agreement has to be followed. The only problem is that KFS is the only one who needs to sign the agreement. And if KFS refuses to sign, the management plan will not become active.

The CFAs view themselves as a welcoming organisation to all community members who live adjacent to the forest. They have no problem if the Sengwer would join their organisation.

The CFAs state that it is difficult for them to work on a voluntary basis. They need financial support to do their work in a better way. This support has come from local NGOs and international donors, but mostly it has been lacking. One example where the lack of funding becomes apparent is the activity of forest scouts. These scouts initially received a “token” of appreciation for their work, but when a donor project stopped this came to an end. Since then, the CFAs state it has become more difficult for the community scouts to continue with their work.

“There is that laxity [from because of missing that support. You know, if someone works on a voluntary basis, it doesn’t work.” (CFA-3)

The CFA regrets this trend, especially because the forest scouts were perceived as especially useful.

“They [the scouts] were very useful, because, earlier, before the scouts, the rate of destruction to the forest was very high. There were a lot of illegal activities like charcoal burning, cutting of timber, posts…many illegal activities. But with the recruitment of scouts, those illegal activities reduced by about 60 percent.” (CFA-2)

The CFAs see two main activities for themselves: establishing tree nurseries and providing forest community scouts. The tree nurseries are looked after by CFA members and KFS or private farmers can buy the seedlings to plant them elsewhere. For the CFAs, the main goal of these nurseries is to enhance forest cover on private land, so that people become less dependent on the forest.

“As a CFA, we had some projects; the CFA nursery. We were able to raise 60,000 seedlings, and we supported community members with those seedlings. For on-farm use. Mostly eucalyptus and cypress. Those are some of the few activities that we do.” (CFA-2)

Framing by National Land Commission (NLC) Although all other organisations mention the powerful status of the National Land Commission regarding land issues, the NLC themselves are careful not to overrate their influence:

“The revocation for any gazetted national monument is a Cabinet decision. It is not a Commission decision. […] So our role [of the NLC] is more advisory.” (NLC-1)

Other parties also play an important role:

“When we were dealing with the Sengwer, one of the things we realised is the critical role of the Ministry of Environment. The KFS is under this Ministry. Remember, the ministry is policy; other agencies do implementation. So that is a policy direction. We don’t deal with policy. Policy is dictated and managed by the ministries. the respective policymaking bodies are the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Land.” (NLC-1)

Framing by international donors International donors are concerned about the state of the forest in Cherangani Hills, and therefore start programmes in the area to fund conservation practices. Their programmes are not implemented by themselves, but they usually work with KFS and/or environmental NGOs. Because of that, they see their own role in the conflict as very limited. They state that donors need to play according to the rules of the country. They could play a facilitative role to try to manage the conflict, but in the end they state they cannot influence the decisions of the government.

5.2.4. Framing of characterisation of the other party Framing by Sengwer Sengwer state that KFS is not protecting the forest well - they claim they are corrupt and actively participating in the degradation of the forest. KFS demands bribes to the community and keeps harassing them when they are in the forest.

"Someone can just go from here to the nearby forest station, meet with the forester, give him 20,000, and he asks for a harvesting permit; just comes and harvest, and also the movement permit, and asks the forester to go for a holiday for two or three days. Then he goes to the forest, and clears everything, put it on the vehicle…so that is corruption."

The Sengwer also think that both KFS and the CFAs are business-oriented. They claim they are willing to sell out the forest for exploitation and their own benefit.

“They are so money-oriented in their minds, not about conservation, that is the difference between CFA and Sengwer." (CM-5)

“The government is just looking at the trees; they don’t see the people who are inside the forest. Local Sengwer reached a point that they see the trees as the enemy.” (CL-1)

Community representatives are not happy with donor money flowing to KFS, because in their eyes this only strengthens this organisation to continue with evictions. The last project by the World Bank, from 2007-2013, was being challenged by Sengwer representatives, because the project did not take Sengwer rights enough into account. The Sengwer representatives think their critical stance towards donor projects has now led to them being excluded by donor organisation, because “they fear rejection. So they started choosing who they should communicate with. That is not right” (CL-3).

"I think the whole thing [conservation projects] might be jeopardised because of human rights violations. If that comes out, it will come up strongly and will unsettle the whole project. All these conservation funds are just looking at Kenya, not taking human rights violations serious. They just try to do business, but how to do business without problems, without looking at the human rights issue, that’s not good." (CL-2)

KFS is also recognised as the official custodian of the forest, so the Sengwer are willing to cooperate with them. Especially local community members indicated they are willing to be educated by KFS. Despite the negative framing by community representatives, most community members emphasise the positive role that donor projects have played, or could play in the future. Community members were happy with tangible benefits from projects, such as dairy cows. Even when they had not benefitted themselves, they still thought the idea behind such projects was good. Some community members stated that such projects also enhanced safety and stability in the area.

Framing by human rights NGOs The human rights NGOs support the Sengwer in their struggle for land rights, because they see them as the rightful owners of the land and the best protectors of the forest. The human 59 rights NGOs seem to have lost their faith in KFS as an organisation, because of the way they work and their way of thinking:

“KFS does not want to recognise indigenous peoples deep connection to their lands, nor recognise that they could therefore be powerful allies in the securing of these forests and water sheds. Instead KFS states that to them, everyone is equal, which translates as meaning that Sengwer rights to their lands as recognised in the Constitution can be ignored, that new conservation science will be ignored, and instead the 'fortress conservation' approach to forest conservation that has failed so spectacularly in Kenya under British and then post-independence Governments will continue, presumably with exactly the same results.” (HR-NGO-1)

Human rights NGOs are critical about the CFAs as well, because they do not recognise forest dwellers. Furthermore, the CFAs are seen as ineffective institutions:

“The CFA does not represent all people, and is therefore open to elite capture, to domination by KFS, and is unable to secure the commitment of whole communities to protect their lands as would be possible where the central mechanism used was the recognition of community tenure on conservation conditions.” (HR-NGO-1)

KFS and the government are seen to be unwillingly against attempts of the human rights NGOs, together with the Sengwer, to start a dialogue.

“The Sengwer have initiated many dialogues with the Government and KFS. Some of these have been direct attempts to engage, often through the Sengwer bringing the National Land Commission or the Kenyan National Commission for Human Rights to facilitate, other times through the Sengwer bringing the World Bank or the EU. Almost all such attempts lead to immediate reprisals from KFS, whether burning homes in the run up to the World Bank sponsored dialogue in Eldoret in March 2015, or burning homes and shooting at people in the days following the EU human right visit to the ground at Embobut in March 2017.”

Framing by KFS “Everybody is equal” (KFS-N1) and “everybody will be treated equally” (KFS-L1): all KFS staff state it is not possible to give a special status for the Sengwer. This may rise to tensions between tribes. KFS acknowledges that the Sengwer have lived inside the forest, but nowadays people should accept that they cannot live inside the forest anymore.

“My ancestors in Mt. Kenya - I come from Mt. Kenya - were living in the forest. You go to my place today, where they were pushed out by the colonial government. There were wars with Brittainians, and they were removed from there. But that is different, because once they were removed, they accepted their status as of that particular point, and they exploit the forest from outside.” (KFS-N2)

The Sengwer also want education and healthcare, so they are also living modern lives. They should not continue to “look backwards” (KFS-N3), but rather they should find ways to become “incorporated in modern lifestyles” (KFS-N3).

“[The Sengwer way of] living now has been influenced by modernity. Meaning what? That people from outside are influencing these people, and then they change their way of life. They started using the forest, not the way the original group was using it, but almost the same as the other, outside group is using the forest. They are overexploiting, for example. Instead of having three of four sheep like they were doing, for self-sustenance, now they are going commercial. You will find one farmer with a hundred sheep and fifty cows.” (KFS-N2)

“There is this misconceived idea, that because these communities were living in harmony with the forest in the past, that nowadays in the 21st century they can still be friendly. It is not practical, because the numbers we are dealing with now are very different. And the numbers and the lifestyle we are dealing with now are very different, in terms of lifestyle and demand. It has changed. Early in the past, they only bothered about fruits, not even about clothing. So we could still live very harmoniously with the forest. but with the current lifestyle, people want to be rich, people want to invest outside…it’s going to be very impossible that communities can still live harmoniously with the forest. Even if they prefer to continue living their traditional lifestyle, it will not be possible, because they are interacting with other people, who have now adopted modern lifestyles. So we cannot isolate a Kenyan population and say they should remain the way we lived 100 years ago, while the rest moves on to the 21st century. Everyone needs to move there, because everybody needs electricity, clean drinking water, hospitals…all this infrastructure and communication. And you cannot provide that in a traditional forest dwelling setting.” (KFS-N3)

Furthermore, KFS does not believe in the term “indigenous”. According to them, “Everybody is indigenous wherever they are.” (KFS-N2)

“Communities are the negative factor in conservation” (KFS-N3). KFS acknowledges the importance of addressing community livelihoods for conservation, because communities otherwise do are threatening the forest. But in the end, many KFS guards still believe that communities are the negative factor in conservation.

CFAs are seen as the only legal institution through which the community can cooperate with KFS. However, at the local level, most foresters acknowledge that the CFA is not functional, or even “dead” (KFS-L3).

KFS blames community representatives for not always being genuine. According to KFS, this makes it difficult for them to work together with community representatives, because they do not know whom to trust. The following quote gives an example of corrupt community representatives.

