ASAL Policies Kenya

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF POLICIES AND LAWS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PASTORALISM AND ASALS IN KENYA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared by

 

ERIC B. BOSIRE, CONSULTANT

P. O. BOX 20718

NAIROBI, KENYA

EMAIL: bororio@yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESENTED TO: The Netherlands Development Organization (SNV), KENYA

P. O. BOX 1758, ELDORET

EMAIL: snvkerio@africaonline.co.ke

 

 

 

28^th September 2004

 

 

 

 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

 

ALIN                Arid Lands Information Network

ALDEV            Arid Lands Development     

ASAL                Arid and Semi Arid Lands

FD                Forest Department

GoK                Government of Kenya

GDP                Gross Domestic Product

GNP                Gross National Product

IGAD                Inter Government Authority on Development

ITDG – EA            Intermediate Technology Development Group

IUCN                World Conservation Union

KLDP                Kenya Livestock Development Programme

KPF                Kenya Pastoralist Programme

KWS                Kenya Wildlife Service    

NR                Natural Resources

NRM                Natural Resource Management

PRSP                Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

RECONCILE            Resource Conflict Institute

SAP                Structural Adjustment Programme

SNV                Netherlands Development Organization

UNCDD            United Nations Convention on Drought and

                Desertification

UNDP                United National Development Programme

WFP                World Food Programme

WWF                World Wide Fund for Nature

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

This report is a result of the initiative taken by the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV) – Kenya to understand the policies and laws affecting ASAL development in Kenya. In some ways, this report is a first in that while there exist many policies and laws that touch on ASAL development in Kenya, many of them are sectoral in nature and no not make a credible attempt to address development issues in Kenya.

 

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to
SNV – Kenya for the commissioning this study and for their input into ensuring that it was carried out. I would hope that this report will provide useful insights on the policies and laws that impact directly on ASAL development in Kenya and that the issues highlighted will be helpful in formulating strategic intervention programmes for these areas.

 

In particular, I would like to thank all the organizations that have willingly provided information that has been used in this report particularly ALIN, ITDG-EA, RECONCILE, Oxfam, IGAD, the University of Nairobi and the Government Printers among others. Much of the information contained in this report would not have been possible but for the information provided by them. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Mr. Tom Were and Mr. Ronald Athoo for the assistance they have provided in obtaining some of the documents used in this report and for their initial comments.

 

It would also be noteworthy to mention the technical input to the report of SNV staff particularly Ms. Eileen Omosa of SNV-Kerio. Without your subtle but often practical comments, this report would not have been complete.

 

While it may not be possible to mention all the organizations and individuals that have been instrumental in the production of this report, all your efforts have been acknowledged and appreciated. Asante sana to you all.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The North Rift region of Kenya, which is part of the Greater Karamoja is plagued by conflicts due to the scarcity of water and pasture resources that are insufficient, seasonal, and spread over fragile space and time across local, district and international borders. It is while in search of these limited resources that pastoralists get into conflict with one another. With the ever-diminishing resources, livestock owners have identified privately owned cultivated fields as a source of pasture, resulting in intensified conflicts with settled cultivating communities as well. The management of these conflicts is further hampered by lack of clear policy guidelines on the development of ASALs and pastoralism as a livelihood, and arising conflicts.

 

The conflicts rotate around issues of ownership, access and control over critical pastoral resources like water and pasture. The underlying causes of these conflicts are complex and multi-dimensional, ranging from socio-economic, cultural and environmental factors. This calls for a change in intervention strategies aimed at transforming the attitudes, relationships among people, systems and structures using a non-violent means.

 

These conflicts mainly involve bordering communities in Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia and Southern Sudan. These areas have experienced increased livestock diseases, limited water resources, little law enforcement, a people vulnerable to natural and man-made disasters, grazing lands limited by borders and insecurity, limited livestock trade, and broken down traditional administrative structures and systems with limited alternatives. The region has lost their most of its productive dry season grazing lands to national parks, game and forest reserves, and controlled hunting areas. The result has been high levels of poverty and intensified conflicts.

 

Most of these communities are subjected to a life of poverty and insecurity, not because they are not doing something positive about their situation; but because the existing legislative framework does not permit them to be involved in decision making processes, and does not create an enabling environment for them to benefit from existing pastoral resources. Most times, they are co-opted into processes that are bureaucratic and time consuming, hence, end up being short-charged.

 

Despite the fact that a number of studies have been carried out on pastoralism, conflicts and underdevelopment in ASALs, and that there are laws to address some of them, very few address policy and institutional aspects. Many of the available policies and legislation (both in Kenya and neighbouring countries) tend to only touch on ASALs piece meal and do not offer them the importance they deserve.

 

 

This report attempts to look at current policies and legislation in Kenya that impact on ASALs. It also identifies and describes the policies and institutions that guide development in ASALs and the current gaps existing in both the policy and legislative documents especially with respect to conflict management mechanisms, equitable sharing of benefits, gender issues, land tenure, water management and natural resource management in general. It details these policies and laws and provides suggestions and recommendations on the way forward and how the existing gaps can be addressed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY    4

1.0    INTRODUCTION    7

2.0    OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY    8

2.1    THE STUDY    8

3.0    ARID AND SEMI ARID LANDS IN KENYA    9

3.1    The Physical and Social Environment    9

3.2    Population Trends in ASAL and Pastoral Areas    10

3.3    PASTORAL LIVESTOCK POPULATIONS    11

3.4    Unique Conditions in Pastoral Areas    11

4.0    A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE TO ASAL MANAGEMENT IN KENYA    12

4.1    Pastoral Systems and Poverty    16

4.5    Why Invest in Pastoral Areas?    21

5.0    DEFINITIONS    22

5.1    What is Policy?    22

5.2    What is Legislation    23

5.3    What is Conflict?    23

5.4    INSTITUTIONS AND POLICIES    24

6.0    THE POLICY SCENARIO    24

6.1    Pasture, Water and Livestock    24

6.2    Wildlife and Tourism    29

6.3    Health Care    30

6.4    Dryland Farming and Agroforestry    31

6.4.1    Forestry    32

6.5    Environmental Degradation and Conservation in the ASALs    32

5.6    Infrastructure and Enterprise Development    33

6.7    National Priorities in the ASAL    34

7.0    POLICIES AND LAWS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PASTORALISM IN ASALS    35

7.1    The Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (2003 – 2007)    35

7.2    The National Development Plan 2002 – 2008    39

7.3    Pastoralist Thematic Group on Poverty Reduction, Policy Paper 2001    40

7.3.1    Strategies for land tenure problems solution    40

7.3.2    Strategy for Tourism and Wildlife Sector Development    41

7.3.3    Strategies for Conflict Management    42

7.4    The Agriculture Act, Cap 318 of 1980    43

7.5    The Kenya Forestry Development Policy (2000)    45

7.6    The Draft Forests Bill (2003)    48

7.7    The Forests Act, Cap 385 of 1942    50

7.8    The Environment Management and Coordination Act of 2000    51

7.9    The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act Cap 376 of 1977 (Revised 1985)    53

7.10    The Livestock Act    54

7.11    Land Use Policy    54

BIBLIOGRAPHY    56

1.0    INTRODUCTION

 

The Arid and semi-Arid land areas of Kenya constitute over 80 percent of the country’s total land surface and carry over 25 per cent of total human population and has more than half the livestock population of Kenya. The country has more than 46 administrative districts out of which 24 are classified as ASAL (National Development Plan 2002 – 2008. The majority of the people living in these areas are pastoralists although semi pastoral and farming communities exist as well.

Essentially, this means that ASAL areas are of immense national importance in supporting pastoral and rural livelihoods. They are also important to sustain Kenya’s tourist industry (currently Kenya’s biggest foreign exchange earner) which is heavily dependent on the wildlife found in ASALs. Internationally these concentrations of wildlife, and particularly the big mammal populations, are seen as elements of a natural heritage that must be conserved for intrinsic reasons and for the enjoyment of future generations. With an economy so greatly dependent on an already highly exploited natural resource base, economic and social development in Kenya is inextricably linked to issues of environmental protection especially in the ASAL areas.

 

Despite the enormous potential for sustainable natural resource management and socio-economic opportunities that ASAL areas offer, their importance to national development and contribution to pastoral livelihoods has largely been ignored by the government of Kenya. People living in these areas are marginalized and often not included in mainstream economic and social planning processes. In addition infrastructure in the areas has remained derelict leaving most of the communities to fend for themselves. Human-human and human-wildlife conflict is prevalent in these areas arising mainly out of competition for the natural resources and the ever increasing appetite for land.

 

That ASALs can contribute immensely to national development is not in doubt. However their potential has not been documented hence the tendency to ignore their worth to Kenya’s GNP. In addition policies and legislation in Kenya often tend to ignore the needs of communities in ASALs and the very nature of ASALs themselves. This is baffling given that most of Kenya is either arid or semi-arid. Policies and legislation should therefore take into account the ASALs and their potential to sustain the livelihoods of local communities in those areas.

 

Giving ASALs their rightful place in Kenya’s national development agenda will inevitably lead to meaningful progress for the rural poor and communities in the areas.

2.0    OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 

Given the foregoing scenario, SNV Kenya commissioned a study aimed at identifying policies and legislation that impact on ASALs. The objectives of the study were to: –

 

1. Identify relevant contacts and sources, and detailed information on:
   

    

• Existing policies and laws in Kenya relating to the development (production, use and marketing of products) of ASALs
  
• The actual contribution of products from ASALs to Kenya’s economy in terms of food, employment and overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
  
• Gaps and conflicting issues in these policies and laws
  
• Policies and laws that impede the full participation of all stakeholders in the development and benefit sharing accrued from ASALs
  
• Analysis of the findings to show the impact of other related policies e.g. Land Use, Agriculture, etc on these policies and legislation.
  
• Analysis to show the cross border effect of policies and legislation of neighbouring countries on the national/Kenyan ones.
  

 

1. Compile systematically and produce a document on the above findings for presentation and submission to SNV North Rift.
   

 

2.1    THE STUDY

 

The study has mainly been composed of information obtained from a literature review of the current situation with respect to ASALs in Kenya. A historical perspective of ASALs has also been provided in order to give an idea of how ASALs came to be and how they were classified. In addition current pastoral population trends as well as livestock populations in ASALs have also been provided. An analysis of current policies and legislation (especially those touching directly on ASALs and ASAL development) has also been carried out and gaps identified. Notable various organizations with activities on ASALs have also been visited and their opinions and publications included in this study. These include ALIN, IGADD, UNCCD, ITDG, various Ministries and NGOs.

 

3.0    ARID AND SEMI ARID LANDS IN KENYA

 

3.1    The Physical and Social Environment

Arid and semi-arid or sub humid zones are characterized by low erratic rainfall of up to 700mm per annum, periodic droughts and different associations of vegetative cover and soils. Inter-annual rainfall varies from 50-100% in the arid zones of the world with averages of up to 350 mm. In the semi-arid zones, inter-annual rainfall varies from 20-50% with averages of up to 700 mm. Regarding livelihoods systems, in general, light pastoral use is possible in arid areas and rain fed agriculture is usually not possible. In the semi-arid areas agricultural harvests are likely to be irregular, although grazing is satisfactory (PRSP 2001).

