THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

peoples’ Knowledge and contributions to biodiversity conservation. Such innovations by local
communities are mostly in the area of in situ conservation measures that involve these peoples
who retain traditional or indigenous knowledge systems. These acknowledgements are not
without contradiction, but should be construed as a representation of diversity of opinion in
form of local and formal institutional mediation. It is also a reflection of how formal
institutions position indigenous people and local communities in both the country and within
the international conservation and global market system.
As earlier noted, many of the biodiversity resource rich countries in Tropical Africa are
economically developing nations and the majority of their people survive outside cities and
within a subsistence economy that relies heavily on such resources like forests for traditional
food production knowledge. 703 For example, most economically developing African countries
do not have the capacity for all of the people who live within their borders to fully enter the
market economy. Without attention paid to the protection and preservation of the lands and
waters of local communities and indigenous people, these nations would be unable to feed
their populations. 704 This critical fact has given impetus to serious consideration of the
development of community-oriented protected areas across the Afro-Tropical region to ensure
that national resources development does not result into massive exploitation. Some countries
in acknowledgement of their agreement to the principles of the CBD, are seeking ways to
conserve rich biospheres whilst balancing a need to ensure that traditional communities can
continue to sustain themselves. Given that in most regions of the globe, significant numbers
of people rely on access to their traditional land and sea resources for survival. 705 It is
therefore, in the interest of nations and the interest of durable conservation to engage
indigenous people and local communities in the task of protecting the biological diversity in
their environment.
In respect to the above postulation, the Kakamega scenario and the Kenya as a whole
represents a deviation from this paradigm. The deviations in this regard need no
recapitulation. The Kakamega case study provides an insightful account of how indigenous
peoples and local communities in Kenya have been disenfranchised of their traditional
governance and management role in relation to natural resources. The vast majority of natural
resources in Kenya are government-controlled. Starting with the introduction of Trust Land
administration systems introduced during colonial time, virtually any land on which forests
and related resource are found, does not belong to local or indigenous communities. Such
resources automatically belong to the government, apart from limited examples of common
customary resource rights.
703 Matowanyika, J., R. Serafin, et al. 1992. Conservation and Development in Africa: A Management Guide to
Protected Areas and Local Populations in the Afrotropical Realm. Gland, Switzerland: WWF International.
704 Ibid.
705 Storrs, M. and E.Young. 1999. Indigenous Social, Economic and Cultural Issues in Land, Water and
Biodiversity Conservation: A Scoping Study for WWF Australia, unpublished report on behalf of the Centre
for Indigenous Natural and Cultural Resource Management, NTU, Darwin.
192