“I was working on a small project in [the forest of] Mau. And it also involved the communities I am talking about here. So there was this time around we were doing enrichment planting. For that, you’re going to buy the seedlings and seeds and saplings. You will spend quite some amount of money. So we decided, we're going to target that community. What we discovered, was very unfortunate. Because, one of them was able to organise in a way that they appear like a community. But eventually we discovered that all the money we spent went to one individual. Yes, he is part of the community, but he ends up taking all the resources, using the community. You see, that person is someone who has now been exposed to the outside, and he now is taking advantages of this ignorant folk. They're not ignorant

61 per se in terms of what they are doing, but they don't know that someone is taking advantage. And that is very common now in Cherangani. Very common.” (KFS-N2)

If the Sengwer are given land, KFS guards think they are likely to convert they area into agriculture. They saw this happening in Phase I of Kapolet forest.

“If I sell a piece of land to you, you claim everything that’s inside. So also for the Sengwer, [when they were given Phase I in Kapolet], it was taken as personal property. They thought they were allowed to use the trees.” (KFS-L5)

KFS therefore does not think that the community is able to manage the forest by themselves. The community now benefits from the ecosystem services that the forest provides, and that would not be possible anymore when they convert the forest into agriculture. “So if they would get Phase II, I think it will not be good for them.” (KFS-L5)

KFS staff from both the national and local level acknowledge that, because of poverty, the situation of the Sengwer and other local communities might be dire, and therefore lead to illegal extraction of forest resources. Local KFS guards can often relate to the poverty situation of the local community, but also at the national level there is an understanding that when people are poor, “they don’t have a lot of time to spare for conservation”, which means that “there should be an income for them to be able to be active in conservation.” (KFS-N3)

“If the government was more considerate, they could get more projects to enhance the livelihood for these people.” (KFS-L5)

Framing by Community Forest Associations (CFAs) The CFAs generally blame KFS that they are not willing to give power to the CFA:

“KFS knows that, once the management plan is signed, and if they breach what we have agreed, we are likely to sue them" (CFA-2)

However, because of these consequences, KFS is seen as hesitant to sign. In fact, in the entire Cherangani Hills, KFS is yet to sign the first management plan, in spite of some claims by CFAs that those management plans had been completed years ago.

Notably, a CFA outside the Cherangani Hills was more optimistic about KFS, stating the “since 2012, there has been a shift [in KFS] to take the CFA more seriously” (CFA-1). They expressed hope that over time, this could also happen in Cherangani.

Sengwer used to live inside the forest as hunter-gatherers, but that time is over now. However, the CFAs state that time has long been gone and the majority has left the forest. Only in Embobut many people still live inside the forest, because “it is hard for them to move out of the forest; they are used to there” (CFA-3). They keep animals inside the forest, and outside they do farming. The CFAs do not see a special role for the Sengwer in conservation nowadays, that is a thing of the past.

“I don’t believe you live inside the forest for your lifetime. You could live anywhere, and survive. You don’t have to keep large livestock for you to survive. They [the Sengwer] can even sell those livestock, they get good money, they buy commercial plots…you don’t necessarily need to live inside the forest the rest of your life.” (CFA-2)

Framing by environmental NGOs The local communities are seen as both a threat to the forest, but also as the key to successful forest protection. It is recognised that the Sengwer have a “special connection to the forest” (E- NGO-1), but they think there is none who is still living inside the forest, except in Embobut. But even there, the environmental NGOs think the reason is economy, rather than indigeneity:

“There is no-one living inside the forest. Even in Embobut, it is just for economic value. It is only the animals who are grazing in the forest. The only thing is that they were given a permit by the colonial government. But that is a long time ago. The colonial government gave permits because they were protecting the forest. They were not cultivating. Now, the economic value of cultivation came in. that was the trigger to destroy the forest, to plant potatoes. The community who was living there did that, until the government intervened and removed them from the forest in 2014.” (E-NGO-1)

Framing by National Land Commission (NLC) The National Land Commission states that the negotiation strategies of Sengwer leaders are not constructive. Their “alarmist” calls that houses are burnt at a meeting is not seen as helpful for the progress of the meeting:

“It puts the community always in the situation of being alarmists, not being too clear in terms of their leadership, as to what they should be able to follow through, and then not even being able to follow through with that particular agenda, when given space. When you are given the opportunity to sit together with government, the Permanent Secretary (PS), it’s not an everyday opportunity. And indeed, houses might have been burnt! We are not disputing that. But for that particular day and that agenda…how does it help you to stop the meeting?” (NLC-1)

And in fact, after that, NLC states that the important government representatives left the meeting:

“So when the PS and CS leave, they leave behind technocrats, who don’t advise in terms of policy. A technocrat will only say “I’ve taken the notes”. But you need the presence of the decision-makers, who are the CS and PS. Not to antagonise them as to what is happening. So that is what I’ve seen as critically missing in their leadership.” (NLC-1)

Framing by international donors (ID) The international donors state that providing ownership rights to the Sengwer is not a good idea, because then they would destroy the forest. They state the Sengwer have lost their hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which is why it is not possible for them to be inside the forest harmoniously.

“One of the biggest things is that, if you want to be indigenous and you want to graze, then that’s no problem. But if you start settling inside there, you’ll want to farm, do other things. Then, do you still maintain an indigenous lifestyle?” (ID-2)

The same interviewee later on answers his rhetoric question, and states that the Sengwer are not indigenous anymore. Especially after receiving the resettlement payment in 2013, they should now quit claiming land rights:

“They don’t act indigenous. They just do that to benefit from funds for indigenous peoples. And then, people were compensated. In fact, most of the activists who you will talk to, they were given 400,000 [shilling, as resettlement payment]. They are recipients; they have it. So they are given money, but then they still come back to say that they are indigenous.” (ID-2)

On the negotiation process, the international donors state that human rights NGOs are not genuinely interested in improving the situation of the Sengwer. The international donors state that the struggle for land rights does nothing to help the community; it even prevents them from getting tangible benefits through donor projects:

“There is a lot of external influence from international human rights NGOs and activists. Taking advantage of this indigenous. […] They are fundraising, getting a lot of money, but eventually they don’t advance the rights of these communities.” (ID-1)

5.2.5. Concluding remarks of section 5.2 Conflict mainly focuses around Embobut, because that is the last forest where Sengwer are still living inside. Other forests in Cherangani have been abandoned for quite some time already. Both parties are interested in forest conservation. However, there are large disagreements about how that can best be achieved. KFS approach the conflict as a poverty issue, which can be addressed by providing alternative livelihoods to communities, in order to decrease their dependency on (and relationship with) the forest. An overview of the frames per category is given in table 9.

Frame category Framing forest dwellers Framing government Events Evictions have been going Evictions are not a goal, but on for a long time; KFS are necessary harassment increases Substance Conflict is about recognition Conflict is about forest of (land) rights and being protection, but is only a left at peace small problem. Poverty is problematic. Self-identity and values Best forest protectors Best forest protectors because of ancestral because of knowledge; have connection to the forest legal mandate to manage Characterisation of other KFS as a threat, not as a Community as problem, not good manager of the forest as solution Table 9. Overview of the frame categories on the conflict.

5.3. Underlying causes of conflict This section deals with the underlying causes of conflict between the forest dwellers and the state. In the previous two sections of this chapter, the framing of the key actors involved was analysed. This section delves deeper into the underlying causes, which are more difficult to readily identify. The theory of political ecology is used to critically analyse all interviews in combination with the observations of the researcher. In particular the “political” aspect of this conflict, and its implications, are highlighted here. This provides a deeper understanding of the underlying causes of conflict which, in combination with the frame analysis, is used in section 5.4: Conflict resolution.

The most commonly cited underlying cause of forest degradation and the conflict in this conflict is population increase. This was mostly mentioned by KFS, but all parties felt that population increase had led to more environmental destruction. When the numbers increase, it is feared that the pressure on the forest will increase as well. KFS staff at both the national and local level viewed this as a fact that is nearly impossible to deal with (because how can you halt population increase?), with fixed outcomes. They state that the portion of land and forest that is available is fixed, or if anything it is decreasing. Then, if there are more people, the forest will be used more and destruction seems inevitable. Population increase is an example of the “eco-scarcity” approach, which is a dominant narrative for apolitical ecologies. Population increase is then portrayed as an apolitical cause of environmental conflict. However, there are many political implications of population increase that are important to acknowledge. If there are less people, it does not necessarily mean there will be less environmental degradation and conflict. Other factors – political factors – determine what the impact of population will be exactly.

Parts of the five theses by Robbins (see theoretical framework) can be seen in this case. The conflict between the Sengwer and KFS is an example of the “environmental conflict and exclusion” thesis. “Exclusion” manifests itself in this study by not allowing the Sengwer to live inside the forest, which leads to a conflict about ownership of the environment. According to political ecology, these conflicts are often part of a larger struggle about race/tribe, gender and class. The marginalisation of the Sengwer is an example of the “degradation and marginalisation” thesis. The focus on control by conservation implementers is an example of the “conservation and control” thesis. The “political objects and actors” thesis appears when the political aspects are addressed. All these theses have economic, social and political aspects, which can help to better understand the underlying causes of nature. To prevent overlap, the analysis below is structured according to these three aspects.