In line with the foregoing characterization of ASALs, some twenty two districts in Kenya lie at least partially within the ASAL (Table 1).

Table 1 a) Area of Kenya, and b) Proportion of Districts Classified as ASAL

 

 

a)		Agro Ecological Zone		% r/EO		Area (km2)		% of Country
IV (semi humid)			40 – 50		27,000		5
V (semi-arid)			25 – 40		87,000		15
VI (arid)			15 – 25		127,000		22
VII (very arid)			<15		226,000		46

 

 

 

b)		Percent of District in ASAL Category	Districts		Percent of Total ASAL Area in Kenya
100			Isiolo, Marsabit, Garissa, Mandera, Wajir, Turkana		62
85 – 100			Kitui, Tana-River, Taita Taveta, Kajiado, Samburu		25
50 – 85			Embu, Meru, Machakos, Laikipia, West Pokot, Kilifi, Kwale, Baringo		10
30			Lamu, Narok, Elgeyo Marakwet		3

    Source: Darkoh (1990)

 

Historically, a livestock based economy has dominated much of Kenya’s ASAL and supported a large and diverse pastoral population (Table 1). While the pastoral population has risen rapidly over the past three decades, only slightly below the national average of 3.8 percent, cattle numbers during this time have fluctuated. Disease and drought have checked any long term increase in numbers and the present cattle population is close to the 1969 level of 2.8 million. Per capita livestock holdings have thus decreased, and many groups (the Turkana, Samburu, Somali and Pokot pastoralists in particular) are no longer able to maintain a purely livestock-based economy (Rutten 1992).

 

1. Population Trends in ASAL and Pastoral Areas
   

    

As stated earlier, ASAL areas support around 25% of Kenya’s population. Ethnic pastoralists are dominant in the fifteen arid pastoralist districts of Kenya as shown in the table below:

 

PROVINCE	DISTRICTS	POPULATION
North-Eastern	Mandera, Wajir, Garissa, Ijara	961,000
Coast	Tana River	183,000
Eastern	Moyale, Marsabit, Isiolo	277,000
Rift Valley	Turkana West Pokot and Baringo Samburu, Transmara, Kajiado and Narok	447,000 574,000 910,000
	TOTAL	3,352,000

(Source: Republic Of Kenya, Ministry Of Finance and Planning, Pastoralist Thematic Group on Poverty Reduction, 2001)

 

The pastoral people of Kenya hold 52% of the national livestock population and supply much of the meat marketed in Kenya. Improving livestock production and marketing is not only beneficial, but also can be the engine for the much needed economic diversification necessitated by population growth. Harnessing comparative regional advantages can consolidate the development of beneficial relationships between pastoralists and their non-pastoralist neighbours.

 

The revival of the livestock economy will enhance prospects for the favourable exploitation of other natural resources and the development of new sectors, e.g. eco-tourism and renewable energy generation. This requires, among other things, favourable policies, investment in physical and human resources, and the adoption of an administrative strategy that places the citizen in the central position.

 

3.3    PASTORAL LIVESTOCK POPULATIONS

Species	Pastoral areas	Rest of the country	Total National herd
Dairy cattle	Negligible	3 million	3 million
Other Cattle	4 million	5 million	9 million
Goats	6 million	6 million	12 million
Hair sheep	4 million	3 million	7 million
Wool sheep	Negligible	1 million	1 million
Camels	1 million	Negligible	1 million
TOTAL	15 million	18 million	33 million

(Source: Pastoralist Thematic Group on Poverty Reduction, 2001)

 

Areas of relatively productive land in the ASAL have increasingly attracted settlement as diversification from pure pastoralism has occurred. Cultivation around the relatively humid margins of rangelands and around the sparse ‘wetland in dryland‘ environments bordering rivers and swamps has grown rapidly. The expansion of cultivation has been further accelerated by the immigration of agriculturalists from more humid areas of the country. As a result many traditional pastoral areas are today inhabited by highly heterogeneous populations. For example the proportion of Maasai inhabiting Kajiado District decreased from 91 percent to 57 percent between 1948 and 1989.

 

3.4    Unique Conditions in Pastoral Areas

 

Kenya has one of the largest groups of pastoralist people in Africa, with not less than four million persons engaged in full time pastoralism, and several more millions deriving the bulk of their sustenance from pastoralist production. Kenya’s pastoral communities have adopted a lifestyle that unique to the world as well as a wealth of indigenous African culture.

 

Indeed pastoralists have developed highly resilient production systems well adapted to these formidable constraints. Despite decades of failed policies and a century of social exclusion in Kenya, traditional pastoralist systems have proved to be the most efficient and adaptive approaches to land use and resource management in the arid environments. However pastoralists have increasingly become more and more marginalized hence their concerns and issues have become national. Not only is endemic insecurity in pastoralist areas impacting on the highland fringes, the national economy can no longer do without the potential contribution of pastoralist production.

 

Pastoralist areas of Kenya have the highest incidences of poverty, and the lowest level of access to basic services. Although the Interim PRSP of 2000 incorporated a broad consensus at the national level, it made only passing references to pastoralist concerns.

 

 

Comparison of pastoralist and non-pastoralist areas with respect to development

From a poverty reduction standpoint, the pastoralist areas are disadvantaged when compared with non-pastoral areas almost in every sector.

4.0    A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE TO ASAL MANAGEMENT IN KENYA

 

In the pre-colonial era, Kenya’s pastoralists maintained close social and economic relationships with neighbouring agricultural communities. Cultivation was restricted almost entirely to the more humid upland margins of the ASAL, while the rangelands supported nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoral populations and large wildlife populations. Since the British colonized Kenya in 1895 policy for the development of the ASAL has been to expand agriculture, resulting in the social and economic marginalization of pastoral groups.

 

The alienation of land by the colonial government (especially between 1900 and 1915) and post independence land use policies such as the Trust Lands Act, the Land Act, the Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, all undermined traditional pastoral land use practices and brought agriculturalists, wildlife and pastoralists into conflict. Communal and indigenous land practice systems were thrown out of the window with the non-white and African populations thrown into relatively unproductive land while the white settlers occupied the most productive parts. The results of such policies have often been the exact opposite of the objectives they claimed to pursue. As Darkoh argues, “Because of this intervention, traditional responses to hazards in these areas have weakened. The results have been endemic poverty, famine, severe soil loss and rapid loss of productivity. When drought comes … the hazardousness of the environment and the processes of land degradation or desertification in these marginal lands are accelerated” (1990: 14).

 

The expense of the railway linking Mombasa and Lake Victoria (constructed to secure passage to Uganda) and the cost of the colonial administration necessitated the establishment of taxable economic enterprises (Kituyi 1990). The more productive areas of central and western Kenya were annexed for ranchers and farmers from the United Kingdom and South Africa. In stark contrast, little attention was paid to African cultivators and pastoralists (Bernard 1985). Colonial policy on the ASAL revealed the mismatch between the indigenous pastoral groups’ notions of resource management – shaped by experience and familiarity with the constraints of their environment – and the profit oriented and ill-informed technocratic approach adopted by the government. “The colonial administration in Kenya Maasailand provides a good example of the way in which attitudes and perceptions affected decisions concerning the environment” (Lado 1993: 160). The Orders-of-Council (1901) and Crown Land Ordinance (1902) placed control over land in the hands of the British Government, paving the way for wide scale alienation of productive land for the settlement of European immigrants. During the ‘Maasai Moves’ of 1904 and 1911 an estimated 10 000 Maasai pastoralists, 200 000 head of cattle and 500 000 small stock were moved from their homelands and confined to the Southern Maasai Reserve, inaugurating a process of environmental degradation in the areas into which the Maasai were restricted (Deacon and Darkoh 1987).

 

Pastoralists, and particularly the Maasai, suffered from two particular aspects of colonial policy. In addition to the loss of some of their most important lands, the colonial administration regarded them as savages needing to be civilized.

 

The partitioning of Kenya’s land for the benefit of European ranchers had a profound impact upon the pastoral community and the environment into which they were confined. The 1990s and early 2000 have witnessed some pastoral communities like the Maasai restricted to increasingly small areas of increasingly over-exploited land, resulting in intense competition and often conflict, between them and wildlife (and more recently those associated with the related tourism industry).

 

Pastoral communities in the Northern Frontier of Kenya have been reported to have running battles with wildlife over water resources. The loss of access to water was to have, perhaps, the most detrimental consequence. In Laikipia some pastoral communities in the area recently invaded the large ranches in the area mainly because they were denied access to water and grazing land during the dry season. Concerns about wildlife conservation also shaped land and natural resource policy during the colonial era. Initially, confinement of wildlife and pastoralists in the Southern Reserve exacerbated competition for grazing and water resources within the reserve. The situation was no different in the Northern pastoral and ASAL areas where national parks were carved out and fenced off without local community input. The creation of exclusive game conservation areas further denied the pastoralists access to key resources.

 

After decades of neglect the ‘African areas’ became a focus for government attention after World War II. The first wide-scale government intervention into the ASAL came with the establishment of the African Land Development Board (ALDEV) in 1946. The principal initiatives undertaken by ALDEV focused on water development and rangeland conservation, in part through reducing herd sizes within controlled grazing schemes. Grazing block schemes were established in the Maasai areas of Ilkisongo (covering 1 300 000 acres), Ilmatapato (880 000 acres) and Iloodokilani (1 920 000 acres).

 

In the 1950s the ‘Swynnerton Plan’ provided a more comprehensive policy framework for the intensification of agriculture throughout Kenya. The Plan recognised that ASAL areas required special attention, although few of its recommended dryland projects were implemented. The new structure for the administration of group registration areas presented far greater problems of role conflict and accountability than policymakers ever expected, for group registration did not simply alter the indigenous system of land administration; it altered the pattern of land use as well. The system of administration was altered by introducing a completely new medium through which authority over land was henceforth to be exercised, namely the group representatives. Although the Land (Group Representatives) Act is fairly general about who may hold office as a group representative, the emerging practice appeared to be that those elected to office were people who were at least able to read and write. Ordinarily, this would have raised no problems, had it not been for the fact that in those parts of the country where group ranches were set up, for example, the Maasai and Pokomo countries, the level of literacy was, for historical reasons, very low. Those assuming office as representatives tended, therefore, to be the younger, less influential members of indigenous society. This tended to slow down decision-making in many areas, since most decisions taken by the representatives still carried very little weight unless they were also channeled through indigenous levels of authority (H.W.O. Okoth Ogendo, 2002)

 

The pattern of land use was altered by severely restricting the nomadic character of pastoral communities without first improving their ability to adapt to semi-sedentary living. In particular, adequate steps were not taken to reduce the people’s dependence on seasonal availability of water and stock feed. One consequence of this was that in order to minimize drought risks, clans and families often found it necessary to split herds and join different ranching schemes, a course of action that was apt to put great strain on the social institutions of pastoral society.

 

The perception, arising from ALDEV, that the ASAL could make a significant contribution to the national economy, led to further attempts to commercialize livestock production and limit stock numbers. Traditional extensive pastoralism remained, in the eyes of the colonial administration, intrinsically detrimental to the environment and a constraint upon social and economic development. ASAL development was seen to require the intensification of cattle production, through boreholes, cattle dips, veterinary interventions and research and extension on pasture usage, allied to rainfed and irrigated agriculture wherever that was feasible.

