Abstract

Two of Kenya’s few traditional communities, the Ogiek and the Sengwer, have for decades now been agitating, and even presently continue agitating to be allowed to enter and inhabit gazetted state forests (government forests) despite the protected status of these forests. They in their agitation claim an aboriginal “entitlement” to such habitation, which in this paper is referred to as “aboriginal habitation”. They argue that these forests are their traditional ancestral lands that were in the primordial to pre-colonial times inhabited by their long-departed ancestors. Their agitation, which has persisted for a long time without end, has been resisted by the Kenya government which argues that these forests are government forests that are under state control and protection, and habitation of which is prohibited by law. Besides, of Kenya’s land area of approximately 582,600 km2, only about 7.4 percent is under forests. Of this, gazetted state forests (also called public forests) occupy a mere 4 percent land area. Yet, it is these particular forests (state forests) that the two traditional communities are agitating to be allowed to inhabit. This paper presents the findings of a 12 months study that set out to interrogate these rival arguments as well as establish whether aboriginal habitation of such forests is supportable, and has a place in the present day Kenya. It answers the question whether under Kenya’s existing laws and circumstances, traditional communities should under aboriginal “entitlement” be allowed to enter and inhabit these forests. It is a case study of the said two traditional communities; for reason that they are the ones that have been agitating for their perceived aboriginal “entitlement” to habitation of such forests. Notably, this agitation has not only been through political activism, but also through litigation in national and even regional courts of law; and without success or governmental endorsement. This paper concludes that whereas historically the Forest was at some point in history the ancestral home of humankind and place of human abode, that can no longer be the case in the circumstances and realities of the present day Kenya. The country’s state forests should continue to be protected from habitation, even if such habitation is based on perceived aboriginal “entitlement”, such as the one agitated by the Ogiek and the Sengwer communities. Whereas these communities claim to still be traditional forest dwellers (or forest peoples), they have in reality at the present time long abandoned and transformed from the typical aboriginal life as we know it, and adopted modern lifestyles akin to other contemporary communities. Some of the government officials interviewed by this author believe, this aborigineness is a tag they wear or card they play whenever it suits them or whenever it suits the circumstances.

Highlights

  • This paper interrogates a highly contentious and emotive issue, i.e. whether traditional communities in the present day Kenya can still practice aboriginal habitation of gazetted state forests

  • They in their agitation claim an aboriginal “entitlement” to such habitation, which in this paper is referred to as “aboriginal habitation”. They argue that these forests are their traditional ancestral lands that were in the primordial to pre-colonial times inhabited by their long-departed ancestors. Their agitation, which has persisted for a long time without end, has been resisted by the Kenya government which argues that these forests are government forests that are under state control and protection, and habitation of which is prohibited by law

  • This paper presents the findings of a 12 months study that set out to interrogate these rival arguments as well as establish whether aboriginal habitation of such forests is supportable, and has a place in the present day Kenya

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper interrogates a highly contentious and emotive issue, i.e. whether traditional communities in the present day Kenya can still practice aboriginal habitation of gazetted state forests. The decline in the commune and bands of forest aboriginal peoples across the world is attributable to socio-cultural transformations, but has been ordained by the existing formal laws that have extinguished or continue to extinguish or even proscribed and abolished habitation of protected public forests otherwise referred to in this paper as gazetted state forests—these are basically forests that are owned and/or controlled by the government. This is the elephant in the room, and this paper endeavours to answer the question whether under the present law in Kenya, communities can still practice aboriginal habitation of gazetted state forests It focuses on two traditional indigenous Kenyan communities, namely the Ogiek and the Sengwer, for the reason that they are the ones that have been at the forefront of asserting and agitating for their perceived “entitlement” to aboriginal forest habitation.

Research Methodology and the Study Area
Kenya’s Forest Estate
Who Are the Ogiek and the Sengwer Peoples?
The Socio-Cultural Perspective
The Environmental Perspective
The Legal Perspective
Other Traditional Customary Forest Uses
Conclusion
Findings
Conflicts of Interest
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call