kenyaimagine.com

Home

Traveller

On the Mau

Written by mkosakabila mkosakabila

Sunday, 03 August 2008

the Mau complex of forests is way too valuable to a broad range of users and uses to be left without some serious interventions. But it might help to take a step back and not demonize and/or victimize the Kalenjin peasants, many of who have either obtained 'titles' from prior governments or who like the Okiek may have been residing close to and/or within the forest.

My hope and prayer is that this issue be approached a little more rationally than has been so far. The consequences are frightening, if Ole Ntimama's utterance and Isaac Ruto's belligerence are anything to go by.

Several actions are imperative:

First, a resettlement plan that is well timed and unambiguous in who gets to go where, when and under what terms. Just providing people with a deadline of October to vacate so-called forest land is somewhat dense. Many depend on that land and on the forest directly for their livelihhods.

Second, a management plan for the complex of forests. One which categorizes into appropriate zones for low intensity use, for non-consumptive use as well as for strict protection, restoration/rehabilitation, among others. One would imagine that such a management plan, if propertly enforced and financed both by communities and authorities can help achieve some sort of balance between sustainable use and conservation.

Third, a social and ecological monitoring plan, which monitors the status of the forest complex and which can provide indicators of trends over time and hence a sense of what kinds of interventions may be required as time goes by.

Fourth, fencing the forest is a very stupid idea. Think for a moment about the cost of just putting up the fence, which I assume will be electrified. Then also think about the cost of MAINTAINING the fence. Statistics for such a venture can be obtained from the Kenya Wildlife Service. Remember also, that Kenya recently passed a law decentralizing forest resources--it would help if we align our interventions in the Mau with the sprit and intent of these progressive set of rules.

Finally, and most controversially, as we all get hot and bothered about how this complex of forests is oh so valuable to kith and kin from Nyanza to Narok, Kajiado, Tanzania etc...it may help to consider some ways of creating incentives for those living upstream in and around the forests, to keep the forests in good condition and to perpetuate the forests services, as against just vilifying them mindlessly.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

hmm
written by Stephen Wanyama , August 04, 2008

I understand the need to compensate, to follow the requirements of the law and all that. But while we are at it, and enjoying the view of the elephants, let us not miss the big one in the middle of the room. The situation with the Mau complex and Kenya's forests in general is said by all those working on it to be beyond critical. Can we still afford to have anyone who needs to clear land for agriculture, or who needs to get kuni, or who could be selling charcoal in the forests? I understand the case for the Okiek who live in communion with the forest, but does not the fact that there are people settled in the forests open a door through which logging, even if on a diminished scale will continue? I say get them an alternative place to settle fast and get them there. For all those who are deserving of compensation, Kenyans should be happy to pay for it. We seem to have crossed the threshold for moderate action, what we need is just but resolute boundaries on what is acceptable and what is not.

P.S. I am not persuaded that poor people who need land for farming can be guardians of a forest. The consequences of their tree-felling, charcoal, etc are not clear to them, and it is not even clear that if it was they would care much. Hunger and all that boring stuff, you see. Please see this report on the failure of a Carbon Credit scheme in Uganda.

One question, does anyone know what portion of the trouble is caused by wananchi and what part by the logging firms? We do not exactly need a fence to prevent large scale logging do we?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Dear Sir
written by mkosakabila , August 04, 2008

Before I hazard a response to just one of your comments above I’m driven to inquire as to the nature of response you’d wish to hear. There are two options. One, a simplistic one not far removed from your sweeping generalization regarding the behavior of the rural poor and a second, more enlightened one that demonstrates the significance of secure property rights and the utmost devastation that perverse incentives owing to flawed program design/ implementation (as in the CDF examples you cite) can wreak on equity and forest sustainability. The choice is yours.

I have assumed that yours is not a rhetorical question and I'm open to being corrected.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

On common property
written by mkosakabila , August 04, 2008

Commons sense: Why it still pays to study medieval English landholding and Sahelian nomadism

http://www.economist.com/finan...d=11848182

For anyone who cares to note--this is a PATHBREAKING article for the Economist to carry. As we tear out each other's eyes over the Mau and like issues, take a moment to read it. Couldnt've been timed better.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Show/Hide comment form

Write comment

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

security image
Write the displayed characters

Mkosakabila Mkosakabila
		About the author:

Last Updated ( Sunday, 03 August 2008 )

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Travel IQ

This Traveler IQ challenge compares your geographical knowledge against the Web's Original Travel Blog's other 2,913,238 travelers who have taken this challenge as of Friday, August 08, 2008 at 05:36AM GMT. (TravelPod is a TripAdvisor Media Network member)