Science & Technology

Maps, Power, and the Destruction of the Mau Forest in

Jacqueline M. Klopp and Job Kipkosgei Sang

Tropical forests, which provide rich resources and criti- Jacqueline Klopp is 1 an assistant professor cal eco-services, are under severe stress. Some theories of international and regarding the causes of this stress emphasize “irreducible public affairs at the complexity,”2 while others point to specific factors, such School of International and Public Affairs at as population pressures or human encroachment through Columbia University. 3 “shifting cultivation.” Deforestation is indeed complex, Dr. Klopp’s research in part because it is linked not only to economic and social focuses on the intersec- tion of development, dynamics at both global and local levels, but also to questions democratization, vio- 4 of power and politics. Nowhere is this more evident than in lence, and corruption. the ongoing struggle over the Mau Forest in Kenya. Spanning 900 km2, the Mau forest is a complex of six- teen contiguous forests and six separated satellite forests. Together, they form a single ecosystem and make up the largest remaining indigenous forest in East Africa. While less is known about this forest than many other East African forests, the Mau forests complex is immensely important, as it serves as a catchment for rivers west of the Great Rift Valley. These rivers in turn feed major lakes in the region, including and the trans-boundary lakes of in the Nile River Basin, Lake Turkana in Kenya and Ethiopia, and in Tanzania and Kenya. Thus, the Mau forest provides critical ecosystem services, not

Winter/Spring 2011 [125] MAPS, POWER, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MAU FOREST IN KENYA only for Kenya, but also for the entire interactions, shape the ecological land- region.5 scape. This article will illustrate that one The Mau is also the home of the Ogiek official conservation program (Kenya people, who have lived in the forest Indigenous Forests Conservation hunting and gathering since well before Programme) actually helped to legit- colonial times.6 Surrounding commu- imize the destruction of the forest. nities also use water, firewood, grazing Finally, this article will examine a more areas, food, and medicines from the recent bottom-up mapping process forest. The government and the United involving local forest dwellers and will Nations Environment Programme highlight how these alternative conser- (UNEP), based in Nairobi, claim that vation strategies exemplify new ideas on the forest is critical to Kenya’s tea, how best to manage forests and other tourism, and energy sectors as well.7 common pool resources. One estimate suggests that in the tea sector alone, approximately 35,000 Maps and Power. One key theme jobs and the livelihoods of 50,000 that emerges in the analysis of the Mau small farmers with some 430,000 Forest struggle is the question of who dependents rely on the eco-services of creates and controls forest data, par- the Mau.8 Thus, the destruction of the ticularly maps. Maps are, of course, Mau would have significant cultural, never simply neutral technical instru- social, and economic implications. ments, but throughout history have Little debate exists around the been linked to power dynamics such fact that the Mau forest is massively as colonial conquest. Maps, as human degraded and has undergone substan- creations, reflect not only scientific tial deforestation. Satellite data, a use- data, but the imagination and interests ful tool for monitoring deforestation of those who commission and/or cre- worldwide, shows the damage,9 and ate them as well.12 What is interesting, ground-truthing by the Kenya Forests however, is that current democratic Working Group, UNEP, and the Kenya pressures demand more open access to Wildlife Service confirms it.10 A recent information such as spatial data,13 and government task force report sug- civil society groups are claiming the use gests that in the last fifteen years alone of this satellite imagery and GIS tech- some 107,707 hectares, representing nology to monitor issues such as human approximately 25 percent of the Mau rights and deforestation.14 Still, pre- Complex area, have been converted to cisely because of the “power of maps,” settlements and farmlands.11 governments in many places are overly This paper explores the history of restrictive of satellite data and official political struggles surrounding the Mau large-scale topographical maps needed forest and the role that mapping has for planning, monitoring and inform- played in them. This is essential for ing public policy discussions. navigating the current complex politics There is a growing awareness of the of the Mau forest and to understand- ways that power determines who is able ing the way power, maps, and political to access spatial information and par- mobilization, along with other human ticipate in the use of mapping technolo-