Economic aspects The Sengwer of Embobut and other areas in Cherangani that are adjacent to the forest, have a marginalised position. Originally, the Sengwer were hunter-gatherers whose livelihood depended on honey and hunting wild animals in the forest. Somewhere before the 1950s, the Sengwer started to have livestock as well, which they were introduced to by other communities. Later, the Sengwer also adopted farming practices such as maize and Irish potatoes. Nowadays, there are no Sengwer left who sustain themselves with hunting or

65 gathering. Farming is the main source of income for Sengwer outside Embobut. In Embobut, the Sengwer often have livestock in combination with a piece of land somewhere for farming.

In general, many Sengwer have made the transition towards a more modern lifestyle, but they continue to have a marginalised position because of their history and continued dependency on the forest. The facilities in Cherangani are poor, especially in or adjacent to the forests. From the people still living inside the glades of Embobut, only a very small percentage has gone to school. Even the people that have gone rarely continue after primary education. Attending university is impossible for but a handful of Sengwer, the majority of which continues to live elsewhere after their study. Even if they continue to support their relatives near the forest, it leaves Embobut devoid of highly qualified people.

Furthermore, there is a general lack of facilities. The Sengwer indicate that the situation has improved over the last years because of the devolution, but there is still a lot of room for further improvement. The county government has more interest in the Cherangani hinterland than the national government had showed. One of the key facilities is education. Before the evictions started in the 1980s, there used to be schools on the glades of Embobut forest, where young children from the forest could go to. Nowadays the government clearly does not want that anymore because people are no longer allowed to live inside. There is a primary school adjacent to the forest and in Kapiego, but for secondary education the children need to travel further away, which usually requires moving to another town for the duration of their studies. Infrastructure is another problem that slows down economic developments in the area. The roads to Embobut and other forests that are further away from the main cities are in a poor state. Recently the road to Embobut was in fact reconstructed, but the community says that because of corruption it has become a lot more narrow than the previous one.

The consequence of the above is that many Sengwer live in poverty and have little opportunities to make an alternative livelihood. This strengthens their dependence on the forest for survival and increases the chances that people go to the forest for illegal extraction of resources, as an extra source of income. However, it should also be noted that local KFS staff do not have a lot more money than the local community members. This makes them susceptible for bribing and enriching themselves, but they can also be called victims of the system.

Social aspects One of the main underlying cause of conflict are different opinions about the status of the Sengwer, and what implications that status has. This also negatively affects the economic and political underlying causes. The Sengwer feel they are indigenous to the forests of Cherangani, especially Embobut. Their forefathers lived in the same area, which gives the Sengwer a large sense of ownership to these forests. Their culture is interwoven with the forest, they depend on it for their livelihood and, in the case of Embobut, many Sengwer were born and raised there. For them, the logical implication of their status as indigenous forest dwellers is to be allowed to live in their ancestral forests. For KFS and likeminded organisations, this is different. The special status of the Sengwer is not recognised and they state that all Kenyans are equal to them. Ironically, however, this position leads to an unbalanced situation, where the specific rights of the Sengwer are not addressed and they end up in a more marginalised

66 position, because they lack the power of other communities to fight for their rights. KFS staff often acknowledge the special connection that Sengwer have (or at least had) to the forest, but they do not think the Sengwer are therefore more benign to the forest than other communities.

There are also different visions about how the Sengwer ought to live their lives. The government, the CFAs and environmental NGOs think that the Sengwer should adapt to a modern lifestyle, and come out of the forest. Their ancestral lifestyle is regarded as inferior. Furthermore, the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of the Sengwer is not taken seriously by KFS, which is another example of marginalisation. For the management, KFS and other parties prefer to use modern science, rather than the ancient knowledge of, for example, the bylaws. In the management plans of the CFAs there is also little to no room for TEK, because they want to talk the same language as KFS.

The culture of the Sengwer has changed over the last years as well. As people moved out of the forest, the daily interaction with it disappeared and the knowledge about the traditional Sengwer culture appears to have been slightly decreasing. People still have a strong connection to the forest if they were born there, but the Sengwer community as a whole has become less connected to the forest. One of the most important cultural tradition that remains is circumcision, which takes place once per year. Young boys are then taken into the forest for a long period of time, up to a couple of weeks, where they are taught about the culture and traditions of the Sengwer tribe. Religious practices play no role anymore, as Christianity is the dominant religion in Cherangani and Embobut. The traditional knowledge appears to be still present within the community, although not everyone knows it anymore. Also, because of the evictions and conflict situation, it has become difficult for the Sengwer to live their lives as they want to. This affects the conservation activities of the community. As long as there is conflict with KFS, there will be less incentives and possibilities for the Sengwer to take care of the forest and implement the community bylaws.

Women and children have mostly left the forest because of the conflict. Sengwer community members indicated that it was not safe for them to be in the Embobut region anymore. However, there are still several women in the glades, and even children.

Political aspects The socio-economic circumstances as described above, increase the power imbalance between the Sengwer and KFS/government. KFS staff indicate that it is also for them a process to work together with communities. In some parts of Kenya there are now successful CFAs, but in many other remote areas KFS staff are still learning how to involve community members. Before the review of the old forest law in 2005, when the Forest Act was created, KFS was not required to work together with communities. It is also for KFS a process to find out how that can best be done; and for their staff to change their old working habits. An example of the power imbalance between KFS and communities is embedded in the law for CFAs. A CFA is allowed to create a management plan, but before it comes into force, it needs to be signed by KFS. A signature of the community is not required, only KFS has the power to accept or decline a management plan.

In the current situation, the government is the official owner of all forests in Cherangani, and KFS their manager. International donors therefore deal mostly with KFS to implement their projects to save the forest. If the Sengwer get land rights in the forest, or if the community gets more management activities, this could have consequences for the distribution of donor funding. KFS is not likely to share donor money with the community, based on how they have shared benefits with the community so far. The next big donor project that could come to Cherangani is REDD+. Kenya is still in the process of creating a National REDD+ Strategy, which is a required step in the Preparation Phase and is projected to be developed by mid- 2018 by UNDP. If REDD+ projects take the same stance regarding forest dwellers as previous projects, that would mean that KFS continues to receive a large part of the donor money for implementation of the project and that the Sengwer are only targeted as beneficiaries; not as co-managers.

The Sengwer are underrepresented in politics, which makes it difficult for them to let their issues be heard in the national parliament. There is nowadays a Senator who is Sengwer and was born in Embobut forest. The community hoped he would try to gain support at the national level for their situation, but they now blame the senator for only defending his own interests in parliament. Also, voting for political representatives still is based on tribes; many people still vote for the candidate of their own tribe. This makes it more difficult for the Sengwer to obtain political representation. Furthermore, the small size of their tribe makes the Sengwer tribe not the main focus of politicians, which also leads to a lack of investments in the area.

Lastly, all the effects mentioned above are strengthened by the fact that there is population increase in the area, as was mentioned already. However, what the exact effect of the increase in population will be depends on how the other underlying causes of conflict are addressed.

5.4. Conflict resolution In this section, the conflict is further analysed and possibilities for conflict resolution are presented (see figure 11). First, the current state of the conflict between KFS and the Sengwer is analysed, after which the concept of the mutual gains approach (MGA) are followed to identify possibilities for conflict resolution. Lastly, other options than a mutual gains approach to resolve the conflict are explored. It should be noted that the purpose of this study is not to mediate, nor to negotiate on behalf of any of the parties involved. The aim is to apply the mutual gains approach and identify possible common grounds, based on the interviews, to investigate whether conflict resolution is possible.

Interests, Value Current Third party Joint fact Follow- not creation & Agreement? situation intervention finding through positions distribution

Figure 11. Overview of the steps towards an agreement

Current situation Based on the interviews and framing of the conflict, the escalation pattern of this conflict can be analysed by using the Yasmi’s (2006) escalation model for natural resource management conflicts. The conflict can be divided into four phases: (i) access restriction; (ii) lobbying, protesting and campaigning; (iii) internationalisation and going to court; (iv) intimidation and physical exchange. First, access restriction. The conflict starts in the 1980s, when the Sengwer were not allowed to live in the forest anymore and KFS started with the first evictions, albeit only once every 2-3 years. The second phase, lobbying and campaigning, started when the Sengwer became more organised. This occurred during the NRM project by the World Bank in the Cherangani area, from 2007-2013. Sengwer representatives started to write letter to the World Bank, to ask for recognition of their rights in the project. The conflict now entered its third phase: internationalisation and going to court. International human rights NGOs started focusing on the Sengwer case by around 2010. Dialogue with the KFS and the government was difficult and the Sengwer did not have trust in the existing organisations, so they decided to start lawsuits against the government. The third phase ends when the World Bank project ends and its Inspection Panel concludes the rights of the Sengwer were not sufficiently respected. After the World Bank left, the government wants to resettle all remaining inhabitants of Embobut forest by providing them with a resettlement payment in December 2013. Now the conflict enters a new phase: intimidation and physical exchange. The Sengwer claim the resettlement payment is not sufficient and that the wrong people had received it. As a result, many remain in Embobut. That annoys the government, which had hoped all squatters would have left. KFS starts to evict and patrol on a very regular basis, and Sengwer start hiding themselves in the forest. This is the time when makeshift houses in the forest are destroyed on

69 a regular basis and Sengwer complain about bribing by KFS. Also, the KFS forest stations are burned as a result of the situation.

