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. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 6 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.