[126] Georgetown Journal of International Affairs KLOPP Science&Technology gies. The Open Street Map Foundation, project also failed to bring the Ogiek for example, has undertaken a collab- into discussions and the mapping pro- orative effort to create an editable map cess from the beginning. The map of of the world that is accessible to all.15 indigenous forest boundaries was well- Recently, the Foundation mobilized constructed. The problem lay in the Kenyan communities and completed institutional and power dynamics of an atlas of one of the country’s largest the map-making process, and in the slums, Kibera.16 Usually a large dark way it was subsequently used by pow- area of what appears to be empty space erful actors to appropriate the forest on most street maps of Nairobi, Kibera and marginalize the Ogiek further. In now has an atlas that shows its streets, contrast, a recent participatory three- homes and services. The Mau forest dimensional modeling exercise of one case suggests that whether a map like the part of the Mau forests complex directly Tropical forests, which provide rich re- sources and critical eco-services, are under severe stress. new atlas of Kibera or the Ogiek model included local Ogiek elders, the tradi- of the Mau becomes a tool of empow- tional conservers of the forest. These erment or a form of dispossession will two contrasting approaches illuminate depend critically on who makes maps, how maps play into power relations and how they make them, and how acces- mobilizations for and against conserva- sible the maps are in open public pro- tion of this critical forest. cesses. Map making cannot be divorced from wider struggles over resources and Historical Background. Starting broader endeavors for democratization when Kenya was under British rule of decision-making. (1895-1963), the region’s main for- In the case of the Mau forest, a ests came under control of the central donor-funded Kenya Indigenous state. Forests originally managed by Forest Conservation Project local communities became the locus (KIFCON) mapped boundaries and of a struggle among a colonial govern- made an inventory of the remaining ment attempting to control access and indigenous forests in Kenya in the introduce modern forestry and con- early 1990s. The project was meant to servation,17 local people who did not protect these forests, but it failed to recognize this right, and settlers and consider the long history of the Mau’s companies eager to gain logging con- incorporation into networks of state cessions. power and patronage, and unwittingly Within this political process, the supplied the rationale for large-scale colonial government started to produce excisions of the forest through its pro- cadastral maps that showed boundar- vision of boundary information. The ies of land appropriated for its own

Winter/Spring 2011 [127] MAPS, POWER, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MAU FOREST IN KENYA use.18 The Mau forest became part of of the Environment and Natural this mapping linked to the land appro- Resources. Under the Forest Act at priation process, and parts of the forest the time, the Minister had the power came under colonial state control for to alter boundaries but was required various purposes, including settlement. to publish that intention and a map By 1930, parts of the Mau complex were in the Kenya Gazette. The Gazette is cleared for the establishment of for- written in English and is not easily est plantations and introduced mainly available, particularly to those living in exotic species. Throughout this period, and around the forest. To make the the colonial government refused to rec- the excision legal, the area needed to ognize the claims of the Ogiek people to be surveyed, a boundary plan drawn the forest and argued that the ultimate up, and approval granted by the Chief way to deal with them would be assimi- Conservator of Forests. If objections lation into other communities.19 The were not raised after 28 days of notice Ogiek were spread out across Kenya’s in the Gazette, the land was no longer forests, but they did not fit neatly into considered protected forest. ethnic “reserves” that the colonial gov- Since the Minister of the Maps, as human creations, reflect not only scientific data, but the imagination and inter- ests of those who commission them as well. ernment created to contain Africans in Environment was a presidential well-defined territories and to protect appointment, the President and his land expropriated for white settlers.20 associates could alter legal boundaries While the Ogiek had interacted with— of forests without informing the rel- and at times assimilated into—the dif- evant forestry officials. This made deci- ferent communities neighboring the sions over forest excisions susceptible to forest,21 they resisted this policy and the politics of patronage and rendered continued to live in the forest and claim foresters “helpless when a logger [or rights to it. Currently, approximately settler] comes armed with a letter from 15,000 to 16,000 Ogiek live in the the provincial administration or a high Mau forests complex.22 political office.”23 Thus, as in other parts of the world, this institutional Forests and the Politics of system granted politicians and their Patronage. After independence, the supporters preferential access to for- post-colonial state continued to play est resources and, as in colonial times, a key role in mediating access to for- top-down mapping played a role in try- ests, which was fundamentally linked to ing to legitimize these appropriations.24 patronage networks of powerful figures With the advent of multi-party pol- in the state. In the 1990s, the Forestry itics in Kenya at the end of 1991, Department came under the Ministry high-level state actors, including the