It is clear the conflict has only escalated further until now, without signs of the two parties coming closer together. In such situations, with a conflict that has escalated up to the final stage, it seems unlikely a mutual gains approach could succeed. However, it has never been tried before, and so far the parties have not yet come together in honest and genuine dialogue to try to resolve the conflict. Starting a dialogue could bring both parties closer together.

De Dreu (2014) identified three main reasons for parties to initiate negotiations: escaping a stalemate, avoid catastrophe or having a mutually enticing opportunity. In this conflict there is a stalemate, but KFS and the government currently have few incentives to change the stalemate, because they profit more from the current situation. The main reason for all parties to join the negotiations is to avoid further catastrophe. For KFS and the government, a catastrophe could occur if the area remains too unsafe for forest guards to patrol, and that international donors leave the area because of the conflict situation. The Sengwer, on the other hand, are already experiencing their catastrophe to a certain extent, because they are kept out of their ancestral forests and are actively evicted. Such reasons still have a negative character, rather than positive, which does not help the mutual gains approach. The parties also need to believe that entering negotiations could offer an opportunity for improvement for them. That is what the mutual gains approach in this study aims to show.

Third-party intervention The conflict has been going on for decades, but so far there has been very little communication between the two sides. Parties have apparently been unwilling, and perhaps also unable, to approach the other side to initiate a discussion. The Sengwer do not feel heard by KFS and therefore turn towards other organisations for help. On the other hand, KFS is frustrated by the continuous focus on land rights by Sengwer representatives. However, both sides do indicate that they are willing to start a dialogue. All parties indicated that they see dialogue as the first step necessary for conflict management.

To bring parties together and increase the chance that they enter into negotiation, a third-party intervention would be beneficial. Ideally this would be one party that is trusted by all sides. The third party should be powerful, but have no conflicts of interest with either side. International donors can play a role here, to facilitate negotiation s. The current EU project can try to fulfil this role, or the UN, as part of the REDD+ Programme in Kenya. The National Land Commission also is in a position to facilitate dialogue, but because of previous experiences there is already a lack of trust between them and the Sengwer. Other options include a coalition of different parties, but preferably these include outsiders to prevent a lack of trust from occurring even before the negotiations start.

The third party should try to restore trust between the conflicting parties by initiating the dialogue. If there is any chance of solving the conflict for the long-term, all actors need to be involved and the local communities should not be forgotten in the negotiations; rather than only speaking to some of the community representatives which usually happens.

Interests, instead of positions One of the most critical aspects of the mutual gains approach is to focus on interests, not positions. There are several positions of parties in this conflict, which potentially can obstruct negotiations. Several Sengwer representatives have stated various pre-conditions for dialogue with KFS and other parties. Those are requirements that need to be fulfilled before the representatives are willing to start talking. They mainly focus around recognising the rights of the Sengwer as indigenous peoples and to give land rights for their ancestral lands. KFS argues that these conditions are impossible to fulfil, especially before any negotiation has started. KFS and the government therefore take the opposite position: they state that negotiations cannot start before the Sengwer are willing to give up their claim on land rights. These opposite positions inevitably lead to a stalemate where no rapprochement is possible anymore. The two sides harden their respective positions, and a dialogue seems highly unlikely.

Thus, focusing on positions only pushes the two sides further apart. A focus on interests is more beneficial. For the Sengwer, protecting the forest is essential. They are deeply connected to their ancestral land and need the forest for their daily use and cultural practices. Second, the interest of local Sengwer community members is that the conflict stops soon, that the peace returns to the area and that they can continue their normal lifestyles. They are fed up with the KFS harassments and evictions, and want a better life for themselves and their children. Lastly, community members are worried about losing their culture. Because of modern influences and their forced separation from the forest, it is feared that the essence of their ancestral culture will be forgotten by the new generations.

The main interest of KFS and the government is, also, to protect the forest. The official mandate for KFS is to protect the forest in the name of all the Kenyans. Furthermore, the government is well aware of the ecosystem services that the forests of the Cherangani Hills provide as water catchment area. Furthermore, KFS benefits when the hostile situation becomes more peaceful and the safety for their staff is guaranteed. After the forest stations were burned by April 2017, the forest guards left the forest and have not returned at the moment of writing. The conflict also has consequences for donor projects, which provide grants to the KFS organisation. World Bank has already left the area, and if the conflict worsens the same could happen to other donors. It is in the interest of KFS and the government to continue working with donor projects, and therefore to secure the area is safe. Both the Sengwer and KFS have indicated that they regard forest protection as a shared interest. They still have different viewpoints on how to achieve this, but at least the common interest is acknowledged. If parties can agree on this shared interest in the negotiations, that would be the first step of finding common ground.

Sengwer KFS and government Position - Obtain land rights - Sengwer cannot live in the forest Interest - Protecting the forest - Protecting the forest - Living peacefully in the - Safety in the area for their area for themselves staff - Protect Sengwer culture - Continue with donor projects Table 10. Overview of the positions and interest of the Sengwer and KFS/government

Joint fact finding After mutually agreeing on shared interests the two sides would still have widely different opinions about certain issues, which can be addressed by joint fact finding. This is not an absolutely necessary step to reach an agreement, but would help the further negotiations and could be crucial on the long term. It seems this could be the most difficult step to reach agreement on. The main goal is to increase understanding of the other party’s viewpoints. Because there has been very little communication so far, there is a lot to gain from joint fact finding. As a result of the increased mutual understand, the durability of a reached agreement will increase.

The most important underlying cause of conflict (see section 5.3) is the different opinions about the status of the Sengwer, and the implications thereof. The two sides hold different opinions about the topic, but many KFS staff have also indicated that they acknowledge the special connection of the Sengwer to the forest, at least in the past. Scientific studies, archives and local knowledge could be combined to discover the history of the Sengwer. It should be taken into account that the Kenyan government does not officially recognise indigenous peoples as such. Another fear of the government was that other communities would not accept a special treatment for the Sengwer, and that tensions would rise between the Sengwer and other tribes if a special status was granted to them. To prevent this from happening, other communities could be brought into the process as well. It would greatly benefit the negotiations if a mutually agreed conclusion could be reached on this point.

The second area where joint fact finding is beneficial, is forest management. The two sides both indicated that they are eager to learn from experts about a sustainable use of the forest. KFS rangers indicated they do not know the carrying capacity for grazing in the forest, so independent research could benefit joint fact finding on this issue. Local community members have indicated they are open to discuss forest management activities, even when it involves bringing the number of animals down.

Figure 12. A meeting to share knowledge and practices between three forest dwelling communities: the Ogiek from Mt. Elgon, the Batwa from Congo and a Sengwer from Cherangani.

Value creation and distribution Value creation and distribution are the two key steps of the negotiation in the mutual gains approach. Central questions that need to be answered by both sides in this step are: how can the total value of an agreement be increased? And: what can the Sengwer do for KFS, and what can KFS do for the Sengwer? This is the part to be creative to find added value to the agreement. A good strategy would be to increase the value of the shared interest forest protection.

The Sengwer are able to help KFS to better protect the forest. Local KFS staff recognises that they do not have enough patrolling rangers to know what is going on in every part of the forest. On the other hand, the community has strength in numbers and could provide KFS with many more eyes and ears, if they were to work together effectively. Another problem that was identified by KFS is the lack of perceived ownership by local communities, which led to a tragedy of the commons. If the Sengwer are more actively involved in decision-making, the incentives to better conserve the forest would return and the forest would be better protected by local community members. Both the Sengwer and KFS indicated that a pilot project could be an option for them to test certain options in the field. It should be discussed what such a pilot could entail exactly. If an agreement is reached, perhaps the largest value in the new situation is that safety would be restored in the area.

Follow-through A mutual gains approach renders an agreement that is “nearly self-enforcing” because of the benefit both parties have by the outcome of the agreement. If a mutual gains agreement is reached, this would be done with positive feelings and a good relationship with the other party. However, it remains critical to agree on steps that ensure the agreement is respected. Good relationships between the two parties may change over time, or representatives change, while the agreement must persist.

Monitoring of the forest cover and social circumstances is crucial to ensure the agreement is being implemented. The idea of the agreement is to have better forest protection, which should be tested before the agreement is entered into force (as a baseline) and then over certain periods of time. The monitoring should combine modern data-collection by satellite imagery or remote sensing and other technologies, with actual field visits to look at forest cover and health. Furthermore, social effects need to be measured as well; for example whether there are continued evictions. Ideally, both the Sengwer and KFS participate in the monitoring, or at least they should agree on a method that is trusted by all.

If the monitoring results shows that one side is not following the agreement, extra incentives or penalties could be added to ensure compliance. For the Sengwer, a strong incentive for compliance would be when they receive more recognition or land rights. If a pilot project is successful and the Sengwer have proven themselves to be successful protectors of the forest, they could be rewarded with an extension of the pilot project or even with official ownership of (a part of) the forest. A possible incentive to ensure that KFS lives up to their side of the agreement as well, is that the community provides KFS with additional benefits. Like the CFAs currently try to do, the community could provide KFS with seedlings for commercial tree species outside the forest. KFS then benefits from the harvesting of these trees. Possible

73 penalties in case of non-compliance are possible as well, depending on what is deemed necessary. That topic needs to be addressed in the negotiations as well.

