THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Kenya is currently facing a biodiversity crisis and the country’s environmental management
body, the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), has embarked on every
effort to arrest the declining levels of biodiversity resources. 1 Currently, many forests are
under threat, not to mention Kakamega and Mountain Kenya forests. There is a great loss of
biodiversity especially in forests where people are using land for settlement and agriculture or
other activities. Increased interest in the restoration of national biodiversity in Kenya, is
among other factors driven by global calls for linking development to environmental
conservation. 2 This is based on the fact that the environment plays a significant role in
development. It is imperative to note that; biodiversity is the leading resource in most of the
tropical and agrarian countries. 3 The value of biodiversity to mankind needs no recount.
However, there are numerous factors such as the existence of incompatible institutions that
curtail the attainment of desired conservation and development goals. Kenya is one of the 170
key parties which ratified the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Treaty. The parties set 2010 as the year in
which loss of biodiversity will be significantly reduced. This success however depends on
how effective such parties will be in their endeavours to protect biodiversity spots such as
forests, where most of the fauna and flora is found. 4
The central proposition of this study is that, the existence of different and parallel forms of
institutions as well as different forms of land use practices in Kakamega, clearly impact on the
current and future forest/biodiversity conservation efforts. The central research question of
this study is; what constitutes locally relevant biodiversity notions in Kakamega vis-à-vis the
national regimes and how are such perceptions institutionalised and mediated? This study is
grounded in institutional theory because of the significant role institutions play in regulating
natural resource usage and control. These institutions act as instruments of control, by
regulating and prescribing behaviour patterns in respect to common resources. 5
It is imperative to note that if well examined and analyzed, institutions form a firm foundation
for promoting participation and indirectly enhancing sustainable management of forest
biodiversity. 6 Institutions are analyzed at the national, sub-national and local levels in order
1 NEMA. 2001. Biodiversity for All. Nairobi:Government Printer.
2 Mwenya, A.N. 1993. Redefining Conservation in African Terms. In voices From Africa: Local Perspectives on
Conservation, edited by D. Lewis and and N. Carter. Nairobi: World Wildlife Fund.
3 Carswell, G. 2001. Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment for Uganda: Biodiversity
Report. Washington, D.C: USAID.
4 Kevin .M and G.A, Schreiber. 1991. Revising the Spiral: The Population, Agriculture and Environment Nexus
in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington D.C: The World Bank Publications.
5 Nuitjen. M. 1992. Local Organization as Organising Practices: Rethinking Rural Institutions. In The
interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development: Battle fields of Knowledge, edited
by Long .N and A. Long , 189-207. London: Routledge.
6 Solomon, M. 2003. Traditional Lifestyles and Biodiversity Use Regional Report: Pacific, Composite Report on
the Status and Trends Regarding the Knowledge, Innovations and Practices of indigenous and Local
Communities. Prepared for the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
1