THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

the line of national resource management and institutional performance, we endeavoured to
evaluate and highlight some of the flaws in Kenya’s institutional framework relating to
biodiversity management. Taking the Kakamega scenario as a test case, Kenya needs to reevaluate
and benchmark its resource management policies to best rule practices. Though we
have not formulated a complete definition of the entire biodiversity crisis in the literature, we
have noted that part of the problem results from the institutional building capability, and in a
large measure warrants continued institutional reform.
Futhermore, the study intended to investigate the national and local actors in the management
of the country’s biodiversity resources. Our findings have pointed out that there are numerous
actors in the realm of biodiversity and these include the state as an actor and other non-state
actors such as the NGOs, public and private sector organisations, the civil society, local
community resource user groups and individuals. One important drawback is the absence of
coordination between the interests and initiatives from the different actors. These are found to
manage biodiversity at different levels and at times with variegated interests, an aspect which
in part explains the conflict. What was however most intriguing is that at the national level,
there seems to be an absence of a real forum that brings together the all these actors. This
keeps out most of the non-state actors’ opinions in the decision-making matrix regarding
biodiversity and environmental management. The role of public opinion cannot be replaced in
this task. Consequently, one key function of the polity is to preserve the basic right to shared
learning. Perhaps, the bulk of the challenge lies in the effort to build and improve institutions
that guarantee public participation in environmental governance and decision-making.
Further still, one other research question was; what is the role of donors and international
actors in the current biodiversity restoration in Kenya? Our analysis revealed that the Tran
nationalisation of biodiversity and environmental problems has attracted the international
donor agencies in the realm of environmental governance. Most of these agencies though
northern based have set up “support systems”, particularly in the tropical world, where the
biodiversity crises have been linked to poverty. In the Kenyan context, we found out that in
order for the state to build an efficient resource management system, it has enlisted
international collaboration in this regard. Though we are aware that in an interdependent and
asymmetric world, national polities are not always able to perform most tasks alone, we found
that the role of donor interests was far beyond the environmental governance debate. The
donor interests in regard to the biodiversity restoration in Kenya can be linked to issues of a
wider political economy debate. Indeed, since the governance structures of the international
environmental governance are not well defined and coordination failures between the polities
involved are pervasive, it is no wonder that the rules governing donor interests to Kenya’s
biodiversity crisis are rather diffuse. Therefore, much more research is necessary on the
causes and consequences of biodiversity legal reforms motivated by external pressure and the
role of supra national entities in general.
178