If the Sengwer and KFS and the government are willing and able to take all the steps, coming to an agreement will be possible. A successful agreement could serve as an example for other forest dwelling communities in Kenya who are struggling for their rights.

Is an agreement feasible? Even when a mutual gains approach could bring benefits to both sides, it will be difficult for Sengwer and KFS to come to an agreement. Several reasons can be identified why that is the case.

First, lack of trust. Trust is crucial for a mutual gains approach; when there is no trust, reaching an agreement is highly unlikely. In this conflict parties do not want to talk to each other, or when they do, there is too little trust for a mutual gains approach. Because of the long duration of the conflict and the many grievances, it is possible that both sides have come too far apart to work together in a constructive manner. If that is the case, both sides are not even willing to give the other side any type of benefits, because they feel the other side has not deserved it. The conflict would then move towards a win-lose, or even lose-lose situation, where the main focus lies on destroying the other side in the conflict. The interviews show that both parties indicate they are willing to talk to each other, which is a good sign. However, a constructive attempt for a mutual gains agreement between all stakeholders has not yet been attempted, which makes it too early to tell whether there will be enough trust between parties.

Second, focusing on positions. If the two parties continue to focus on their positions, they only push themselves further apart and genuine dialogue is not possible. Currently, the example of a position that was mentioned most often in the interviews is land rights. On the one hand, Sengwer representatives state they are fed up of dialogue because they see no improvements; they have compiled a list of pre-conditions for further dialogue, which revolves around being recognised as indigenous peoples and obtaining land rights in the forest. On the other hand, KFS and other opposing parties indicate they are frustrated by this position. Their reaction is to formulate their own position opposite of that of the Sengwer. They state that obtaining land rights is not possible for the Sengwer, and that dialogue therefore has no purpose until the Sengwer representatives drop their claim for land rights.

Third, conflicting opinions about certain topics. This also relates to the main underlying cause of conflict: different opinions about the status of the Sengwer and the implications thereof. If KFS and the government stick to their viewpoint that the Sengwer are no longer forest dwellers and that they do not have a special relationship with the forest anymore, KFS and the government would not want to deal with the Sengwer in a different way from other communities. In that case, there is no reason to start a dialogue with the Sengwer in particular.

Fourth, forest benefits and corruption. It is possible that KFS and the government do not want to share benefits or power with the Sengwer, because they are making money off the current system. The Sengwer claim the KFS guards have been reported to fine community members whilst fining is illegal, and allow extra animals inside the forest, harvest timber, or get other

74 benefits from the forest in return for a bribe. If this is a source of income for KFS guards, that will prevent them to share control over the forest with the Sengwer.

Fifth, the current set of laws. Both sides refer to other parts of the law to strengthen their case. The Sengwer refer to Article 63, 2, d, ii, to claim they ought to get land rights in their ancestral lands, but the process of returning land to communities has been made very difficult; eventually the President and a two-third majority of parliament need to vote in favour of it. That is highly unlikely to happen, and on top of that, KFS and government agencies argue that the forest laws still state that no one is allowed to live inside the forest, and that Embobut, along with all other forests of Cherangani, is officially a gazetted forest. The Forest Conservation and Management Act further states that “no management agreement shall convert a public forest into a settlement area” (Art. 45 (4)). Therefore, if the Sengwer are allowed to settle inside the forest, multiple changes in the law are required.

Exploring other options If no agreement can be reached, the conflict is likely to escalate further on the short term, which will only decrease possibilities for conflict resolution in the future. That would lead to less mutual trust, which could move two sides further apart. They could then opt to focus their energy on trying to “win” for themselves, rather than reaching a mutually beneficial agreement.

The Sengwer are trying to win by going to court. Their hope is that the court will force the government to grant them land rights and protect them from KFS evictions. However, this is a very lengthy process and difficult to achieve. It offers no solution for the short term; therefore negotiations are still needed to “bridge the gap” between the (possible) recognition of land rights and the current situation. A reason to take this route is because the representatives feel that their issues are better addressed this way. This is a result from a lack of trust in KFS and the government. Because of the power difference, the Sengwer representatives and the human rights NGO do not think the government will ever help their cause voluntarily, so they try to push via other institutions to get what they want.

If KFS and the government do not want to continue with the dialogue, they will continue to prevent the Sengwer from living inside the forest. Possibly this could lead to an increase in tensions between them and the community members. The government will have “won” once the Sengwer accept they cannot live inside the forest anymore. Whether the Sengwer remain active in forest conservation is not of direct importance for KFS, because other communities are also willing to join CFAs and are perhaps less critical about conservation than the Sengwer. However, the Sengwer would likely be unhappy with such an outcome, and the hostile environment might persist. That would still give rise to problems for KFS.

6. Discussion This study looked at the conflict between the Sengwer and the government in the Cherangani Hills and identified options for conflict resolution. The results, as well as the used theories and methods, are critically discussed here. The discussion in built up in three sections. First, the results of this study are compared to the other finding in scientific literature (section 6.1). Subsequently, the methods and theories that were used are discussed (section 6.2) . In the last part recommendations for further research are presented (section 6.3).

6.1. Findings in relation to literature In this section the findings of this study will be compared with other scientific studies and critically discussed. This helps to position this study in the larger field of conflicts between local communities and the government for conservation purposes.

The findings of this study focus around the topic of indigeneity and self-identification of the Sengwer as an indigenous forest dweller people, whereas KFS talks about vulnerable and marginalised groups. This topic plays a central role in some of the very few scientific articles that have been published about the Sengwer. Lynch has published several articles (2006, 2011, 2016) on self-identification as indigenous peoples by forest-dwelling communities in Kenya with an emphasis on the Sengwer, stating that the forest dwellers over-emphasise their indigenousness “fuelled by the desire to stake claims to, and access resources controlled by the Kenyan state and external agents” (Lynch 2006: p. 49). Lynch questions how genuine the claims are of self-identified indigenous peoples, like the Sengwer, and states that these identities have been subject to “negotiation and renegotiation” (Lynch 2006: p. 61) over time.

In their struggle for land rights, the Sengwer could benefit from appearing as an indigenous community to the national government and the outside world. In other parts of the world it has been described as well that indigenous peoples can strategically manoeuvre themselves into a “tribal” position if they want to gain something (Murray Li, 2000). Murray Li argues that self-identification of tribes is not a natural process, but neither is it completely invented. Rather, it is a positioning, depending on historical influences, which is formed as an outcome of engagement and struggle (Murray Li, 2000). In the case of the Sengwer, the government somewhat mocks Sengwer representatives when they arrive at meetings in their traditional clothing, because the government perceives it as a façade. Furthermore, one could question the need to strengthen tribal differences. There are many campaigns, initiated by the government, to create the feeling that all Kenyans are one, and let the tribal tensions rest. The post-election violence in 2007-2008 has shown what the effect of these tribal tensions can be.

However, one could also debate what other choice the Sengwer representatives have, but to articulate their indigenousness. Their marginalised position has not improved over the years, and they expect little from the government. If an extra emphasis on their culture will help the community to get more benefits, they are likely to take that opportunity. Cavanagh (2016) shows that since colonial times, the government has looked down on the “Dorobo”, as they called the forest dwellers. Dorobo comes from the Maasai word il-torobo, which refers to the poor, “without cattle”. The reference to cattle was made because the Maasai society was very much focused around keeping livestock, and the hunter-gatherers in the forest were seen as poor because they did not keep animals. Cavanagh argues that the consequences of that way

76 of thinking could still be recognised in the present, especially in relation to the on-going conflicts and evictions by the “Dorobo” in Kenya. This has been called “green grabbing”: the act of allocating land and natural resources for environmental purposes (Fairhead et al., 2012). Green grabbing is a new aspect in the wider debate about land grabbing, which is mentioned to happen because of the “neoliberalisation” of nature (Fairhead et al., 2012). In this light, it could be argued that mechanisms to give value to the owner of a forest, such as REDD+ programmes, are at risk of strengthening the grip of the government on the forest. It is argued that green grabbing is also based on a racial and tribal inheritance from colonial times. This remains a largely unacknowledged topic, both in the literature and by actors in the field (Cavanagh & Himmelfarb, 2015).

The Sengwer are not the only forest dwelling community with a not-so-good relationship with the authorities. In the literature, there are examples of conflict between the government and the Loita Maasai in Naimina Enkiyio forest (Kronenburg Garcia, 2017), the Aweer/Boni in coastal forests (Browne, 2015) and, the largest forest dweller tribe of Kenya: the Ogiek (Kimaiyo, 2004). Actions of the government included a security operation in the forest of the Aweer, to completely empty the forest of people, on the suspicion that al-Shabaab fighters were hiding in there (Browne, 2015); and the Ogiek have been evicted in several areas as well. The Ogiek have initiated many court cases against the government over the years (Kimaiyo, 2004). In May 2017, they won a court case in the African Court. The ruling stated that the evictions of the Ogiek in Mau forest should not have taken place. It remains to be seen what the long-term impact of this ruling will be.

Many studied over the years have tried to find an answer to the question what the factors of success are for community-based forestry, coming from various backgrounds (Agrawal & Angelsen, 2009; Ostrom, 2007; Larson & Soto, 2008). The most important lessons from these studies are summarised in table 11, based on the work by Agrawal & Angelsen (2009). It should be noted that community forests management is not the same as community-based conservation, but since the two are related it is interesting to compare the results.

