THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

nature. 670 In this we also look at the duty as well as the rights holders’ meaning that what is
valuable is therefore worth protecting. When looking at biological resources in Kakamega
forest, we must treat them as both physical and non-physical such as local ecological
knowledge.
It is also imperative to understand the above issues from a rather historical perspective. We
have already noted that land is the most treasured physical property in Kakamega. This
evaluation is derived from the stream of benefits that are accrued from land, ranging from the
forest resources to the agricultural products that are generated from this land in the areas
around Kakamega forest. It is these benefits that will shape our appreciation of the property
rights in Kakamega.
In this study it was hard to make direct interpretations regarding property rights issues
because they are highly contested issues with this sub-region. However, through discussion
and debate especially during focus group discussions, we came to understand that issues
regarding property rights in Kakamega and more precisely among the Luhya can be located
within the larger institutional structure of the Luhya society. In this regard, we found out that
there obtains a dualistic property rights regime regarding the resource rights in Kakamega.
Specifically it emerged that there were vertical and horizontal property rights regimes. This
dualistic regime was found to be embedded in the mutual relationships that are held among
the Luhya people, originating from the existing customary rights regarding landed resources.
On the other hand, the vertical rights were exuded by the collective relationships and concerns
that the Luhya people attach to nature. We have dealt with these concerns and relationships in
the previous sub-section and therefore need no recount in the ongoing treatment.
In line with the above, it is ideal to mention that the foundation of these historical and
circumstantial relationships arises out of the cultural heritage that the Luhya attach to the land
and the resources that are found thereon, creating a cyclical nature of relationships among
them. One observation is central: that property rights among the Luhya are a product of
human/individual relationships shaped by the collective and historical behaviours embedded
within the Luhya sub-tribes. In short, we are talking of the circumstances of value that
structure these collective behaviours among the people of Kakamega.
Generally speaking, the nature of any physical good is found in its inherent physical
characteristic, not susceptible to manipulation by humans. But we must admit that property
institutions are human inventions. In essence, the centrality of property rights refers to the
clarity, specificity, and especially the exclusivity of the rights, and not to the identity of the
rights-holder. 671 Thus, most of the permutations and combinations of resource types, propertyrights
types, and rights holders theoretically exist. But there is surprisingly very little
agreement about which of these combinations and permutations are wise or efficient.
670 McCay, B J., and J.M, Acheson. 1987. The Question of the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of
Communal Resources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
671 Larson, B and D.W, Bromely.1999. Property Rights, Externalities and Resource Degeneration:Locating the
Tragedy. In Sustaining Development. Environmental Resources, edited by D.W, Bromely,163-179.
Massechussets: Edward Elgar Publishing.
172