THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

8.2 Towards institutionalised participation and local resource governance in Kakamega
In the previous chapter, we presented the various local perceptions and local ecological
knowledge systems that obtain in the management of biodiversity in the areas that surround
Kakamega forest. We however realise that these knowledge systems are not formally
institutionalised and in part fuel the institutional clashes in the management of the forest. We
must make a re-mention of the fact that prior to the introduction of the state-centred
institutions in the management of biodiversity resources in Kenya, most terrestrial as well as
aquatic ecosystems were traditionally managed by local communities according to time-tested
indigenous knowledge systems. Specifically, the management of most forest systems have
since come under the ownership of government agencies, resulting into de jure alienation and
marginalisation of the local communities. The implication is that, the degree to which
indigenous people and local communities can exercise governance of their resources is
subject to government priorities. The issue of local people governing and managing their
natural resources through traditional biodiversity related knowledge systems, especially in a
centrally gazetted forest like Kakamega is highly complex. Indigenous and local groups face
threats from the centralised institutional governance in this regard, and without recourse to
institutional protection, they are completely powerless when the biodiversity agencies are
enforcing their natural resource conservation interests, with influence at the government level.
This is particularly the case in countries like Kenya where the biodiversity crisis has raged for
the last two decades.
We also realise that, this inability to formally mediate these institutions also results from the
failure to guarantee genuine local participation in the management of the forest biodiversity
resources. Yet we are aware that local resource governance is the oldest form of protected
area management. 677 Community conserved areas have developed over the years as human
communities shaped their lifestyles and livelihood strategies to respond to the various
opportunities and challenges that such environments present. Therefore, in doing so many
communities have managed, modified, enriched and often conserved the biological
environments within their surroundings. 678 As earlier noted, the Luhya community in
Kakamega forest affords such a glowing example.
In many cases, as illustrated by the previous chapters, the Luhya community interaction with
the environment has generated a kind of symbiotic relationship, which in some instances may
be referred to as bio-cultural components or cultural landscapes, which form the locally
relevant biodiversity notions in this sub-region.
We have therefore noted that much of this interaction happens in the pursuit of a variety of
interlocked objectives and values including economical, spiritual, and religious which have
resulted into the conservation of eco-systems, species and ecosystem related services. In this
677 Rudel, T. K. 1993. Tropical Deforestation: Small Farmers and Land Clearing in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
Methods and Cases in Conservation Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
678 Endicott, K. 2003. Indigenous Rights Issues in Malaysia. In At Risk of Being Heard: Identity, Indigenous
Rights, and Postcolonial States, edited by B. Dean and J. Levi, 142-164. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
182