Categories of Factors generally contributing to successful success factors community forest management Resource system characteristics Medium to large community forests Well-defined, easily monitored boundaries Predictable benefit flows Value of the resource

User group • Socio- Small to medium-sized group political Interdependent Homogeneous

• Economic Relatively well-off Moderate dependence on resources No sudden shocks in resource demands

• Culture and Cultural valuation of forests history Past experience with forest management Institutional arrangements Rules are easy to understand and enforce Rules are locally devised Rules take into account differences in violations Rules help deal with conflicts Rules hold users and officials accountable Effective local enforcement and sanctions Tenure security Capacity to exclude outsiders

Context • Demographic Stability of demographic conditions

• Market Stability of market conditions

• Macro- Stability of policy conditions political Government support to reduce costs of collective action

• Other Openness to local institutional innovations Stability of technological conditions Table 11. Categories and factors for successful community forest management, as identified by Agrawal & Angelsen (2009).

On the resource system and user group characteristics, it can be stated that forests in Cherangani are not easily monitored and the boundaries are unclear by the local community in the field. The Sengwer are not the only community in the area; there is a mix of different tribes. The Sengwer are not in a remote area without any other influences, such as the Ogiek 78 in Chepkitale for example. Also, their economic situation would be too poor for successful CFM, according to the table.

Regarding the institutional arrangements and context, there are certain unclarities in the Sengwer situation. The Forest Act of 2005 was meant as a new start, and for the first time also paid attention to local communities. In practice however, it turns out that all CFAs in the Cherangani Hills experience problems, and state the KFS does not take them sufficiently serious. These results confirm the findings of Mutune & Lund, who concluded that “current forest governance approaches in Kenya appear not to support participation in practice” (Mutune & Lund, 2016). The findings of this study also show that there were multiple interpretations by the different parties about the statements in the Constitution and different laws about the possibilities for the Sengwer and other forest dwelling communities to obtain land rights. The 2010 Constitution states that lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherer communities are community property (Art. 63, 2, d, ii). However, Art. 62 (4) states that “public land shall not be disposed of or otherwise used except in terms of an Act of Parliament specifying the nature and terms of that disposal or use”. Another constraint is that the Land Act prohibits the distribution of public lands to communities or individuals when these lands form part of a forest or wildlife reserve, a watershed, or are otherwise of natural importance. In general, the commitments in the Constitution are poorly translated in land and resource laws. The main reasons have been called an absence of political will and conservative policymaking (Alden Wily, 2016). The absence of political will seems to be confirmed by the results of this study.

Segura Warnholtz et al. (2017) have found as well that a lack of harmonisation between organisation that are dealing with land restitution significantly impedes tenure reforms. This is strengthened by the perceived double meaning of the current laws, with the Sengwer pointing to the Constitution to support their argument, while KFS and other government agencies refer to other land and forestry laws which do not permit people to settle in the forest. Findings of Yasmi et al. (2009) indicate that the largest issue for conflict can be the implications of de jure or de facto claims over forest resources. This can be seen in the Cherangani Hills as well. Since the 1980s, people were de jure not allowed in the forest, but de facto they were able to continue to live there, although it has become less and less. The Sengwer regarded the forest as their own and their home, even though Embobut had been gazetted officially in 1954, which led to stronger opposition when they were not allowed inside the forest anymore. Several studies on social conflicts indicated that outcomes can also be positive, instead of only negative (Bailey, 1997; Glasl, 1999; Yasmi et al., 2009). However, the outcomes of this study do not indicate any visible positive aspects from the conflict. KFS and other government agencies, especially at the national level, framed the conflict in a more neutral way than the Sengwer, because they stated the conflict was only a small component of their work whereas the Sengwer and local KFS guards were more involved on a day-to-day basis. However, none of these parties mentioned any positive aspects about the conflict.

This study chooses to use the mutual gains approach as a method for conflict resolution. However, there are many other options for conflict resolution, and the mutual gains approach has several assumptions that are less suited to this study. The mutual gains approach focuses on finding mutual benefits for all parties in a rational manner. It assumes that when all parties gain, they will all want to come to an agreements. However, there may be other negative

79 emotions that play a role in the negotiations, which the mutual gains approach does not address. There is a risk that the approach does not acknowledge that parties may have different opinions on what they regard as beneficial and fair. Other negotiation theories argue that our emotions drive human decision-making, and therefore they are critical to engage with (Voss, 2016). Similarly, injustice and power relations are not highlighted in the mutual gains approach. However, in conservation conflicts between local communities and the state, it is known that communities often feel ignored, marginalised and unfairly treated. This history is not forgotten by the marginalised party, and causes this party to focus less on finding mutual gains because the community does not want the state to benefit even more. A focus on mutual gains has then been found to undermine the position in the negotiation of communities (Fay, 2007). This is accounted for in this study by also applying a political ecological analysis, which specifically addresses the differences in power in conservation conflicts and the subsequent consequences.

In research in South Africa, Wynberg & Kepe (1999) came up with a list of how to prepare for communities in negotiations:

1) Organize and put forward unified positions 2) Seek advice on the actions required to proceed with the claim 3) Have clear visions of intentions, and minimize the changes in their positions (though it is acknowledged that some change may be necessary) 4) Provide as much information as possible From: Wynberg & Kepe (1999)

Critics argue that such a strategy of playing open card will decrease their strength in the negotiations (Fay, 2007). However, the steps are critical to build on mutual trust. The key to success then is: knowing whether both parties are really interested in mutual gains, before parties start playing open card. This should be done by a third-party mediator.

6.2. Theories and methods This sub-section critically discusses the theory and methods used in this study. These points can be relevant for future research on conflicts between indigenous forest dwellers and the government. Second, they also describe some of the limitations of this study.

In total, 52 people have been interviewed, divided over 44 different interview sessions. Even though this is a relatively high number for an MSc thesis, it would have been even better if more people were included. Many of the key organisations in the conflict have been included, but it was not possible to meet with the EU, one of the main international donors in the area, and the county government, which also plays an important role in forest conservation in their respective counties. The Sengwer, KFS and the CFAs are the three groups that were interviewed the most. There was a good balance between local and national actors: most interviews were performed at the local level. However, it would have been relevant if the local Sengwer were more included. Local Sengwer are already the largest group of interviewees in this study, but they are also the most diverse one.

I have to be critical on my own role as a (white) interviewer as well. Especially local people could just tell you what you want to hear. Also, because it is a conflict situation, people tend to tell more positive stories about themselves, or more negative stories about the opposite side, or sometimes just tell lies. I tried to deal with this issue by asking many different people, even from the same group or organisation, about contentious topics. Then I analysed the different stories for commonalities, in order to know what the agreed upon viewpoints of the party were. Another thing was that I tried to conduct interviews in environments where people felt at ease: in their homes or in their own village at a place of their preference.

The choice for doing semi-structured interviews is challenging, because it takes more skill to conduct than for example a structured interview. However, because of the different experiences of different people I felt this was the best option. Letting people talk for themselves, with only a small encouragement, was also a good way to let interviewees use their own words to give their vision.

The use of three distinctly different theories is not a default choice for a study. It inevitably leads to the challenge of how the theories can strengthen the final result, and whether the underlying assumptions and paradigms of each of them are not conflicting. Especially the combination of political ecology and the mutual gains approach can seem conflicting. However, I found the combination to work rather well: framing as a neutral reflection of the viewpoints of the different parties; political ecology for a critical analysis of the underlying causes for conflict; and lastly the mutual gains approach to combine the insights from both previous theories to identity possibilities for conflict resolution. For this study, the frame analysis ended up having the largest amount of pages and words, so it is the largest part of the results. This is partly because framing is the only part where quotes of the interviews are used. It would have been possible to divide the quotes over the political ecological analysis and the conflict resolution parts, but that could lead to confusion because those parts are written from the researcher’s perspective.

6.3. Future research This study has performed interviews as a method of data collection. While this has served its purpose, it would be interesting to also conduct an ecological study of the forests in Cherangani, to analyse in-depth what the current state of the forest is, together with the main drivers of deforestation. Satellite imagery could also be used as independent input for the negotiations between the Sengwer and KFS.

7. Conclusion

Answer to research question 1: How do involved key actors frame nature conservation and the conflict with forest communities in the Cherangani Hills?

The Sengwer, supported by human rights NGOs, have a community-based conservation frame. The Sengwer see themselves as the indigenous forest dwellers of Cherangani, who are the best protectors of the forest because of their close connection to it. KFS is seen as a corrupt organisation that does not succeed in doing conservation because of conflicting interests in exploitation and a lack of care about the forest. KFS and the government, whose viewpoints are generally shared by environmental NGOs and international donors, are closer to a fortress conservation frame. They frame the community as the main actors to threaten the forest with illegal activities, which KFS, as the official guardian of the forest, needs to stop by patrolling. They want to cooperate with the CFAs, but not give the Sengwer a special status. For them, the traditional lifestyle of the Sengwer is something of the past, so the Sengwer should adapt to modernity and leave the forest. KFS sees itself more as forced to follow laws and regulations, rather than that they have the power to grant land rights to the Sengwer. The conflict with forest dwellers is contained to Embobut; in the rest of Cherangani it is hardly an issue (only in Kapolet a bit) although some Sengwer want land rights in the entire area. The conflict escalated in April 2017, when two forest stations were burned after Sengwer accused KFS guards from attacking one of the community representatives.