 

The onset of drought throughout Kenya in the 1960s, again brought ASAL areas to the focus of attention. The Kenya Livestock Development Project (KLDP), funded by the World Bank, USAID, IDA, SIDA, CIDA and ODA, was started in 1969 to establish group and private ranching schemes in ASAL districts. Group ranches were formed in Kajiado, Narok, Samburu, Kwale, Pokot, Laikipia and Baringo Districts with title deeds issued to groups ranging from 30 to 450 pastoral households (Rutten 1992). The objectives behind KLDP were geared towards the commercialization of meat production and the creation of employment in the livestock sector. The sedentarisation of pastoralist groups facilitated the provision of state services, and allowed the state greater control over the communities. Strict grazing management regimes, backed up by improvements to infrastructure, were implemented to encourage commercialization. However the project was at best only partially successful. Commercial and employment goals were not achieved and the land adjudication process allocated key areas to individuals, often on the basis of economic or political standing (Lado 1993). This undermined the principles of communal access and reciprocity that underpinned the resource management pastoralist systems.

 

Droughts during the early and mid-1970s spurred a further review of policy towards Kenya’s ASAL resources. This was the era of integrated rural development planning and a number of experimental integrated development projects were established. In 1979 the Arid and Semi Arid Lands Programme was created, and foreign donors increasingly took out development ‘franchises’ in ASAL areas (Table 4). However, technical difficulties in raising productivity and a lack of political support have constrained the success of many ASAL Programmes (Adams 1990). A number of Programmes have, however, provided some semblance of integrated resource management in an otherwise highly fragmentary and uncoordinated institutional regime. On a more critical note, Darkoh (1990) suggests that many of the programmes have offered little more than ‘quick fix solutions’ to social and environmental problems rooted in the perception of pastoralism as ‘archaic’ and no longer viable under present day conditions.

 

Table 4: ASAL Integrated Development Programmes in Kenya 1989

 

DISTRICT	DONOR	YEAR STARTED	BUDGET 1988/89 (K£)*
Machakos	EEC	1978	348 700
Baringo	IDA	1979	27 160
Embu/Meru/ Isiolo	UK	1980	34 460
Turkana	Norway	1980-91	1 065 450
Kitui	USA Denmark	1981-87 1988	12 050
West Pokot	Netherlands	1982	157 020
Elgeyo Marakwet	Netherlands	1982	43 200
Kiambu	Netherlands	1983-88	**
Laikipia	Switzerland	1984	296 200
Kwale/Kilifi	IFAD	1984	72 900
Taita Taveta	Denmark	1985	144 000
Siaya	IFAD	1986	N/A
Bungoma	Norway	1987	N/A
Kajiado	Netherlands	1987	77 500

 

Source: Rutten (1992) *£1 = KSh 85 in 1995, K£1 = KSh20 **Dutch assistance in Kiambu stopped in 1988

 

With the encroachment of cultivation and the privatization of land, the viability of traditional forms of pastoralism such as rotational grazing systems, slash and burn grass regeneration and breeding regimes have been undermined, and the areas of relatively high productivity, which once underpinned pastoral systems, have become subject to ever increasing pressures. With Kenya’s population set to reach 35 million by 2008, (National Development Plan 2003 – 2008), and little prospect for rapid growth in the industrial and commercial sectors, economic policies in recent years have reiterated the need to fully exploit the country’s natural resources.

 

4.1    Pastoral Systems and Poverty

 

The explanation for the poverty of pastoral populations in the region is complex. Context of populations is different within and across countries. However, the process of programme development has highlighted the key factors which underpin the continuing poverty and suffering of pastoralists in Kenya, East Africa and the Horn of Africa region.

 

Most significantly, pastoral populations are marginalized from political decision making processes and have extremely low levels of participation and representation in the institutions which affect them. Pastoralist communities have proved limited in their ability to influence the key issues affecting them, such as access to land. Representation of pastoralists’ interests has been poor, even in Somaliland where pastoralists represent the majority of the population. Involvement by pastoralist groups in political processes is uniformly lower than other sectors of the populations. This can be explained partly by their remoteness from the centers of political power and lower education levels. Community based organizations and local NGOs are also much scarcer in pastoral areas and the costs of organizing greater given the sparse population and poor communications. Pastoralists themselves often have a negative view and low levels of awareness about political and governance institutions and their own rights of participation. At the same time, local and national government institutions have proved unresponsive to pastoralists needs and interests.

 

Contributing to poor representation, are negative ideas and beliefs towards pastoralism.
There is widespread misunderstanding about and discrimination against pastoralists. Among the non pastoral (and usually politically and economically dominant) ethnic groups within each country, pastoralists are frequently portrayed as backward, anti development, and anti state. This has been shared by policy makers who see pastoralists’ continued mobility as a threat to security in the border regions they inhabit. Pastoralists are perceived as lying outside the state’s economic (particularly taxation) and political jurisdiction. At the same time, from a technical perspective, line ministries have consistently failed to understand the nature of pastoral livelihoods and have sought to change them rather than strengthen them. Training of government staff based on western concepts of range management partly explain these attitudes. Frequently, the potential economic contribution of the livestock sector has been under-estimated and downplayed.

 

These attitudes towards pastoralism have been shared to an extent by external donors and academic communities. Stretching back to early last century, academic discourse around pastoralism focused on its economic irrationality, unsustainability and potential harmful effects on the environment. This shaped the approach of many donors towards support for range management and livestock development approaches based on restricting livestock numbers and movements. Such thinking has been successfully challenged during the 1990s by sections of the academic and NGO community but its impact remains among significant numbers of government, donor and NGO staff. Many are reluctant to support new (and more difficult to implement) approaches based on the priorities of pastoralists themselves.

 

A key issue contributing to pastoralists’ poverty and vulnerability is reducing access to and control over grazing land. In Kenya, pastoralists lack secure rights to the land they use. This has enabled previously open and communally held range land, controlled by customary institutions, to be allocated to agriculture, game parks or enclosed as private grazing land. Control of key production sites – river courses, swampy areas, high elevation areas, areas with better water supplies and more palatable vegetation – is increasingly contested, and pastoralists usually the losers. State mechanisms have been unwilling to recognize or support pastoralists’ customary land and natural resource management mechanisms. Such mechanisms themselves have been weakened and undermined in recent years. Governments and many development agencies have prioritized support to agriculture rather than pastoralism and to sedentary over pastoral populations.

 

The result has been an increase in cultivation in pastoral areas and shrinking of communal grazing areas. At the same time, absence of effective land use and natural resource management mechanisms has led to unplanned expansion of water points and settlements in many grazing areas leading to breakdown of seasonal grazing patterns. These trends have meant increased stock concentrations and reduced seasonal mobility of livestock in more restricted range lands with consequent impact on availability of fodder and range productivity.

 

There have therefore been fundamental changes in the nature of pastoralism pursued by many communities. In particular, reduction in pastoral mobility, moves to a more sedentary form of pastoralism – often combined with some form of agriculture – and changes in herd composition (e.g. from camels to cattle). Such changes have positive aspects. More sedentary lifestyles provide pastoralists with better access to services. The growth of agriculture also provides some income to destitute households. However, these trends have in many cases increased vulnerability of pastoral livelihoods. Reduced availability of grazing resources affects livestock production and health. Reduction in mobility and changes in herd composition have undermined drought coping strategies. In addition, agriculture has proved unsustainable in many pastoral areas, given high temporal and spatial variability in rainfall.

 

Pastoralists have poor access to basic health and education services. Health indicators among pastoral communities compare poorly with other sections of the population. For example, in Eritrea, in 1993-4 under 5 mortality in pastoral areas was 254 per 1000 births compared with 116 per 1000 overall. Statistics on delivering education to pastoralists in the Horn and East Africa are equally poor with extremely low primary enrolment and literacy rates. In Uganda, children in Karamoja are three times less likely to attend school than children in other parts of the country and female illiteracy is 7.5 times higher than in other areas (RWA International, 2000). In Kenya, the national literacy rate is 79.3% (UNDP 1999) compared with 3% for Maasai in Kajiado District and for Somali in Mandera (Chanyelew and Sulieman, 1996).

 

These indicators are partly explained by the fact that government spending per capita on these services is considerably less in sparsely populated pastoral areas. There are fewer school and health facilities and less teachers and health staff compared to non pastoral areas. NGOs also often place a higher priority on service delivery to settled agricultural communities. At the same time, modes of basic service delivery to pastoralists are frequently inappropriate. Pastoral mobility is perceived as a ‘problem’ which services cannot cater for and therefore settlements are the focus. In the 1990s, under structural adjustment policies, the limited education and health services available to pastoralists declined in quality and availability.

 

The reasons for low school attendance among pastoral communities in the region may be more complex. Ignorance of the value of education or labour demands for herding are frequently sited reasons. However, low school enrolment may also be due to a perception among pastoralists that formal education, as currently provided, undermines the principles on which pastoral livelihoods are based. Formal education places no value on the local practices and institutions of pastoral communities. In this way it may introduce new divides into households and communities and undermine customary institutions.

 

Provision of water for livestock is often inappropriate or inadequate. There are many instances of new water sources provided – as an apparently simple technical solution to pastoralists problems – which fail to take account of seasonal range resource use and migration patterns. Inappropriate water development has resulted in some cases in breakdown of wet and dry season grazing patterns, leading to continuous grazing and reduction in availability of forage and in turn to declining livestock productivity. Local government capacity for effective planning of new water, in balance with range resources, is often limited. Management of mechanised water points is another key issue – many are inefficiently run under a framework of government ownership but in the context of reducing government inputs. Breakdown of such water points during the dry season frequently results in devastating losses of livestock. Community management can offer a better solution but hand over from government has frequently involved limited consultation or capacity building, thus exacerbating problems.

region.

 

Access to veterinary drugs and services
is generally poor for pastoralists across the region. The livestock sub sector, as a whole, has been afforded low priority by governments. Pastoral communities, in particular, have historically had less privileged access to veterinary services. State veterinary services in the region have mainly concentrated on static provision in higher potential areas. Pastoralists’ herds as a result are less productive and have been more affected by serious diseases such as CBPP, rinderpest and foot and mouth. Since the introduction of structural adjustment policies, there has been a move to privatisation of veterinary services across the region, with the state role reducing to key core functions. This has resulted in reduced access to veterinary services for most pastoral communities because state services have not received sufficient funds even to fulfil their core roles; the private veterinary sector has been unable to fill the gap left; and development of sustainable service delivery in pastoral areas has received little consideration.

 

Community based animal health services – focusing on training of pastoralists as ‘para-vets’ – offer a potential model for sustainable veterinary service provision in pastoral areas. Local approaches along these lines have been developed by Oxfam GB and others. However, coverage is currently limited to a few areas. Expansion of this approach to effectively cover pastoral areas is constrained in most countries of the region by lack of agreed training curricula, government restrictions on the role of community animal health workers, and resistance from veterinary professionals.