[128] Georgetown Journal of International Affairs KLOPP Science&Technology

President, used these institutions to boundaries, studying the dynamics of leverage forests as valuable patron- forest degradation, and providing rec- age resources in order to buy support ommendations for conservation.29 and fund campaigns.25 At the time, In the course of the KIFCON study, one top Kenyan government official researchers observed Ogiek living in stated that “if there were an election scattered settlements. Replicating a every year, there would be no for- long history of “fortress conservation”30 est left.”26 Similarly, an Ogiek activ- in Africa, KIFCON recommended the ist noted “because trees acquired free settlement of Ogiek families in a suit- of charge fetch millions once made able section of the forest. Failing to into timber, this free money is to be understand the complex politics around used in financing elections besides buy- power and land in Kenya, KIFCON ing political support.”27 During this made a recommendation that would time the Mau forest became one of the legitimize settlement in the forest. The clearest demonstrations of how power KIFCON-recommended “Ogiek set- and patronage dynamics caused massive tlement scheme” became a cover for deforestation as well as dispossession of massive and irregular appropriations. the Ogiek. Throughout Kenya’s history, in the absence of checks and balances, public Kenya Indigenous Forest monitoring, and transparent alloca- Conservation Programme tion processes, settlement schemes have and the “Ogiek Settlement allowed those in power to mediate who Scheme.” Between 1991 and 1994, has access to land. In practice this meant the United Kingdom provided approx- that political supporters, friends, and imately $2.5 million in assistance for relatives were favored, and at times the first phase of the Kenya Indigenous the settlements expanded beyond their Forest Conservation Programme original borders. This is one reason (KIFCON). The project aimed to ben- why the families of Kenya’s past two efit both the environment and the local presidents own vast tracts of land31 and people. Its goals included “developing Kenya has some of the highest lev- and enforcing guidelines for the sus- els of land inequality in the world.32 tainable exploitation of forest resourc- Predictably then, the “Ogiek settlement es, providing for the effective manage- scheme” became a site of land accumu- ment and conservation of forests, pro- lation and patronage politics by those moting social forestry, and improving in power, producing exclusion, con- forest cover mapping and monitoring;” flict, and environmental destruction. it also sought to conserve “the biodi- KIFCON took time to survey and versity, ecological services and produc- compile a list of Ogiek to be settled. tivity of indigenous closed forests, and Given the complexity of this task, which improv[e] the welfare of poor peo- involved highly mobile and sometimes ple hitherto dependent on the forest elusive people, even those working for for their livelihood.”28 As is the usual KIFCON doubted the accuracy of the practice, consultants were brought on list. Nevertheless, it was passed on to board to carry out the task of mapping the government and grew as it moved

