THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

management such as Kakamega, these pitfalls also illustrate the institutional dilemmas that
arise when planning for forest management. In this treatment we therefore point out that, for
institutions to be more effectively promoted, these institutional conflicts and limitations
should be addressed. Therefore, in the foregoing treatment, we discuss the issues that should
be learnt in respect to Kakamega forest.
The management of Kakamega forest presents some of the most compelling lessons on the
right of communities and resource users’ rights regarding participation in formal institutional
framing particularly, in the realm of environmental decision-making. These are a classical
manifestation of the inequities faced by communities living around biodiversity hot spots such
as Kakamega forest. Perhaps the most significant lesson from the management of Kakamega
forest is the role prejudice and perception of local communities play in the management of
natural resources and other related biota. These prejudices as illustrated by some of the
negative perceptions held by forest wardens and as pointed out by the traditional and local
leaders, display the complete lack of opportunity for participation in formal institutional
framing and environmental decision-making and management.
Up to 1931, Kakamega forest was managed by local people especially the village elders and
was then brought under the control of the then Forest Department (FD) which gazetted the
forest as Trust Forest in 1933. In fact a lot of villages adjacent to the western border of the
forest are named after indigenous forest tree species. It is clear that the colonial government
originated the gazetting of present day Kakamega forest without involving or giving due
consideration to the participation of the local people most especially the Luhya in the process.
Most of the planning was done in the colonial capital, Nairobi, hundreds of miles away from
Kakamega. The local people had no idea of what was going on and only got to know of the
process when the forest was already gazetted and were being notified not to cross into certain
reserved areas. This was followed by information to locals that whoever was found in these
reserves was bound to be penalised. This also preluded the subsequent framing of the criminal
Trespass Act.
These issues are very significant in the sense that, the process of gazetting Kakamega was
lengthy, involving several phases. All available accounts indicate no time when government
and its respective agencies such as the Kenya Wildlife Authority or the Forest Services,
considered involving the Luhya in the decision-making process. Neither were they involved in
the planning for the management regimes to be used in the governance of the forest. No due
consideration was given to whatever interests the Luhya have towards the forest. No
particular consideration regarding historical significance of the forest to the Luhya people was
fitted into the gazetting equation. The effects of all these issues on the future success of forest
management were intentionally or unwittingly blurred. Instead the law gazetting Kakamega
forest was debated and approved without much or mention of what the Luhya people had to
say, in their own right as the indigenous community in Kakamega Forest. Therefore, it is
certainly clear that the above processes flawed the principles and ideals governing
institutionalism and participation.
185