 

Pastoralist producers frequently do not get a fair price for their products. Although livestock constitutes an important sector of the economy for all countries in the region, livestock marketing
from pastoral areas is inefficient. Marketing infrastructure – in the form of roads and stock routes, holding grounds, etc – to enable rapid and efficient off-take is weak. Marketing is also constrained by insecurity in the movement of stock to market; movement restrictions within countries (e.g. quarantine restrictions, movement permits etc from pastoral areas); and movement restrictions across national boundaries (e.g. trade restrictions, inefficient border procedures etc). In addition, there are limited incentives for pastoralists to sell livestock: there are few marketing channels within countries – creating ‘buyers markets’; there is limited availability of goods to buy; and there are few opportunities to invest income from sales. The result is poor terms of trades for pastoralists: low prices paid for their livestock and high prices for the goods they buy. Closely related to problems of livestock marketing is the poor state of basic infrastructure and communications in all pastoral. Poor or absent road networks restrict trading and increase costs of goods.

 

Drought occurs periodically in pastoral areas in the region and the marginalisation of pastoral communities is most obvious and its effect most keenly felt during such times. Vulnerability to drought is related to their pastoralists’ inability to make effective claims on government compared to other sectors of the population. Government and donor response to drought in pastoral areas has often been slow and inadequate. There is evidence that droughts have become more frequent and their effects more severe over the past two decades. Poor terms of trade for pastoralists are most acute during droughts when livestock in poor condition flood markets which have no capacity for dealing with increased off take, causing prices to plummet. At the same time, cereal availability is low and their price to pastoralists rise. A number of drought early warning initiatives have been established in the Horn and East Africa since the 1980s. Significant progress has been made in drought management in Kenya in recent years with potential read across to other countries.

 

Conflict is endemic to pastoral areas in the region. Violent conflict occurs at inter-state level across international borders that divide pastoral areas, including through support to proxy groups in pastoral areas. This has affected communities along the Kenya and Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda boarders. Localised conflict within and between pastoral groups is also significant. This type of conflict has been transformed in recent decades through access to modern weapons and commercialisation of livestock raiding. Conflict is responsible for significant loss of life among pastoral communities every year and destitution for victims of large scale livestock raiding especially in the Northern Frontier Districts, the Baringo area, certain areas in the North Rift and along the Kenya Uganda boarder. Conflict exacerbates vulnerability of pastoral livelihoods in a number of ways: it limits pastoral mobility, and therefore access to best water and pasture; it undermines effective provision of key services such as education or livestock vaccination; and it restricts private sector activity and investment. Conflict has resulted in huge displacement for pastoral groups in the region – often from one pastoral area to another – placing stress on natural resources. For example, south east Ethiopia has supported hundreds of thousands of Somali refugees in the past decade. Women often suffer a disproportionate impact of modern pastoral conflict.

 

Conflict in pastoral areas is sustained by several key factors. State level conflicts in the region have been fought through pastoral populations who are armed by both sides. Small arms have proliferated in pastoral areas and enabled ‘traditional’ raiding to be conducted on an ever larger scale. The Kenyan governments’ response to local pastoral conflicts has been mainly ineffective and at times inappropriate, involving serious human rights abuses or at times local government aligning with a particular side. Customary mechanisms which retain the ability to manage conflicts such as fines, curses, taboos, dialogue and banishment have been largely ignored and at times undermined by state response. Recent approaches in northern Kenya suggest potential alternative state approaches to conflict management.

 

Finally, global policies also underpin pastoral poverty. Pastoral populations number several tens of millions of people and include herders in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, south America and south west, south and central Asia,. There is an increasing demand for livestock protein globally. This is responsible for moves towards larger scale and intensified livestock farming, industrialization and greater market integration of livestock producers. However pastoral producers are yet to share significantly in the benefits of the ‘livestock revolution’. In particular, policies and practices at an international level, which impact negatively on poor livestock owners include trade policies limiting access to markets and subsidies for livestock production in developed countries
(Oxfam Pastoral Programme, 2002 – 2005).

 

4.5    Why Invest in Pastoral Areas?

 

• Pastoralism as a production system makes the best use of natural resources in the rangelands and is currently the most suited approach to the development of the arid districts, other external factors notwithstanding. In fact, it is estimated that the cost of putting rangelands into other uses could be 50 times higher than supporting current land use systems in ASALs.    
  
• The value of the livestock resource base in the ASALs is currently estimated at about 70 billion Kenya shillings. This has the potential to grow and to contribute to the national economy. In 1988 for example, hides and skins exports ranked fourth in foreign exchange earnings for the country. More than 80% of these products were from the ASALs. This potential still exists even today.    
  
• Pastoralism provides direct employment and livelihood to over 3.5 million Kenyans.
  
• The symbiotic interaction between wildlife and pastoralism and the resultant tourist attraction provides the Kenyan economy with more than 50 billion Kenya shillings every year. The development of the ASALs will enhance this symbiotic relationship and raise national income.
  
• There exists an important symbiotic economic relationship between ASALs and the high rainfall areas. Pastoral areas produce beef and other livestock products while higher rainfall areas produce crop-based products. The supply and demand interaction of this relationship is very important for the national economy. The development of ASALs will increase incomes and the demand for products from the higher rainfall areas.
  
• There is need to solve the perennial and very expensive drought-related food crises through long term structural development aspects as opposed to using ad hoc short-term interventionist measures. Managing droughts is expensive; but not managing droughts is even more expensive. For example, during this financial year, 2000/2001, the government will spend Ksh. 4.8 billion on relief food to combat the current drought emergency. This does not include the World Food Programme’s and other stakeholder contributions. It also does not include non-food emergency interventions. The May 2000 UN and GoK joint appeal raised USD 121,029,702 and this has already been spent and exhausted. Another appeal has now been made for a further USD 122,650 146. These figures can be interpreted as being the “cost of doing nothing” to address long-term structural development challenges in the ASALs.
  

   

      The above cost does not include the cost of the loses of livelihoods in terms of livestock and during the most severe droughts human lives. It is estimated that with a quarter of the total amount above, the Government could put in place a more effective and efficient system that addresses long term food insecurity in the arid and semi arid areas of this country.
  

• The potential for mineral exploitation e.g. Titanium, Limestone, Gold, Soda Ash, etc. from ASALs exists. For example, the sale of soda ash from Lake Magadi provides substantial revenues to the national economy.
  
• Pastoralists still remain culturally conservative. It is here that you find some of the most well preserved cultural and heritage values in Kenya. This is an important aspect of our development as a country, although it is difficult to affix a monetary value to a nation’s cultural heritage.
  
• Most ASALs border neighbouring countries and are therefore very strategic in terms of national security. The development of the ASALs will buffer the country from infiltration of bandits from neighbouring countries including illegal arms transfer from these countries.
  
• Pastoralists, like other Kenyans pay taxes and have a right to development.    
  

5.0    DEFINITIONS

 

In order to understand the focus of this study, it is necessary to define and distinguish between the terms policy and legislation.

 

5.1    What is Policy?

A policy is a course of action or inaction chosen by public authorities to address a given problem or interrelated set of problems. Policy is a course of action that is anchored in a set of values regarding appropriate public goals and a set of beliefs about the best way of achieving those goals. The idea of public policy assumes that an issue is no longer a private affair (Dr. Robert Wolf, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University).

Glen Milne, in his book Making Policy: A Guide to the Federal Government’s Policy Process, describes policy “…as intention and direction. Policy directs, but does not consist of, operational programs and details.”

In the best case, public policy, and public policy development should be driven by a vision of the future that builds the capacity of our society to achieve a safe, healthy, and prosperous, country. It must be recognized, though, that although all many political parties would embrace those themes, the specific policy directions they choose to achieve them may differ widely. So, from government to government and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction it must be accepted that that people with good intentions can differ profoundly on the policies needed to achieve common goals. This produces the dynamic tension between the stakeholders in policy development, and it is from this tension, and the consensus building that accommodates it, that strong policy is developed.

5.2    What is Legislation

    

There are a number of definitions given for the legislation. Below are a few definitions from various sources:

1. Law enacted by a legislative body.
   
2. The act of making or enacting laws – also known as legislating.
   
3. Written and approved laws. Also known as “statutes” or “acts.” In constitutional law, one would talk of the “power to legislate” or the “legislative arm of government” referring to the power of political bodies (e.g.: house of assembly, Congress, Parliament) to write the laws of the land.
   
4. Written and approved laws. Also known as “statutes” or “acts.” In constitutional law, one would talk of the “power to legislate” or the “legislative arm of government” referring to the power of political bodies (e.g.: house of assembly, Congress, Parliament) to write the laws of the land.
   
5. Primary legislation is laws enacted by Parliament, known as statutes or Acts of Parliament. In general, statutes contain major policy and legal provisions and often contain enabling powers for Ministers to make secondary legislation.
   
6. The name given to a law or set of laws that have passed the Legislative Assembly and been gazetted by the Chief Minister.
   

5.3    What is Conflict?

    

Conflict has many facets and dimensions. However for the purposes of this report, conflict is defined as the disagreements between two or more people, groups or communities (Adan, Masinde & Ruto, ITDG-EA). It can be a disagreement over the use of natural resources such as water, grazing land or disputes over livestock or land. Most of these sort of conflicts are prevalent in ASAL areas more so because the resources in these areas are scarce and not managed sustainably.

 

 

5.4    INSTITUTIONS AND POLICIES

 

Institutions, whether individual organizations or groups of institutions generate standards or policies which in essence regulate human conduct. These policies may either be official or unofficial.

 

Policies therefore include intellectual stands, measures, instruments or standards that emanate from official or non-official institutions. In Kenya as in other parts of the world, policies often originate from various official institutions such as:

 

1. Intergovernmental organizations
   
2. Committees, special commissions and working groups set up by governments
   
3. Government bodies
   
4. Local government bodies
   

    

They may also come from unofficial institutions for example: –

 

1. NGOs and foundations
   
2. Associations or interest groups
   
3. Community organizations
   
4. Self-help groups
   
5. Leaders or elders of a community.
   

6.0    THE POLICY SCENARIO

    

In order to fully comprehend Kenya’s policy framework, it is necessary to elaborate on the policy scenario during Kenya’s pre-colonial era and how certain policies have evolved since then. Given the key resources found in ASALs, an attempt has been made to provide a chronology on how certain policies in ASALs have evolved: –

 

6.1    Pasture, Water and Livestock

 

Pre-colonial Period

 

During the colonial period pastoral communities were able to maintain a reasonable balance between pasture, water resources and livestock. This was done through the flexibility in the use of range resources. In addition, the environmental perception, the skills, knowledge and attitudes developed by each community facilitated the maintenance of this ecological balance.

 

The common feature of the pastoral nomadic communities was communal ownership of land. Hence, each pastoral group owned a territory. Land-use within the tribal territory was through extensive grazing, based on seasonal distribution of rainfall and the availability of water and forage. Controlled grazing systems, with patterns of landuse divided up into dry season, wet season and drought reserves existed (Oba, 1990).

 

Livestock therefore moved from one zone to another throughout the years as circumstances demanded. Migration was perhaps the major adaptive strategy applied by all pastoralists in the utilization of limited forage and water resources. The principal goal of all pastoral families was to build herds large enough to meet the family’s socio-economic and subsistence needs. If a family was successful in building large herds, this increased its socio-economic and cultural opportunities. Large herds acted as insurance against drought, diseases and raids.