Answer to research question 2: What are the underlying causes for conflict?

The underlying causes can be divided into economic, social and political aspects. Economically, it needs to be noted that the Sengwer are amongst the poorest communities in the area, with insufficient facilities and investments by the government. Many Sengwer have not gone to school and have few other options than to herd their animals inside the forest. From a social perspective, perhaps the most important underlying cause is a conflict about the status of the Sengwer, and the implications thereof. The Sengwer are not recognised as indigenous peoples, which means their needs are not sufficiently addressed. From a political perspective, there is a power imbalance between the KFS and Sengwer, which currently benefits KFS. Owning land means having power, and if the Sengwer were to be given land rights, KFS could not receive the benefits from the forest anymore, such as donor money from foreign donors.

Answer to research question 3: What possible options can be identified to reduce conflict?

All parties thought that the conflict would further escalate, especially on the short term, which makes an MGA seem unlikely to be possible. However, to avoid further escalation and catastrophe, there is reason to initiate negotiations. This can probably best be done with a third-party intervention, to increase the lack of trust between KFS and Sengwer. The MGA focuses on interests, not positions. Instead of fighting about the need for land rights, the two sides can agree on forest conservation as a mutual interest. Then, joint fact finding is a crucial

83 step to address the main underlying cause: different viewpoints on the status of the Sengwer, and the implications of that. Lastly, value needs to be created to “increase the pie” of an agreement. This should focus around forest conservation. The Sengwer could help KFS with extra manpower for conservation, for example by community scouts. Together they could protect the forest. If conflict resolution could be successful, it would boost both the quality of forest conservation and livelihoods of the Sengwer.

Overall conclusion This study shows the complexity of involving the local community in conservation, and the challenges that CBC faces in Kenya. The idea of fortress conservation is still very much embedded in the thinking of nature organisations in Kenya; both governmental agencies and environmental NGOs. Since 2005 there has been a shift towards more community involvement, but in Cherangani that shift has not yet occurred to its full extent. In general, there is a lack of political will to return ancestral lands to forest dwelling communities. The mindset of these nature organisations involved in the protection of Cherangani, remains to focus on communities as a problem, rather than the solution. As long as this mindset persists, it will be very difficult for communities to prove themselves as (co-)protectors of the forest. True community-based conservation, then, is unlikely to be implemented in the Cherangani Hills.

References

Adams, W. M., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and society, 5(2), 147.

Adams, W.M. (2015) The political ecology of conservation conflicts. In: Redpath, S. M., Gutiérrez, R., Wood, W. A., & Young, J. C. (2015). Finding a way out of conservation conflicts. Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions, 287.

Agrawal, A., & Angelsen, A. (2009). Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals. Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options, 1, 201-212.

Barrett, C. B., & Arcese, P. (1995). Are integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World development, 23(7), 1073-1084.

Bailey, K. D. (1997). System and conflict: toward a symbiotic reconciliation. Quality and Quantity, 31(4), 425-442.

Beaumont, J. (2016). The diplomacy of extra-territorial heritage: the Kokoda Track, Papua New Guinea. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(5), 355-367.

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 611-639.

Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National academy of sciences, 104(39), 15188-15193.

Blaikie, P., & Brookfield, H. (Eds.). (1987). Land degradation and society. Routledge.

Brockington, D. (2002). Fortress conservation: the preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Indiana University Press.

Brockington, D., & Igoe, J. (2006). Eviction for conservation: A global overview. Conservation and society, 4(3), 424.

Browne AJ (2015) LAPSSET: The History and Politics of an Eastern African Megaproject. Nairobi: Rift Valley Institute.

Buijs, A. E., Arts, B. J., Elands, B. H., & Lengkeek, J. (2011). Beyond environmental frames: the social representation and cultural resonance of nature in conflicts over a Dutch woodland. Geoforum, 42(3), 329-341.

Castro, A. P., & Nielsen, E. (2001). Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environmental Science & Policy, 4(4), 229-239.

Chepkorir Kuto, M. (2016). Sengwer Women’s Experiences of Evictions and their involvement in the struggle for Sengwer land rights. Forest Peoples Programme.

De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Negotiating deals and settling conflict can create value for both sides. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 156-163.

Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). How issues get framed and reframed when different communities meet: a multi‐level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 177-192.

Desloges, C., & Gauthier, M. (1997). Community forestry and forest resource conflicts: an overview.

Dove, M. R., & Carpenter, C. (2013). Environmental anthropology: A historical reader. Malden (MA): Blackwell.

Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.

Fischer, A. P., & Bliss, J. C. (2009). Framing conservation on private lands: Conserving oak in Oregon's Willamette Valley. Society and Natural Resources, 22(10), 884-900.

Gamson, W.A., (1992). Talking Politics. Cambridge, New York.

Gilbert, N. (Ed.). (2008). Researching social life. London, Sage.

Glasl, F. (1999). Confronting conflict: A first aid kit for handling conflict. Hawthorn press.

Goffman, E., (1974). Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-606.

Gray, B. (2003). Framing of environmental disputes. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases, 11-34.

Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 14, 166_176.

Heckenberger, M. J., Russell, J. C., Toney, J. R., & Schmidt, M. J. (2007). The legacy of cultural landscapes in the Brazilian Amazon: implications for biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 362(1478), 197-208.

Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. J. (2008). Framing environmental policy by the local press: Case study from the Dadia Forest Reserve, Greece. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(5), 316-325.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Hulme, D., & Murphree, M. (1999). Communities, wildlife and the'new conservation'in Africa. Journal of International Development, 11(2), 277.

Kaufman, S., & Smith, J. (1999). Framing and reframing in land use change conflicts. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 164-180.

Kenrick, J. (2014). The case of the Cherangany Hills, Kenya - State forest protectionis forcing people from their lands. Forest Peoples Programme.

Kimaiyo TJ (2004) Ogiek land cases and historical injustices, 1902–2004. Nakuru, Kenya: Ogiek Welfare Council.

Kronenburg García, A. (2017). Exploring the ‘layeredness’ of recurring natural resource conflicts: The role of Loita Maasai leadership in the Naimina Enkiyio Forest conflicts in Kenya. Land Use Policy, 65, 66-77.

Kumar, R. (2014). Research Methodology: A Step-By-Step Guide for Beginners. Los Angeles, Sage.

Larson, A. M., & Soto, F. (2008). Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual review of environment and resources, 33.

Leach, M., & Mearns, R. (1996). Environmental change and policy. The Lie of the Land: challenging received wisdom on the African environment. Oxford: James Currey, 1-33.

Leakey, R., & Morell, V. (2001). Wildlife wars: My fight to save Africa's natural treasures: Macmillan.

Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (Eds.). (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Island press.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.

Lindahl, K. B., & Westholm, E. (2012). Future forests: Perceptions and strategies of key actors. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(2), 154-163.

Lynch, G. (2006). Negotiating Ethnicity: Identity politics in contemporary Kenya 1. Review of African Political Economy, 33(107), 49-65.

Lynch, G. (2011). Kenya's new indigenes: negotiating local identities in a global context. Nations and Nationalism, 17(1), 148-167.

Lynch, G. (2016). What's in a name? The politics of naming ethnic groups in Kenya's Cherangany Hills. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 10(1), 208-227.

MacDonald, D.W. and Service, K.M., eds (2007) Key Topics in Conservation Biology, Blackwell Publishing.

Madden, F., & McQuinn, B. (2015). Conservation conflict transformation: the missing link in conservation. Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions, 257.

Malthus, T. R. (1798). Essay on the principle of population. London.

Mascia, M. B., Brosius, J. P., Dobson, T. A., Forbes, B. C., Horowitz, L., McKean, M. A., & Turner, N. J. (2003). Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation biology, 17(3), 649-650.

Maser, C., & Pollio, C. A. (2011). Resolving environmental conflicts: CRC Press.

Matiru, V. (2002). Forest Landscape Restoration - Kenya country report. IUCN & WWF.

Maxwell, M., Harris, F., Hibberd, C., Donaghy, E., Pratt, R., Williams, C., ... & Burton, C. (2013). A qualitative study of primary care professionals’ views of case finding for depression in patients with diabetes or coronary heart disease in the UK. BMC family practice, 14(1), 46.

Meadows, D. H. (1972). The limits to growth: a report for the Club of Rome's Project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe Books.

Moomaw, W., & Papa, M. (2012). Creating a mutual gains climate regime through universal clean energy services. Climate Policy, 12(4), 505-520.

Nabokov, P., & Loendorf, L. (2016). Restoring a Presence: American Indians and Yellowstone National Park: University of Oklahoma Press.

Nelson, A., & Chomitz, K. M. (2011). Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PloS one, 6(8), e22722.

Neumann, R. P. (2002). The post-war conservation boom in British colonial Africa. Environmental History, 7(1), 22-47.

Nijenhuis, K. (2013). Farmers on the move: mobility, access to land and conflict in Central and South Mali. Wageningen UR.

Noble, I. R., & Dirzo, R. (1997). Forests as human-dominated ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 522- 525.

Nyingi, D. W., Gichuki, N., & Ogada, M. O. (2013). Kenya: A Natural Outlook: Chapter 16. Freshwater Ecology of Kenyan Highlands and Lowlands (Vol. 16). Elsevier Inc. Chapters.