Winter/Spring 2011 [129] MAPS, POWER, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MAU FOREST IN KENYA through the corridors of power down to power it initiated a series of inves- to the local provincial administration. tigations in 2003 that confirmed what One Ogiek source suggests that after many Kenyans already knew: “[t]he an initial KIFCON estimate of 1,800 real intention of excising the forest families, the new list contained 3,500, was definitely not to resettle the Ogiek only 200 of which some sources claim community. The objective was to allo- were Ogiek.33 By the time the first cate forestland to influential person- settlement scheme (25,000 hectares) alities in the former KANU regime.”38 commenced in Kiptagich34 in southwest These influential personalities parceled Mau in 1996, the number of families out land at minimal prices to their sup- had climbed to 9,000.35 By that time, porters. Some of those who received KIFCON had ended and phase II was land were indeed poor, but others sim- discontinued. ply accumulated land because it was In 2001, one year before the his- cheap, sometimes owning plots in dif- toric election that would see President ferent schemes. Daniel arap Moi step down and the As political alliances shifted and high- Kenya African National Union lose level politicians lost power, reclaim- power, the government announced the ing parts of the Mau forest became excision of 61,586 hectares of the Mau politically possible. It was inevitable, forest for a number of different “settle- however, that the process of addressing ment schemes,” some of which had Mau deforestation would be embroiled already existed on the ground as early in contestation. Indeed, the push to as 1994. Among the official reasons reestablish Mau forest boundaries and for the excisions was the need to settle conserve the forest meant evicting large Ogiek and people who were displaced numbers of KANU supporters who because of state-instigated violence sur- perceived this as punishment for los- rounding the elections of 1992 and ing power. In 2005 a series of hap- 1997.36 The announcement sent shock hazard and brutal evictions reinforced waves through international environ- this view, and human rights groups mental groups and local civil society, like Amnesty International became who raised their objections through involved.39 The Ogiek continued to official channels. Regardless, the gov- protest that their rights and needs were ernment moved forward with the publi- being ignored and that they were being cation of legal notices and subsequent- grouped collectively with those who ly became embroiled in court cases, settled in the forest and hence—as in including one led by the Ogiek Welfare colonial times—were being cruelly and Society. Throughout this period, many unjustly evicted.40 Powerful beneficia- Ogiek protested their treatment, the ries, including the former president, influx of large numbers of people into demanded compensation and turned the Mau, and the ensuing destruction the Mau evictions into a high profile of the forest.37 political issue. Public anger was high over irregular land appropriations by the old KANU Mapping and Counter- regime. When a new government came Mapping. KIFCON embodied a kind

[130] Georgetown Journal of International Affairs KLOPP Science&Technology

of technical approach to conservation 2005, they grew interested in working that ignores both power and institution- with the local NGO Environmental al dynamics and the “power of maps.”41 Research Mapping and Information The project, of course, did produce Systems in Africa (ERMIS-Africa)42 on helpful scientific knowledge about the participatory three-dimensional mod- forest and did not cause the deforesta- eling (P3DM). This kind of model- tion in the Mau. The President, the ing is a collaborative process involv- Ministry of Environment, and provin- ing “grassroots participation in spatial cial administration used the KIFCON problem analysis and decision-making” maps showing the boundaries of exist- and “integration of people’s knowledge ing indigenous forests and seized their and spatial information (contour lines) recommendation to create an Ogiek to produce standalone scale relief mod- settlement scheme there. This attempt els.”43 Discussions among community to accelerate and legalize irregular set- members help to determine which crit- tlements ultimately contributed to for- ical features (e.g hills, rivers, cultural est destruction. For this reason, some areas, and clan territory) should be Ogiek remember KIFCON with anger; documented and mapped through use they feel that KIFCON collaborated of aerial photographs and participa- with a government that at the time was tory Geographical Information Systems the source of many of their problems. (GIS). KIFCON phase II was discontinued in The models that emerge out of these part because of these unintended nega- processes are actual physical models tive impacts, couched diplomatically as with topographical and cultural fea- “lack of government support.” tures marked. They are easy to com- Since the 1990s when KIFCON prehend and, when executed well, rela- As political alliances shifted and high-level politicians lost power, reclaiming parts of the Mau forest became politically pos- sible.

operated, understanding of power rela- tively accurate ways to store, visualize tions and local knowledge in the man- and discuss spatial information. ERMIS agement of forests and other resources argues that these models and the par- has grown. Based on their historical ticipatory process of creating them is experience, Ogiek activists are keenly a useful way to transmit local knowl- aware of the need to counter-map the edge and preserve historical mem- Mau Forest, and have tapped into sym- ory and culture.44 Furthermore, by pathetic local and international support using these new mapping technolo- to do this. After attending a Mapping gies to reassert a historical narrative for Change Conference in Nairobi in about their century-old presence in