 

Hence, we what emerged was a highly organised and complex system of livestock keeping by the pastoral communities during the Pre-colonial period. This system was in balance with the prevailing environmental conditions. In addition, their economies were not completely isolated from those of neighbouring agricultural communities. When milk supply was low, they would always supplement their diet with grains primarily obtained by barter trade and other non-market transactions. (Kelly, 1993). This system of livestock keeping and pasture utilization was grossly interfered with by the coming of colonialism.

 

Colonial Period

 

Colonialism in Kenya brought with it the transformation of the pastoral and nomadic societies. Just as with the land issue livestock keeping and

ts cultural importance to ASAL communities was seen as a problematic aspect of the colonial development process.

 

The 1902 Crownlands Act and its strengthening in 1909, grazing land for ASAL communities was annexed to facilitate the settlement of white farmers as well as for the exclusive use of wildlife. This had a direct impact on pastoral communities in that they were pushed further into the drier areas with consequent loss of animals due to drought and lack of water. This also lead to increased environmental degradation. The colonial administration therefore introduced an ethnocentrically “British” image of the pastoralist and his livestock. This formed the basis of the policy formulation for the “development” of the ASAL areas. Thus, as Collet D. (in Anderson,1989 :129) states “The administrative goal for the pastoralists is sedentarization and the conversion of the pastoralists into agriculturalists.” The consequences of failure to accept such a transition were bluntly spelt out, ” the pastoralist either alters his habits or ceases to exist.”

 

Policy during this period equated nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralism with a primitive and under developed form of social order contrasted with European civilization. Consequently, the ultimate negligence of the pastoral communities in the gaining economically from European contact. This notion and thinking was the basis of policy development throughout the colonial period. Hence, pastoralism was not seen as a viable form of production in the ASAL environment. The pastoralists were removed from their traditional grazing lands. In this regards, the establishment of boundaries to separate European from Africa lands. The Akamba are a case in point. Most of the grazing lands were immediately transformed into ordered farmlands which had a serious impact on the livelihoods of the communities, their livestock and even wildlife ( Colett D. in Anderson ,1989 : 140).

 

The colonial period also introduced another element into the lives of communities in ASAL areas. While both sedentary and nomadic pastoralism continued to exist, the commercial aspect of cattle keeping changed the value and lifestyle of the livestock keepers in Kenya. It is important to note that among the ASAL communities, cattle were not kept for sale or profit. Thus, “cattle rustling and raiding had been the only source of replacing lost herds.” ( Ogutu in R.Ochieng in 1990 :41). The purchase of animals spread them into other communities usually against the will of the pastoral communities.

 

Commercial pastoralism pioneered by Lord Delemare soon led to further marginalisation of the ASAL regions. The European farms reared both beef and dairy cattle which led to the establishment of Kenya Co-operative Creameries to prepare and market milk products. Similarly the Kenya Meat Commission was established to check overstocking in places like Ukambani.

 

Commercial pastoralism was adopted as the only alternative of improving livestock in the marginal areas. Consequently, with the Local Government Ordinance Act, markets were opened everywhere in the reserves and livestock keeping begun to take new functions. This European form of “pastoralism” was characterised by the creation of ranches that covered the less hostile ASAL areas. The indigenous ASAL communities were pushed further into marginal areas, and this eventually created overstocking and the ensuing environmental degradation in the areas. The ASAL communities were thus put into these vicious cycle of poverty.

 

It is therefore clear that before colonisation pastoral ommunities depended on the inter-relationship between four main parameters: the needs of the people, the cultural belief systems, the resources at their disposal (mainly livestock) and the activities involved in the utilization of these resources i.e. the grazing skills in relation to changing climatic conditions. With colonisation however, the traditional systems of livestock keeping were broken and hence the ensuing conflict between traditional and agro-pastoralists; between national parks and past. This conflict spilled over in to the post-colonial period in Kenya.

 

The Post-colonial Period

 

At independence, the new government more or less chose to continue with the development model introduced earlier by the colonialists. Though the Policy Paper No.1 of 1965 was to form the basis of development for the country, other policy documents largely maintained status quo. This, therefore led to the further marginalisation of the major resources of the ASAL people. With passage of time, there was a general feeling that the ASAL communities should also benefit from the fruit of independence despite the enormous cost of harnessing the resources.

 

This is reflected in the 1964-1974 Development Plan which states that ” although the development of the pastoral areas will yield lower returns, they will receive greater attention than in the past.” Attention at this time was focused on the development of ranching. To increase beef production, the government aimed at “improving the ranching practices of the pastoral people of Kenya.” However, this was not clearly spelt out possibly because the pastoral communities had not at any one time adopted “ranching” in the real sense of the word and as part of the adaptive strategies and sustainable livelihoods.

 

It was not until 1974 that another review of the impacts of past policies for ASAL livestock development was done. This revealed the fact that the ASAL people had become even poorer, their grazing pastures had become devastated by lack of enough water, rainfall as well as by serious environmental degradation.

 

Consequently the government underscored the need for research and trial programmes with the resultant the 1976 Semi-Arid lands Pre-investment Study teams were established. Their main task was to quantify the developable resources in the ASAL areas and suggest suitable projects. (Development Plan 1974-1978 : 198).

 

Despite the effort by the Government, the policies still never concretized the development of the livestock industry in the ASAL regions. In fact, it came as a shock to planners that up to 1979 no tangible achievement in terms of poverty reduction had been achieved.

 

In the early 1970’s the rangelands contributed 20% of the estimated national output of beef. After five years (1975) their contribution had dropped to 13.5% in the face of greater production from the more popular areas of higher potential. Chemonics, (1977) predicted that as the grazing land were ASAL faced with the problem of land being turned into agriculture, implying further impoverishment of the communities.

 

What is clear is that the policies failed to recognize the fact that traditional pastoralism, unlike ranching, is a subsistence activity which has the capacity and can support more people on the same area of land. In addition, ownership of livestock lies in far more hands and that herd structure and management are geared to the production of several different resources. It is also essential to recognize that the sale of pastoralists, cattle particularly in the 1970s for cash was a last solution in to save the stock from starvation and death. At this point, the settler would normally receive low prices because of the large supply of similar low quality beasts (Meadows and White 1979).

 

Failure of the early post-independent policies promoted the government to formulate specific ones geared towards poverty reduction. These were to be achieved through the ten ongoing range management programmes, pre-investment studies and rationalization of all development programmes. Three river basin development Authorities within ASAL areas were established and the Ministry of water completed the first phase of the national Masterplan for the Kenyan waters. In recognition of the importance of livestock of in the economy of the ASALS, the Ministry of Education initiated a project to construct arid zone educational centres to provide both formal and informal residential education.

 

Environmental degradation, devastation of livestock during severe droughts and the need for famine relief at such times has forced the Government to re-address ASAL development policies in the 1990s. For instance, the 1989 to 1993 Development plan stated that “it is quite clear to everyone now, that livestock remains the most profitable way of utilizing the extensive rangelands of the ASAL.” Thus, all policies for the 1990s and beyond have been based on that notion. Various documents indicate that the policy would be achieved through disease control, range rehabilitation, water harvesting techniques and restocking (GOK, 1992).

 

Due to the experiences of severe drought in the last few years, several government agencies and NGOS have tended to concentrate more on restocking. This has been due to the fact that pastoralists say they can anticipate minor drought every three or four years and a major drought every ten years or so. (Kelley, 1993 :4). Drought is not the only type of disaster which affects livestock in ASALS, decimation of herds by fatal diseases also poses a serious threat.

 

The aim of restocking policy is normally to help people to re-establish or increase their livestock holdings and implicitly far than to return to a semi-nomadic pastoral way of life with their herds (Kelley,1993 :6). The restocking, like all other policies for rehabilitating local production systems is a short-term relief programme.

 

To reduce livestock loss particularly during bad seasons, the Government passed a motion urging the setting up of marketing facilities for beef production in the rangelands. It was also proposed that the Kenya Meat Commission should be privatised in line with Kenya’s on-going privatisation policy.

 

Marketing infrastructure for livestock in ASAL regions has been needed for many years. Farmers have to trek long distances to dispose off their animals to buyers. Transporting animals in this way means a loss of weight for animals and hence lower prices for the pastoralists. Therefore, the policy for introducing the pastoralists to the cash economy does not seem to have been backed by the required infrastructure. This further leads to the impoverishment of the pastoralist and a loss to the country in terms of beef production.

 

It can therefore be argued that that the present livestock development policies for ASALs evolved from a recognition of inadequacies of previous ones in addressing the basic needs of the pastoralists. During the colonial era the ASAL were dismissed as economically dead. However, current policies which acknowledge the potential of the pastoralists economy, are nonetheless unacceptable by local people. These policies are mainly based on profit maximization, a concept which is non existent among the pastoralists. Indeed, the 1994-1996 Development plan alludes to the failure of past policies when it states that “despite efforts to develop the ASALs, numerous constraints still exist which have slowed down many of the development projects; for example harsh and complex environment , threat of drought ,resource scarcity,low land potential using present technology….”. (Development Plan, 1993-1996:142).

 

6.2    Wildlife and Tourism

 

Wildlife and tourism are closely inter-related. As a country, Kenya is known the world over for its wildlife resources and tourism. Forest ecosystems comprise about 2% of the total land area in Kenya and are vital as both wildlife habitats and water catchment areas.

 

The majority of Kenya’s wildlife are to be found within the ASALs meaning that most of the country’s foreign exchange is derived from the ASALs. The tourism sector has been the single leading foreign exchange earning sector and since 1987. The earnings from the sector have been increasing steadily to the extent that these earnings have been more than those from combined coffee, tea and traditional foreign exchange earners (GOK, 1993).

 

Consequently, the sector is of great importance as it relates to foreign exchange and revenue to the central government and local authorities in the ASALs. Despite the important role of tourism industry, a number of factors hinder its development and direct benefits to the communities. First, there is no tourism development Master Plan leading to inadequate planning and coordination in the sector. This is reflected in the past plans which saw tourism and wildlife in terms of maximizing net returns subject to economic, social, cultural and environmental constraints (GOK,1993: 194.).

 

Second, some wildlife species have been severely depleted by “poaching”. Fencing of privatized and farmland has blocked movement corridors between wet seasons and dry-season wildlife ranges. Third, unplanned tourism can be detrimental to wildlife. In the ASAL areas around Maasai Mara, where there has been a proliferation of tourism camps, the number of tourists and intensified use of the area has been raised to levels that are sometimes damaging to the ecosystems. For instance, off the road driving can cause soil erosion and disturb birds and animals in their natural habitats. Tourism, unless carefully planned to benefit and integrate the needs of the local communities may lead to the displacement and economic marginalization of the ASAL communities.

 

6.3    Health Care

 

The provision of health care is not only a basic need but also a pre-requisite for economic development. Generally, the health status of a country can be assessed by a number of indicators including the crude death rate, infant mortality rate and life expectancy at birth and the number of medical staff and facilitators, available per unit population GOK (1989:19).

 

Pre-Colonial Period

 

In Kenya, like many African countries, the communities had different ways of categorizing disease and illness. This was due to environmental perception and cultural adaption. There were traditional healers with multi-specialisation including bone setting and mid-wifery. Many communities living both in ASALs and high potential areas still “seek treatment in traditional medicine, ethnomedicine and modern medicine simultaneously for the same episode of illness or for different illness” (Sindiga 1990: 138).

