THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

already exits within the Luhya resource management setting. In this study, it has been
observed that there is ample evidence of local people’s willingness to engage in institutional
dialogue if there is sufficient information, communication and trust. It is needless to say that,
this can only happen when new resource management institutional enforcement mechanisms
are appreciated and perceived to be beneficial, and as long as decisions are not externally
imposed.
Furthermore, the local communities in Kakamega do possess some fairly effective
institutions, but few relate to resource mobilisation and management. There are, for instance,
no strong sanctions to deter the abuse of common property. Although the communities are
loosely structured, people’s social networks such as family, sub-tribal and clan kinships,
neighbours, friends still form the pivot to execute the local rules. Some of the communities
seemed to be lacking in terms of internal communication between households. Furthermore,
rivalry was witnessed in several cases among non-Luhya tribes and families, often due to
economic interests in land and related resources, or conflicts in resource harvesting, which
demonstrates a further weakness in the political organisation and its capacity to resolve
internal conflicts.
It is also imperative to mention that despite the rhetoric of observing international
conservation covenants, signatories to such covenants like Kenya, often contradict them in
practice. For instance at the close of the 1990s and late 2005, because of actions which are
both contrary to trends elsewhere in the world and to its own obligations under the IUCN,
COP and CBD, Kenya was faced with a situation where several thousands of people were
displaced and others threatened with ‘displacement by a series of Central Government orders
on wildlife and forests conservation. Yet it was as recent as 2002 when the Kenyan
Government had committed itself to meeting the targets under the CBD, moving towards full
legal and institutional arrangements as well as participation of local communities in the
management of forestry and wildlife conservation, and in receiving benefits from such
conservation, by 2006. However the situation in Kakamega contradicts Kenya’s commitment
to the above international regimes.
Lastly, local institutional development for community oriented conservation has received little
systematic attention in previous literature. If protected area management is to be sustainable,
then researchers, practitioners, and conservationists must pay closer attention to the
architecture and performance of institutions involved in sustainable forest management. Once
these institutions are better understood, local institutional development is of great urgency, for
the participation of local people in managing forest resources is crucial to successful
conservation.
181