Winter/Spring 2011 [131] MAPS, POWER, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MAU FOREST IN KENYA the Mau, Ogiek activists can bolster lished that would involve a council of their efforts to reassert their rights Ogiek elders.46 All of this represents to inhabit and manage the forest. significant progress. This counters attempts to render the In September 2009, the Ministry Ogiek invisible and that fail to dis- of the Environment and UNEP tinguish between them and the large numbers of settlers brought into the announced a multi-million dollar forest through patronage politics. appeal for funds to rehabilitate the forest. One encouraging develop- Conclusions. After the last tumul- ment was that besides USAID, the tuous election in December 2007, European Union, and other foreign Kenya’s new Prime Minister Raila donors, Kenyan businesses and civil Odinga assembled a Task Force on society, including Nobel Laureate the Conservation of the Mau Forests Wangari Maathai’s Greenbelt Complex. Kenya’s hard-won demo- cratic space, the advocacy of local Movement, mobilized to create their and global environmentalists and civil own “Save the Mau” campaign and society, the media, and the chang- trust fund that has already allowed ing political alliances that allowed some reforestation to occur. for the creation of the task force Serious political hurdles remain forcefully showed how policy around in translating Kenya’s continu- forest conservation relies on politi- ously more democratic institutional cal factors. The task force executed order into an ecological landscape. a careful audit of the destruction of the forest and recommended a Contention continues over evictions, number of concrete and important as well as the mapping of where the steps for its conservation. One key Mau’s boundaries are or should be, recommendation is that all those who and hence, who must leave and who were involved in “the irregular allo- can stay. These negotiations over sav- cation of forestland in an irregular ing the forest are also embroiled in manner and/or against the govern- the politics of alignment before the ment’s stated purposes of the settle- next election in 2012. The struggle over ment schemes should be investigated and prosecuted in accordance to the reforestation and revival of the Mau law.”45 The task force also recom- forest, like deforestation in the first mends that the Ogiek receive land place, is intimately linked not only to outside of critical water catchment social and economic forces, but to poli- areas and biodiversity hotspots and tics, patronage, and the power of maps that a process of registration be estab- as well.