 

Colonial Period

 

It can be said that the Western biomedical facilities were brought by the early European missionaries at the end of the nineteenth century. These early health facilities were located away from the African population, mainly in towns and areas where the Europeans were found.

 

The early colonial policy was to replace traditional medical practice with the Western one. It was only after the country suffered severe losses from several diseases epidemics which included small pox, malaria and plague that the colonial administrators set up health facilities in the African areas closer to urban centres and European population. In addition, the colonial government began to subsidise the church health centres.

 

Post-Colonial Period

 

The health care delivery system at the time of Independence in 1963 was very inadequate in terms of the number distribution of medical facilities and personnel. As a result, there was high incidence of morbidity and death rate especially child mortality (GOK 1989:3). It was welcome move by many communities when the Government declared free medical services and instituted programmes to spread health services to the rural areas through increasing both physical and human resources.

 

The Post-Independence health has aimed at reducing the uneven distribution of health facilities. This involves the improvement of access to health facilities and disparity between districts. Another aspect of the post-independence health care delivery system has been the establishment and expansion of the medical training centre at Kenyatta National Hospital to include the training of nurses, public health officers and pharmaceutical technologists. In addition, college of Health Sciences of University of Nairobi and Moi Universities have also Medical Schools. The independent Government has also helped to construct many health facilities on self-help basis “Harambee”. Through this Institutional set up the old health centres have been expanded to include wings which are now called “Nyayo Wards”.

 

The 1970s, 1980s and 1990s have witnessed the expansion and improvement of primary health care delivery system to the rural areas. Despite, these commendable efforts the ASALs are yet to health care delivery system closer to the population concentrations away from the urban areas.

 

Today, some of the health centres still suffer from lack of equipment, staff and drug shortages. Non-governmental organizations have also played a significant role in the improvement of the primary health care delivery system in the ASALs. The current government policy is from curative to preventive services through improvement of personal hygiene, sanitation, clean water supply nutrition, housing, health education and disease control.

 

6.4    Dryland Farming and Agroforestry

 

Dryland farming and agro-forestry offer alternative livelihood systems in the ASALs. The major colleges of agricultural development in these areas have already been discussed and include the inherent uncertainty of rainfall, high evapo-transpiration rates, low organic matter, levels, several labour bottle necks, poor roads and marketing systems, and salinity and attendant soil degradation.

 

Sustainable livelihood systems based on dryland farming depend on the systems that conserve the scarce water resources for crop production through rain water harvesting technologies. In addition, to the following;

 

a)    Early land preparation and dry early planting in rows to allow inter-row cultivation;

b)    Inter-Cropping maize with pulses and confining the area of millet and sorghum to localize pure stands to minimize the bird scaring requirement;

c)    Use of improved varieties including maize, sorghum, pigeon peas and green grams; and

d)     Use of animal manure and/or fertilizer and pest control in the field and the store.

6.4.1    Forestry

 

Until the late 1990’s, the activities of the Forest Department within the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources concentrated on the production and protection in the high potential areas of the country. Not much focus was directed to ASAL areas though in general the major goal for such efforts in these areas was to protect isolated hillside water catchments. The Department is however currently making a spirited effort to involve the local community in tree planting as measure to achieve environmental conservation. This is being done through bushland management and social forestry.

 

The major challenge is low and unreliable illegal exploitation of ASAL bush and forest the issue of property rights when it comes to the social forestry establishment. Forest and woodland are resources are dwindling as a result of pressure for domestic energy, fencing building poles.

 

6.5    Environmental Degradation and Conservation in the ASALs

 

Development experts are hard pressed to find a connection between ASALs which are characterized by comparatively low population density, pressure on available resources and environmental degradation. However the reality is that the ASAL natural base is very low and any slight imbalance between population and supporting resources can result in environmental degradation or desertification. Desertification has been defined as land degradation in arid and semi-arid dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors including climatic variations and human activities (UN 1992) a result of the realization of the fact that desertification is major economic, social and environmental problem of concern to many countries in all regions of the world, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) called on the UN General Assembly to establish an Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INCD) to prepare for Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa. The convention was adopted in June 1994 in Paris.

 

Land-use trends which include migration of people from high potential to the ASALs; displacement of pastoralists through the expansion of agriculture, urbanization and gazettment of land for conservation; conversion of key production areas to crop production. Sedentarization of pastoralists, land privatization ,overuse of range resources , overuse of water resources, have all lead to land degradation. Land-use trends and population migration from the high potential areas to the ASALs and from the ASALS to the rural, urban centres and water points have affected the environment in a number of ways. First, the displacement of pastoralists through the expansion of agriculture, urbanization and gazettment of land for conservation purposes have reduced the amount of land available for extensive pastoral livestock economy. This has reduced the adaptive strategies of the pastoralists which was based on the movement and flexibility of range resources. This conversion of the key production areas to cultivation by the agro-pastoralists has made pastoralists vulnerable to drought and the attendant famine.

 

Sedentarisation of pastoralists to availability of such central services as education, health, water, veterinary and relief services has led to environmental degradation through overgrazing, vegetation and overuse of wood and water resources.

 

The implementation of the Resolution on the Urgent Action for Africa is pertinent to the eradication of poverty and land degradation in the ASALs of Kenya. The Government has come up with a number of National Action Programme to meet this requirement. Similarly the NGOs have formed a National Coordinating Committee to Combat Desertification (NNCCD) which aims at awareness creation the ASAL communities, among other things.

 

5.6    Infrastructure and Enterprise Development

 

The development of social services and public infrastructure is necessary to support the socio-economic development of the ASALs. It includes water supply, sanitation, solid waste management, drainage, ventilation and lighting. Any settlement that lacks basic or infrastructural facilities suffers a loss in the quality of life of its residents. Similarly, the management of these facilities have a far reaching effect on the environment. However the provision of these services during the Pre-colonial and colonial periods and to a certain extent the independence period, were significantly less widespread especially in the ASALs.

 

At independence, most of the policies formulated to promote development in the ASALs tended to concentrate more on livestock, agriculture and environmental management, thus giving very little priority to the development of social infrastructure. In 1986, through the Sessional paper No.1, the Government realized the urgent need to address the issue. Thus, the policy paper states that” priority would be given to infrastructure development that promoted growth of productive employment in small scale agro-industry manufacturing and commercial enterprise.”

 

In outlining this broad policy the Government also recognized the need to create non-farm job opportunities in the informal sector to absorb the increasing ASAL population. Despite that attention, a look at most of the rural access and minor roads within the ASAL regions show poor or no development at all. Indeed only a few major urban centres within the ASAL areas have electricity, water and non-motorable roads during the rainy season. Other major services are non-existent in the majority of the urban areas within the ASALS,the interior is worse.

 

By 1989, not much had been achieved in terms of infrastructural development in the ASALS a factor that led to a major re-orientation of overall development policy in the country. There was the incorporation of the structural adjustment process in the land development planning. The structural adjustment process, (SAPS) which basically was seen as ” the implementation of comprehensive shifts in macro and micro policies to rectify inappropriate past policies.

 

The policies of international lending institutions such as the World Bank, had negative impacts on infrastructural development in the ASALs. Unfair terms of trade, wasteful consumption patterns in the North, transfer of inappropriate technologies, trade liberation, political patronage, and total disregard of peoples culture and values have all served to aggravate the land degradation problems in the ASALS (Awori A. and Odhiambo O. 1993. 14)

 

In an effort to address the problem of low incomes in the ASALS, the Government proposed the establishment of a series of rural trade and production centres (RTPCS), which were meant to act as nuclei for economic activity, providing markets and outlets for products within the districts. There was the need therefore to provide the necessary infrastructural facilities to the RTPCS, a process which is still going on with the aid of donor funds.

 

With the rapidly increasing population in the ASALs, demand for infrastructure and social services will also rise. In addition to this, the available labour force in the ASAL urban areas is also increasing. Therefore, there is need to promote the establishment of labour absorbing enterprises particularly in the informal sector. This will help to check the expected migration to larger urban areas.

 

Policy development and consequent intervention for the ASAL communities should encourage their active participation in planning projects and programmes including proper use and maintenance of sanitation facilities and incorporate social cultural values in their design and management. Similarly, there is a need to strengthen water management funding and capacities in the urban areas and local authorities in order to achieve sustainable livelihoods in the ASALS.

 

6.7    National Priorities in the ASAL

 

National priorities for the ASALs are clearly set out in the “Environmental Action Plan for the Arid and Semi – Arid Lands in Kenya” of 1992. These fall under three broad categories, namely: –

 

(a) Immediate priority

(b) Short-term priority

(c) Long-term priority.

 

a)    Immediate Priority – Preparation of ASAL to ward off famine that will result from the next expected drought

b)    Short-term priority – Assistance to existing management economies and practices prevailing in ASAL to make them sustainable

c)    Long-term priority – Assistance to the ASAL population in their integration into the national economy through diversification of their economies and adaptations of their management systems. This will be accomplished through introduction of appropriate technologies, extension work, pricing policies etc.

 

7.0    POLICIES AND LAWS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PASTORALISM IN ASALS

As part of this study, the following policy and legislative documents were examined:

7.1    The Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (2003 – 2007)

    

This policy document represents the Kenyan Governments single most serious effort to address national ASAL policy to date, hence its importance in this analysis. Chapter 8 of this document has specifically been devoted to addressing national ASAL policy and its relation the broader economic recovery strategy in Kenya. It is also important to note that this is a document prepared by the present Narc government and therefore provides general policy directions by the current ruling party

 

Section 8.2 – Livestock Development

 

Under this section the government has undertaken to the following: –

 

Implementing a broad based livestock development programmes in the ASALs to improve the welfare of communities. This will include: –

 

1. Providing adequate water for the rangelands by sinking boreholes and constructing dams at strategic locations in the region to limit the migratory nature of the communities
   
2. Conducting a research on livestock breeds, particularly on indigenous livestock, with a view to improving the local breeds
   
3. Putting in place measure to control environmental degradation and carrying out periodic livestock census
   
4. Strengthening the animal health delivery system in the region by providing mobile animal health clinics, screening units and disease surveillance mechanisms
   
5. Addressing legal and policy barriers to livestock trade such as livestock movement barriers and cess/ taxation
   
6. Developing supporting infrastructure, including roads/ stock routes with water facilities
   
7. Strengthening disease control measures in partnership with regional animal health programmes
   
8. Creating strategic Disease Free Zones to facilitate the export of live animals
   
9. Increasing cross boarder disease surveillance and cross boarder conflict resolution and management mechanisms
   

 

Gaps

 

• Much as there is a credible attempt by the government to address these issues, what is evidently lacking is a concrete effort to involve pastoral communities in the processes of implementing this policy direction. It seems that the government has once again put the burden on implementation on itself while it should be trying to devolve responsibility. This needs to be spelt out in this document or less the government will once again find itself with a good policy but lacking capacity to implement it.
  
• GoK should try and provide as much as possible market access at source for animals
  
• Build the capacity of local communities in cross boarder surveillance, marketing methods, livestock breeds, and conflict management
  
• Use of indigenous conflict mechanisms to address cross boarder conflicts and breeding programmes should be taken into account. This is not stated anywhere in this policy yet has been identified by pastoral groups as an issue that needs to be addressed.
  