Oldekop, J., Holmes, G., Harris, W., & Evans, K. (2016). A global assessment of the social and

88 conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 133-141.

Ortolano, L., Sánchez-Triana, E., Paul, T., & Ferdausi, S. A. (2016). Managing the Sundarbans region: Opportunities for mutual gain by India and Bangladesh. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 15(1), 16-31.

Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A., & Anderies, J. M. (2007). Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15176-15178.

Patton, M. Q. (2005). Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Peluso, N. L. (1993). Coercing conservation?: The politics of state resource control. Global environmental change, 3(2), 199-217.

Perri (2005). What’s in a frame? Social organisation, risk perception and the sociology of knowledge. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 91_118.

Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Analysing qualitative data. British medical journal, 320(7227), 114.

Porter-Bolland, L., Ellis, E. A., Guariguata, M. R., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Negrete-Yankelevich, S., & Reyes- García, V. (2012). Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest ecology and management, 268, 6-17.

Raitio, K. (2008). " You Can't Please Everyone": Conflict Management Practices, Frames and Institutions in Finnish State Forests. Joensuun yliopisto.

Redford, K. H., Padoch, C., & Sunderland, T. (2013). Fads, funding, and forgetting in three decades of conservation. Conservation Biology, 27(3), 437-438.

Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., ... & Gutierrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(2), 100-109.

Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S., & Young, J. (2015a). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human– wildlife conflict. Oryx, 49(02), 222-225.

Redpath, S. M., Gutiérrez, R., Wood, W. A., & Young, J. C. (2015b). Finding a way out of conservation conflicts. Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions, 287.

Ribot, J. C., Agrawal, A., & Larson, A. M. (2006). Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World development, 34(11), 1864-1886.

Rights and Resources Initiative. (2015). Who owns the world’s land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community land rights. Washington DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.

Robbins, P. (2011). Political ecology: A critical introduction (Vol. 16): John Wiley & Sons.

Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict in nations, organizations, and communities. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, California.

Rubin, J. Z. (1994). Models of conflict management. Journal of social issues, 50(1), 33-45.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and Memory. Harper Collins, London.

Segura Warnholtz, G., Fernández, M., Smyle, J., & Springer, J. (2017). Securing Forest Tenure Rights for Rural Development.

Schavemaker, H. (2010). Moving the forest to the farm: the application of the green rtowns approach reshaped for the case study of the Cherangani Hills in Kenya.

Schon, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 5(4), 465-478.

Shmueli, D. F. (2008). Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum, 39(6), 2048-2061.

Shmueli, D. F., & Ben‐Gal, M. (2003). Stakeholder frames in the mapping of the Lower Kishon River Basin conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21(2), 211-238.

Somorin, O. A., Brown, H. C. P., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Sonwa, D. J., Arts, B., & Nkem, J. (2012). The Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: policy discourses on adaptation and mitigation (REDD+). Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 288-298.

Spence, M. D. (1999). Dispossessing the wilderness: Indian removal and the making of the national parks: Oxford University Press.

Steenkamp, C., and Uhr, J. (2000). The Makuleke Land Claim: Power Relations and Community- Based Natural Resource Management. IIED Evaluating Eden Series discussion paper no. 18, London.

Suliman, M. (Ed.) (1999). Ecology, Politics & Violent Conflicts. Zed, London.

Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. L. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books.

Susskind, L. E., McKearnen, S., & Thomas-Lamar, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A

90 comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage Publications.

Susskind, L. (2006). Arguing, bargaining, and getting agreement. The Oxford handbook of public policy, 269-295.

Turner, M. D. (2004). Political ecology and the moral dimensions of “resource conflicts”: the case of farmer–herder conflicts in the Sahel. Political geography, 23(7), 863-889. van den Brink, M. A., & Metze, T. (2006). Words matter in policy and planning: discourse theory and method in the social sciences. Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap.

Veit, P. G., & Benson, C. (2004). When parks and people collide. human rights dialogue, 2(11), 13-14.

Vuokko, K., & Tapio, K. (2015). Groundwater as a source of conflict and cooperation: Towards creating mutual gains in a Finnish water supply project. Water Alternatives, 8(3).

Wass, P. (1995). Kenya's indigenous forests. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK in collaboration with ODA.

Watts, M. (2000). Political ecology. A companion to economic geography, 257-274.

Watts, M., & Peet, R. (2004). Liberating political ecology. Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements, 2, 3-43.

West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 251–277.

Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K. & Mandle, C. L. (2001) Validity In Qualitative Research, Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537.

Wolf, E. (1972). Ownership and political ecology. Anthropological Quarterly, 45(3), 201-205.

Wynberg, R., and Kepe, T. (1999). Land Reform and Conservation Areas in South Africa: Towards a Mutually Beneficial Approach. IUCN South Africa, Pretoria.

Yasmi, Y., Schanz, H., & Salim, A. (2006). Manifestation of conflict escalation in natural resource management. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(6), 538-546.

Yasmi, Y., Guernier, J., & Colfer, C. J. P. (2009). Positive and negative aspects of forestry conflict: lessons from a decentralized forest management in Indonesia. International Forestry Review, 11(1), 98-110.

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311-325.

Appendix 1: interview design

The interviews for this study were semi-structured, which means that the exact questions differed per interview, depending on the specific knowledge of the interviewee. However, below a list can be found that was used as a guideline to structure the interview.

Forest conservation - Do you see deforestation in Cherangani Hills? - What is the reason behind this deforestation? - What is the role of forest communities in this deforestation? - What is the role of forest-adjacent communities in this deforestation? - What is the role of Kenya Forest Service in this deforestation? - What is being done by forest communities to prevent this deforestation? - What is being done by forest-adjacent communities to prevent this deforestation? - What is being done by Kenya Forest Service to prevent this deforestation? - Do you think forest conservation as you just described it is done effectively? - What is in your opinion the best way to conserve forests in Cherangani Hills? Possible follow-up questions: • Role of Kenya Forest Service • Should Kenya Forest Service allow use of the forest? • If yes, until what extent and by whom? • If no, should this be stricter enforced? Is that possible? • Role of forest dwellers • Should forest dwellers be allowed to live within the forest? • Should forest dwellers be given land rights to the forest? • If no to either of the above, how should be dealt with forest dwellers that still live in the forest?

Conflict - As you know, there is a conflict between Kenya Forest Service and forest dwellers. How do you perceive this conflict? - Do you think the current way of dealing with forest communities in Cherangani Hills is done in a just and fair manner? • What is your opinion on the resettlement payment by the government? - What do you think is the reason of this conflict? Possible topics for follow-up: • Land rights of forest community • Poverty • Ethnic tensions • Other? - Are forest communities involved in decision-making processes for the management of the forests? - What is being done to resolve the conflict? • Is there a dialogue between Kenya Forest Service and the forest communities?

Conflict resolution - What do you think is the viewpoint of the other side in the conflict? (either forest communities or the state/KFS) • Do you think you and the other side strive for the same goal with the forests of Cherangani Hills? - What do you think is the opinion of the other side in the conflict about you (and your organisation/community)? - What is your opinion on the other side in the conflict? - Are you willing to cooperate with the other side in the conflict to try to resolve the conflict? • Is there enough trust? • If no, what needs to change to make cooperation possible? - What solution to the conflict would be beneficial for both sides? • Have there been attempts to find these mutually beneficial solutions? • What is your opinion on this? - Are you optimistic that there will be a positive change in the near future?

Appendix 2: coding scheme for data analysis

Used codes in the interview transcripts

Forest protection Overgrazing and overstocking of animals Threat? Keeping animals inside the forest Threat? Encroachment / farming Threat? Cutting trees Threat? Corruption Threat? Population increase Threat? Changing lifestyles Threat? Selling out land/products to outsiders Threat? Tragedy of the commons Threat? KFS Threat? Government Threat? People living inside Threat? Climate change Threat? Local people Threat? Diseases (for flora) Threat? Invasive species Forest regenerating? Reason for regeneration? Forest as watershed; national importance Landscape approach Are there indigenous peoples in Kenya? (see "everybody is equal?") Are there people living inside Embobut? State of forest cover Actors of forest destruction Willing to co-manage forest (community + KFS) Forest management Sengwer user rights in glades (without sleeping) Sengwer user rights in glades (with sleeping) Sengwer user rights in forest Sengwer land rights in glades Sengwer land rights in forest Role of KFS Sengwer role in forest protection "Forced" civilisation

Conflict Positive attitude towards NRM project? Positive attitude towards other donors? EU WaTER project Corruption by KFS Human rights, burning of houses & evictions Process of resettlement payment

After the evictions Court cases Constitution and laws Everybody is equal? (or: no special treatment for IP's) Relation between Sengwer and KFS and GoK Relation between communities Leadership/ representation of Sengwer Top-down government Attack on Elias and burning of forest station "Helicopter incident" during large meeting in Eldoret Kapolet Forest State of the CFA Agree with concept of CFA? Culture Strategy to "win" Conflict escalation Underlying causes

Conflict resolution Willingness for dialogue Blame game Pointing at others; "beyond my control" Mentioning win-win solution? Pilot project for testing CBC Willing to live outside forest Living in forest in future for Sengwer? Trust How to improve situation? Sengwer land rights would piss off other communities Positive about the future on short-term? Acknowledging role of community as "extra manpower" for KFS?