[132] Georgetown Journal of International Affairs KLOPP Science&Technology

NOTES

1 Michael Williams, Deforesting the Earth: From Prehis- 2009, 6. tory to Global Crisis (Chicago and London: University of 12 Denis Wood, The Power of Maps (New York and Chicago Press, 2003). London: Guildford Press, 1992). 2 H.J. Geist and E.F. Lambin, “What drives tropi- 13 See, for example, the project by Open Street cal deforestation? A meta-analysis of proximate and Map to make a freely accessible map of the world, underlying causes based on sub-national case study Internet, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_ evidence.” LUCC Report Series 4 (2001): 1. Page. 3 More recent work suggests that urbanization and 14 Giacomo Rambaldi, “Who Owns the Map global agricultural trade are key factors. See Ruth S. Legend?” Paper presented at the 7th International DeFries, Thomas Rudel, Maria Uriarte, and Matthew Conference on GIS for Developing Countries (GIS- Hansen, “Deforestation driven by urban population DECO 2004), 10–12 May 2004, Universiti Teknolo- growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first cen- gi Malaysia, Johor Malaysia; T. Lung and G. Schaab, tury.” Nature Geoscience 3 (2010): 178-181. For a critical “A comparative assessment of land cover dynamics of look at the link between poverty and deforestation, see three protected forest areas in tropical eastern Africa.” Michael Dove, “A Revisionist View of Tropical Defor- Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 161, no. 1 (2010), estation and Development.” Environmental Conser- 531–548. vation 20, no. 1 (1993). 15 OpenStreetMap, Internet, http://www.open- 4 Nicholas Guppy, “Tropical Deforestation: A streetmap.org/ Global View.” Foreign Affairs 62, no. 4 (1984): 928-965. 16 Erica Hagen, http://wbi.worldbank. 5 These include river flow regulation, flood miti- org/wbi/devoutreach/article/370/putting- gation, water storage, reduced soil erosion, biodi- nairobi%E2%80%99s-slums-map (date accessed: 30 versity, carbon sequestration, carbon reservoir, and December 2010). microclimate regulation. 17 By the post-colonial period, Kenya’s forest cov- 6 For more on the Ogiek culture and history see er had dwindled from about 30% of the total landmass Towett Kimaiyo, Ogiek Land Cases and Historical Injustices in 1895 to approximately 3% today. Large amounts of 1902-2004 (Nakuru: Ogiek Welfare Council, 2004); forest loss occurred during the colonial period. Corinne Kratz, “Are the Okiek Really Masai? Or 18 Stone notes the shift from the topographical Kipsigis? Or Kikuyu?” Cahiers d’Etudes Africaines 20, maps of the early explorers to cadastral maps during no. 79: 355-368; Louis Kang’ethe, Edward Ontita the colonial period that focus on where people to and Esther Mwangi, Forestry and Food Security in Kenya: The be administered were located. See Jeffrey C. Stone, Case of the South-West Mau Forest (Nairobi: Forest Action “Imperialism, Colonialism and Cartography.” Transac- Network, 2000). tions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 13, no. 7 The estimated potential by hydropower genera- 1 (1988), 57-64. tion in the Mau forests complex catchments is approx- 19 Report of the Kenya Land Commission (Lon- imated to be 535 Megawatts representing 47 percent don: His Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1934), 260. of the total installed electricity generation capacity in Towett Kimaiyo, Ogiek Land Cases and His- Kenya. Fredrick Owino, chairman, “Report of the torical Injustices 1902-2004 (Nakuru: Ogiek Welfare Prime Minister’s Task Force on the Conservation Council, 2004), 8. of the Mau Forests Complex.” Republic of Kenya, 20 Corinne Kratz, “Are the Okiek Really Masai? 2009, 16. Or Kipsigis? Or Kikuyu?” Cahiers d’Etudes Africaines 20, 8 Ibid., 15-16. no. 355-368. 9 P. Njuguna, M. Mbegera, and D. Mbithi, 21 Lucy Claridge, “Illegal eviction of Ogiek “Reconnaissance Survey of forest blocks in the west indigenous community from ancestral home in Mau and east rift valley.” Permanent Presidential Commis- Forest, Kenya,” Internet, http://www.minorityrights. sion on Soil Conservation and Afforestation, 1999; org/?lid=9326 (date accessed: 28 October 2009). Erick Akotsi, Michael Gachanja, and Jacob Ndirangu, 22 A. Ochola, “Rescuing a forest plundered by “Changes in Forest Cover in Kenya’s Five Water its custodians.” East African Standard, 10 July 2006. Towers 2003-2005,” Internet, http://www.unep.org/ 23 The World Conservation Union notes that dewa/assessments/EcoSystems/land/mountain/Tow- “logs continue to be the preferred currency of political er2/index.asp (date accessed: 29 December 2010). patronage in many countries with old growth forests.” 10 United Nations Environmental Programme, S. Rietbergen, “Forests – A Century of Destruction.” “Mau Complex Under Siege: Values and Threats,” Gland: IUCN:1 (2000); Peter Dauvergne, Shadows Internet, http://unep.org/dewa/assessments/Eco- in the Forest: Japan and the Politics of Timber in Systems/land/mountain/MauCrisis/index.asp. (date Southeast Asia (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, accessed: 29 December 2010). 1997). 11 Fredrick Owino, chairman, “Report of the 24 Jacqueline M. Klopp, “Pilfering the Public: Prime Minister’s Task Force on the Conservation The Problem of Land Grabbing in Contemporary of the Mau Forests Complex.” Republic of Kenya, Kenya.” Africa Today 47, no. 1 (2000): 7-26.

Winter/Spring 2011 [133] MAPS, POWER, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MAU FOREST IN KENYA