• Needs to be a section on the promotion of agriculture especially the planting of dryland trees such as Acacia for the production of gums and resins, for the production of fuelwood, traditional medicine and for fodder. It is surprising that an important document like this does not take such industries into account.
  
• There is need to learn from other countries that have serious and sustainable livestock development programmes such as Botswana and Djibouti. Government should put into the policy the promotion of such learning programmes as there is really no need to re-invent the wheel completely.
  

 

Section 8.3 – Fishing and Mining Development

 

The government will adopt measures to enhance the mining sub-sectors in ASALs. In particular they will: –

 

1. Facilitate private sector development of cooling plants, landing sites for the fishing industry in the potential regions
   
2. Collaborate with the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders on the nutritional importance of fish and the economic use of other resources such as gums, resins and honey.
   
3. Assess mineral potential in the regions with a view to exploitation
   

 

Gaps

 

• The exploitation of gums and resins should come under a different section as it has nothing to do with fishing and mining development
  
• A section on marketing of the products in conjunction with the private sector and local communities is also lacking in this sector. The government can facilitate the landing sites etc, but must also be able to involve the private sector and local communities in marketing of the products
  
• An element of building capacities for local communities to restock fish breeds that are useful to them and on appropriate fish harvesting methods should be included in this section as well as on marine biodiversity conservation for sustainable fish production
  

 

8.4 – Tourism Development

 

The government acknowledges the lack of incentive for local communities to conserve the wildlife in ASALs and well as the fact that they suffer directly from human wildlife conflict. As such the government will: –

 

1. Allocate a larger proportion of revenue collected from National Parks and Reserves to local communities to community projects
   
2. Strengthen community based wildlife conservation and other approaches through which wildlife can benefit pastoralists directly so as to motivate them to conserve and accommodate wildlife in their production systems
   
3. Support the development of eco-tourism activities since the areas have a high potential for eco-tourism.
   

 

Gaps

 

• There should be some acknowledgement that wildlife contributes significantly to the nutrition of local communities. They should therefore be given quotas (if this can be sustained to harvest some wildlife to meet their nutritional needs
  
• Generally this section should have given user rights and access right to for pastoralists to use wildlife sustainably both through consumptive and non-consumptive utilization processes. Though it is inferred, it should come out as clear government policy
  
• Once again, the issue of capacity building especially on eco-tourism ventures needs to be states here. Government closely with the private sector should build the capacities of local communities to enter into eco-tourism activities directly.
  
• Encourage local communities to generate revenue from wildlife which is located on their land provided that those methods are sustainable and promote conservation practices
  
• Can offer appropriate tax incentives for those communities practicing sustainable conservation.
  

 

8.5 – Trade and Industry Development

 

The Government recognizes that ASAL areas are characterized by lack of investment and therefore encourage livestock cottage based industries. This will be done through: –

 

• Improving the infrastructure especially the road network and the telecommunications system to facilitate free movement and exchange of goods and services
  
• Facilitate the livestock based industries in pastoralist areas
  
• Offering appropriate investment incentives for private investors targeting these areas
  

 

Gaps

 

• The Government has once again forgotten the economic potential of commodities like gums and resin, honey and wood for poles etc that ASALs offer. This should be included in this section especially for communities practicing sedentary pastoralism.
  
• If consumptive use of wildlife is permitted, then proper wildlife industries such as tanneries and taxidermy and meat processing will also have to be encouraged and introduced in these areas.
  

 

8.7 – Land Tenure

 

The GoK recognizes that land tenure systems in pastoral areas have constrained their social and economic development. The communal land use, access, controls and management are central to pastoral production systems but are poorly recognized in present land tenure systems: The government will: –

 

1. Undertake data based inventories of the nature of tenure arrangements, resource planning and use and avail the results for public inspections and reference.
   
2. Investigate and where necessary declare a moratorium in all Trust Land areas, halting any on-going adjudication process, until the necessary land reforms are legislated. Such a moratorium will target groups trying to irregularly register crucial grazing areas.
   
3. Encourage credibly land control and adjudication boards that are acceptable and respected by local communities
   

 

Gaps

 

• This section should state that the government will specifically with the involvement of local communities create the adjudication and control boards
  
• Encourage land practices compatible with community norms and practices and consistent with Kenya’s land reform process.
  

7.2    The National Development Plan 2002 – 2008

 

Section 3.9 of the Plan recognizes that ASALs are ecologically fragile and susceptible to frequent droughts which impact negatively on social and economic conditions of the ihabitants who are mainly pastoral communities. The ASAL areas also have a poor road network, experience water shortage and insecurity. All of these have led to increased poverty levels.

 

During the Plan period, the Government in conjunction with stakeholders will facilitate: –

 

1. Development of water harvesting techniques and exploitation of surface and ground water sources
   
2. Development of the livestock industry in pastoral areas with a focus on improved and appropriate livestock disease control measure
   
3. Maintenance of strategic holding grounds
   
4. Establishment of medium sized abattoirs close to producer areas
   
5. Institutionalization of effective drought management measures including Early Warning Systems, Contingency Planning and Mitigation, Response and Recovery in order to minimize livestock losses and increase food security
   
6. Enhancement of community based irrigation and rain fed agriculture concentrating on high yield crops including crops such as cotton, oil seeds, horticultural and root crops
   
7. Community based conflict management mechanisms and peace building initiatives across boarders to curb insecurity
   
8. Improvement of infrastructure such as roads, health facilities and telecommunication
   
9. Strengthening local institutions including user groups to manage community-based resources such as rural water supplies and natural resources
   

 

Gaps

 

• One of the most glaring gaps is once again the governments inability to recognize NTFPs especially gums, resins and honey and their potential to improve the livelihoods of pastoral communities in ASALs
  
• Community based wildlife management is inferred in the Plan but need to stand out on its own given its importance in ASALs. Issues such as wildlife utilization and especially eco-tourism need to be specifically listed as intervention methods.
  
• Traditional crops that have done well in ASALs is also missing. Of particular importance is sorghum and other legumes with high nutritional value
  
• Involvement of private sector investment has been overlooked and needs to conform with the Economic Strategy for Wealth and Employment creation. There is need to recognize the private sectors role in poverty reduction and pastoral livelihoods.
  

 

• Marketing of livestock and agricultural products in ASAL areas has also been left out as a strategy in the Plan.
  
• It is surprising that the Government does not mention anywhere in this section the potential for tourism in that ASALs offer. This should have been one of the key areas especially in terms of eco-tourism and wildlife management by communities. While in section 4.4. (a) of the Plan the Government does mention that it will encourage investors to establish links with local communities, promote revenue sharing to ensure local people benefit from tourism and encourage farmers to adopt wildlife, emphasis has been on land owners. It is not clear from the Plan how pastoral communities will benefit from wildlife management.
  

 

7.3    Pastoralist Thematic Group on Poverty Reduction, Policy Paper 2001

 

This thematic paper highlights policy issues that were brought up by pastoral groups and presented to the Ministry of Planning. The paper recommends a number of issues that need to be addressed by the GoK in their planning process. It is worth noting that most of the suggestions in this paper have been incorporated in the Economic Paper on Wealth and Employment which shows that the government is indeed keen to listen to pastoral groups and incorporate their views and issues in national planning processes and policies. Among the key policy issues for pastoralists and ASAL areas brought out in this document are: –

7.3.1    Strategies for land tenure problems solution

 

• Participatory pastoralist land use planning, which will guide decisions on land tenure options should be carried out especially in the southern pastoral areas by a combination of government, NGOs and all stakeholders.
  
• Enhancing co-operation between ranchers to make the best use of resources in ways that benefit all those involved. Capital investments in dams, dips, boreholes etc. can be shared, and dry season grazing zones maintained communally
  
• Establishment of accountable land boards that are acceptable and respected by the local communities. Land sales have to be regulated by the need to protect livelihoods, and avoid future conflicts.
  
• In the northern rangelands, the options for adapting a ‘group ranch’ pattern of land tenure are more limited due to the drier nature of the terrain. If the ‘common property rights approach’ to utilization of resources is abandoned, the vast majority of the people will loose out, as present stock numbers cannot be maintained unless access is assured to widely dispersed spatial resources. However, it must be emphasized that continuance of the present ‘free-for-all’ system cannot be carried on without further loss of life and property and intensifying conflict. Sorting out the land tenure issues of northern Kenya is a delicate, intricate, and long- term concern. In this view a number of activities are proposed that can be undertaken within the next three years under the PRSP/MTEF framework. These include: –
  

   

• Database information about land and public resources should be established. Inventories of the nature of tenure arrangements, resource planning and use be undertaken and should be adequately availed for public inspections and reference.
  
• The government should declare a moratorium in all Trustland areas, halt any ongoing adjudication processes, until the necessary land reforms are legislated. Such a moratorium will stop groups trying to create facts on the ground. Presently there are attempts to register what are crucial dry season grazing areas in places like the Huri Hills in Marsabit. If such attempts are allowed to succeed, then a permanent loss will have been dealt to livestock production within the northern Kenya region, as the overall carrying capacity will be affected by such strategic loss.
  
• Immediate measures should be taken to ensure that running of local authorities are transparent and accountable to the local communities and resources generated are used for benefit of the residents. The fastest legal way to accomplish this is by the county councils in pastoral areas immediately establishing divisional land boards in conformity with the Trustland Act.
  
• People’s participation in land resource governance is essential element for achieving sustainable development. Grassroots community should be empowered through such policy options as PRSP and MTEF so that they determine the form structure and authority of resource governing institution like county councils. Communities have vested interests in the way land resources are managed. Creation of wealth for local community should be a primary objective of resource governance.
  

 

Gaps

 

• Lack of a comprehensive Land Policy in Kenya is hampering the implementation of most of the policy directions in this document. The sooner we put in place a land policy the quicker the recommendations in this paper can be implemented
  
• Credible attempts should be made to include indigenous land practices in tenure reforms in the North. This will ensure that the land tenure reform process is sustainable in the long will include the needs and aspirations of pastoral and other communities in the ASALs. There is no mention of indigenous knowledge systems however.
  

7.3.2    Strategy for Tourism and Wildlife Sector Development

 

It was proposed that the following direction be taken with respect to formulating a strategy for tourism and wildlife development in ASALS: –

 

• Strengthen community-based wildlife conservation approaches;
  
• Identify innovative approaches through which wildlife can benefit pastoralists directly in order to motivate them to conserve and accommodate wildlife in their production systems;
  
• Improve the management of funds accruing from wildlife and now being managed by county councils on behalf of communities;
  
• Encourage private investment in eco-tourism;
  
• Address the land tenure problems in pastoral lands as a way of accommodating wildlife;
  
• Invest in biodiversity conservation projects in order to improve natural resource management and also raise incomes and employment in pastoralist areas
  
• Identify appropriate wildlife consumptive rights for pastoralists, facilitate sport hunting, and the establishment of community-owned game parks.
  

 

Gaps

 

• The main gap in this as pointed out before is the need to build the capacity of local pastoralist communities in the processes outlined in this document. While the policy direction and proposals are consistent with the National Development Plan and Economic Recovery Plan, there seems to be an assumption that capacity exists within pastoral communities to implement the policy directions. This may not necessarily be the case.
  