25 F. Seymour and J. Mugabe, The Right Condi- 36 Republic of Kenya,“Report of the Inter- tions: The World Bank, Structural Adjustment and Ministeral Committee on Forest Excisions,” Mau Task Forest Policy Reform (Washington: World Resources Force, April 2001. Institute, 2000), 115. See also Republic of Kenya 37 Jacqueline M. Klopp, “‘Ethnic Clashes’ and (2002) Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Winning Elections: The Case of Kenya’s Electoral Law System of Kenya (Nairobi: Government Printers) Despotism.” Canadian Journal of African Studies 35, 59; Republic of Kenya (2004) Report on the Com- vol. 2 (2001): 473-517. mission of Inquiry into the Illegal/Irregular Allocation 38 Ogiek Welfare Council, The Ogiek, Internet, of Public Land. (Nairobi: Government Printers) 83, http://www.ogiek.org/report/ogiek-ch2.htm (date 150-9. accessed: 30 December 2010). 27 Towett Kimaiyo, Ogiek Land Cases and His- Towett Kimaiyo, Ogiek Land Cases and Historical torical Injustices 1902-2004 (Nakuru: Ogiek Welfare Injustices 1902-2004 (Nakuru: Ogiek Welfare Coun- Council, 2004), 88. cil, 2004). 28 Department For International Development, 38 Republic of Kenya, “Main Report,” Inter- Internet, http://www.odi.org.uk/work/projects/98- net, http://marsgroupkenya.org/pdfs/Oct_07/ 99-tropical-forestry/projects/2413.htm#UK (date Main_Report/forestlands_national_%20parks_game_ accessed: 30 December 2010). reserves_wetlands_riparian_reserves_and_protected_ 29 “Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Pro- areas.pdf, p 154 (date accessed 30 December 2010). gramme phase 1 report.” KIFCON, 1994. At the top of the list is former President Daniel arap 30 Dan Brockington, Fortress Conservation: The Moi and many of his key associates. Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve (Bloom- 39 Amnesty International , “Nowhere to go: Forced ington.: Indiana University Press, 2002). evictions in Mau Forest, Kenya,” Internet, http:// 31 Otsieno Namwaya, “Who Owns Kenya?” Inter- www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AFR32/006/2007 net, http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org/?p=92 (date (date accessed: 30 December 2010). accessed: 1 October 2004). 40 Cultural Survival, “Mau Forest Evictions Leave 32 A recent World Bank Kenya Poverty and Ogiek Homeless,” Internet, http://www.culturalsur- Inequality Assessment notes that land inequality in vival.org/news/karin-oman/mau-forest-evictions- 1997, as measured by the Gini coefficient of the whole leave-ogiek-homeless (date accessed: 10 March 2005). population, was .612. By 2005/6, it appeared to rise 41 Leila Harris and Helen Hazen, “Power of Maps: to about .83. The report suggests that, “the increase (Counter) Mapping for Conservation.” ACME: An in land inequality in most parts of the country over International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 4, the past decade has been at a rate that suggests that this no. 1 (2006): 99-130. issue is rapidly becoming more serious in objective 42 The Technical Centre for Agricultural and terms as well as in terms of political salience. World Rural Cooperation (CTA) and the Indigenous Peo- Bank, 18. ples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) was 33 Recent interviews with local people who worked also a key supporting actor. with KIFCON revealed that approximately 800 Ogiek 43 Giacomo Rambaldi, Julius Muchemi, Nigel families on KIFCON’s list never got land, yet, they Crawhall and Laura Monaci, “Through the Eyes were part and parcel of the commons that had been of Hunter-Gatherers: Participatory 3D modelling registered. Interview with Chesilim Kimutai and among Ogiek indigenous peoples in Kenya,” Inter- Gabriel Too, Nakuru, August 2010. net, http://iapad.org/publications/.../InfoDevPaper. 34 Credible evidence exists that the “most of grambaldi.a078592.pdf (date accessed: 30 January the 653 Ogiek families that had settled in Kiptagich 2010). Extension Settlement Scheme were evicted, paving the 44 Internet, http://www.ermisafrica.org/index. way for the fresh allocation to prominent civil servants php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Item and Moi’ allies.” David Okwembah, id=111. 35 Daily Nation, “How Moi allies acquired land 45 Republic of Kenya,“Report of the Inter-Min- meant for Ogiek,” Internet, http://www.nation.co.ke/ isteral Committee on Forest Excisions,” Mau Task Force, News/-/1056/818058/-/vnkkoe/-/index.html (date April 2001. p. 45. accessed: 5 December 2009). 46 Ibid.

[134] Georgetown Journal of International Affairs Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.