• This document is in conflict with certain Acts such as the Wildlife Management Act, the Agriculture Act and the Forests Act which currently prohibit local community involvement in the management of natural resource management. If this document were adopted, the Acts cited would prohibit it from being implemented in its entirety
  
• A comprehensive Land Policy is needed especially to address the issue of land tenure systems in ASALs. This is still not forthcoming from the GoK and will hamper the implementation of various policy recommendations such as the need to communal wildlife management and private ranching regimes in ASALs.
  

7.3.3    Strategies for Conflict Management

 

It is essential that conflict management and reduction provisions be integrated into the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper as it is planned for implementation in Pastoralists areas. In this case, priorities will include:

 

1. Provision of training modules on conflict management for senior civil servants, to be deployed through the Department of Personnel Management, offers a key entry point.
   
2. Enlist the participation and involvement of local communities especially in peace and development committees such as the one formed in Wajir by a community initiative in collaboration with district administration, district security committee, NGOs and community based organisations.
   
3. Devise a just but very severe punishment of the offenders. It will cause fear among potential offenders and/or strengthen existing traditional conflict resolution mechanisms which have deterrent by-laws and the punishment is appropriate for all offences committed. The district security mechanisms will support the communities in enforcement.
   
4. Provide VIF radio communication equipment to link market and administrative centers together so that information can be shared within short time limits.
   
5. Reducing conflict over natural resources through negotiated rules of access in contested areas.
   
6. New models of natural resources tenure with transparent procedures for resolving disputes;
   
7. Improved food security, including extension of the present drought contingency planning model to all arid and semi-arid districts.
   
8. Provision of income generating activities for demobilized ethnic militias;
   
9. Improved livestock marketing, included protected trekking corridors;
   
10. Appropriate credit schemes for restocking poor herding households, especially where former fighters can be incorporated into the household-herding unit.
    
11. Strengthening existing institutions for pastoralist development such as the Arid Lands Resource Management Project.
    

 

Gaps

 

• We have seen that most of the conflicts that occur in ASALs are mainly over access and ownership of natural resources and over livestock herds. One of the strategies to minimize conflict should therefore have been to provide adequate access and ownership over NR to communities in these areas. This is however not stated.
  
• Facilitating equitable benefit sharing mechanisms among local communities and between the GoK and local communities would also be an appropriate strategy for minimizing conflict.
  
• Once again in order to implement these policy recommendations, local community capacities need to be built in various areas such as community management, micro-enterprise development (especially for demobilized militias), livestock development etc. This is certainly a strategy that needs to be incorporated in any conflict management process.
  

    

7.4    The Agriculture Act, Cap 318 of 1980

    

In this Act the term “agriculture” means “cultivation of land and the use of land for any purpose of husbandry, and includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming and livestock breeding and keeping, the use of land as grazing land, meadow land…….for use as woodlands when that use is ancillary to the use of land for other agricultural purposes”

 

Section 8 (a) of the Act gives the Minister in charge of Agriculture (in consultation with the Minister in charge of Finance) powers to fix prices for animal products to be paid to producers of such products.

 

Section 8 (b) of the Act gives the Minister powers to fix prices to be guaranteed to producers for animal products for two calendar years beginning 1^st January.

 

Gaps

 

• Given that currently the Livestock Ministry falls under a different docket and has its own regulations, this function should belong to that of the livestock Minister. It unclear who will be responsible for what and therefore where producers should seek redress and advice.
  
• Since this Act was legislated in 1980, prices for agricultural and animal products have been left to market forces to decide. This Act should therefore be overhauled in line with the economic liberalization process that Kenya adopted. It is not fair for the Minister to fix prices. It would be more prudent for him/ her to release guidelines for livestock products.
  

 

Section 22 of this Act provides for the establishment of a District Agricultural Committee one of whose members will be the District Veterninary Officer. It is assumed that by having such an officer in the committee, issues related to livestock will be addressed.

 

Gaps

 

• It is not clear under this Act what the duties of the Veterinary Officer will be because the Act focuses so much on Agricultural produce. Livestock issues are scantily mentioned and it would be more useful to have this officer under the Livestock Act
  
• It is also not clear that given that 70% of Kenya’s wildlife is found outside national parks and on private land why a KWS Officer and Officer from the Ministry of Lands are not included in either the Provincial Agriculture Committee or in the District Lands Committee. This is a serious oversight given their present roles either in land alienation or in managing wildlife outside parks and reserves.
  

 

Section 35 provides for the establishment of a Central Argicultural Board which comprises of among others the Director of Veterinary Services, Director of Settlement and six persons who in the opinion of the Minister will benefit the work of the Board

 

Gaps

 

• Given the Acts preference for agricultural products the Director of Veterinary Services would serve better in a Livestock Committee. The Director may benefit the Agricultural Committee but would in most cases be a spectator in the Board.
  
• It is not clear why the Director of Settlement is in the National Committee yet is not represented at district level. It is necessary to include a represerntative at local level as with the Director of KWS.
  
• Of the six persons to be appointed by the Minister to the Board, the Act should state clearly that at least 2 of them should preferably come from pastoral communities and that the gender issue should be addressed in that respect.
  

 

Section 48 (1) once again gives powers to the Minister with concurrence of the Board to (b) prohibit, regulate and control (ii) the grazing or watering of livestock on account of soil erosion.

 

Gaps

 

• These powers if extended to communal land is draconian as the Minister can invoke his powers and stop pastoral communities from grazing or watering their animals. While this may be useful, it would not be in tandem with the Forest Policy and Draft Forest Bill (2003) which allow for community management of forest resources in which most water catchments and water bodies are located. The Act in this respect would also serve promote conflicts over natural resources as one Minister may allow grazing while the other refuses.
  
• The Act also conflicts with the current Forest Act Cap of 1942 which gives the
  

  powers to a Forest Officer to allow people to graze within a forest. However if the Agriculture Minister forbids this, it is unclear which will prevail.
  

• The Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) which is supposed to be umbrella environmental law places a lot of emphasis on community management of natural resources including forests, wildlife and grazing land. The provisions of this Act are therefore against the tenets of EMCA).
  
• The Act while encompassing livestock breeding in its basic reference to agriculture, does not in any way talk about livestock rearing even by landowners let alone pastoralists. The whole element of livestock should either be moved to another Act or included in this Act as a Section.
  

 

7.5    The Kenya Forestry Development Policy (2000)

 

Until 1957, Kenya did not have a forest policy. The idea of a Forest policy was hatched in 1952 in Ottawa during the 6^th Commonwealth Forestry Conference where it was decided that each country should have a formulated forest policy (Kamweti, 1989). Kenya then formulated its policy in 1957. This policy was restated in the Sessional Paper No. 1 of 1968 and revised in 1994.

The current forest policy (2000) does not have a sessional paper number although the previous KANU cabinet in Kenya approved it. The policy provides for a framework within which the pressures for change can be identified and accommodated so as to ensure that local communities and other stakeholders derive optimal benefits from forests and forest resources (Awiti & Ole Nkako, 2002). The policy describes a process of consultation and institutional cooperation designed to protect Kenya’s natural and cultural heritage in the context of conservation and development initiatives.

The broad objectives of the policy are:

1. To increase the forest and tree cover in the country in order to ensure an increasing supply of forest products and services for meeting the basic needs of present and future generations and for enhancing the role of forestry in socio-economic development.
   
2. To conserve the natural habitats, wildlife and biological diversity
   
3. To contribute to sustainable land use through soil and water conservation, tree planting and appropriate forest management
   
4. To contribute to poverty reduction, employment creation and to promote equity through community participation
   
5. To manage the forest resources efficiently for maximum sustainable benefits, taking into account all direct and indirect economic and environmental impacts
   
6. To review the ways in which forests and trees are valued in order to facilitate management decisions
   
7. To recognize and maximize benefits of viable and efficient forest-based industry for national development
   
8. To promote national interests in relation to international environmental and forest-related conventions and principles.
   

 

With respect to ASAL areas the policy states: –

 

1. Farm forestry is the preferred farm wood production method in high potential areas. In ASALs, other types of forestry such as joint management of natural woody vegetation or the establishment of village woodlots is encouraged
   

 

Gaps

• Policy the closer linkages to be fostered between farmers and industry especially in the ASAL areas. Though there is mention of cottage industries, this mainly applies to forests in high potential areas and to those on private land.
  
• Dryland forestry does not form an integral part of the forest policy especially where it relates to products from ASAL areas. No mention is made of encouraging investment in dryland forests especially the promotion of quick growing and drought resistant tree species.
  
• No attention is given to the products of trees in ASAL areas yet their potential and contribution to the Kenya’s economy can be enormous (Bosire E. 2003)
  
• Farm forestry should also be encouraged in ASALs even though the pressure on forests in not as great as in high potential areas. Emphasis should be raised on the growing of crops that reduce pressure on forests and enhance food security. This is not explicitly stated in the policy.
  
• The policy may just benefit from a process similar to the shamba system in the ASAL. It this case however it should involve the pastoral communities in the area who can plant trees on government land in ASALs in exchange for grazing and water rights during the dry season.
  
• Charcoal production is a major income earner in ASAL areas. The Forest Policy must take this seriously and address it although there is an Energy Policy being formulated to address charcoal issues. It would however be proper if the Forest Policy gave direction on charcoal production and complemented the Energy Policy.
  
• Forest products in ASALs have not been properly valued. Their contribution to Kenya’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) should be properly documented.`A valuation system should be developed and used for national planning purposes.
  

 

Section 2 of the draft forest policy mainly talks about forest products and industries and lays emphasis on the following: –

 

1. Priority should be given to the subsistence needs of forestry especially those associated with domestic supplies, shelter and livestock fodder.
   
2. Sustained production of fuelwood to meet the ever-increasing demand. Most of the fuel-wood is expected to come from farms. The government will endeavor to ensure that the supply of this product is sustainable and will support new and improved systems of production and utilization be encouraging energy saving systems.
   
3. Forest industries ability to provide income and employment opportunities to Kenyan’s has been recognized and will be given emphasis. In addition the government will also focus on ensuring that the forest based industries produce high quality products for export and earn Kenya the much needed foreign exchange.
   
4. Promoting forest based industries that contribute to the rural economy and the development of these industries through appropriate investment incentives.
   

 

Gaps

    

• Not much attention is given to forest industries in ASALs especially the gums and resins, honey, medicine and other non-timber forest products that are abundant in ASALs and have the potential to improve the livelihoods of pastoral communities and contribute towards poverty reduction in these areas.
  
• Charcoal as an industry needs to be mentioned especially the production and marketing of sustainably produced charcoal by communities in ASALs.
  
• The policy also needs to state what direction the government will take with respect to promoting fast growing trees specially adapted to ASALs as a means of reforesting the areas and what roles local communities can play in this. It is important for pastoral communities diversify their economic base from one that is mainly livestock based to include forest products as well.
  

 

7.6    The Draft Forests Bill (2003)

 

Once the draft Forests Bill 2003 is enacted, as an Act, it will apply to all forests and woodlands on State,
Local authority and private land. This virtually means and covers all forests in Kenya.

 

Part II of the draft Bill deals with Administration and has some important references to NTFP production and management. In particular, Part II, Section 5 further outlines the functions of the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) as it shall be known. One of the functions of the KFS will be to develop further programmes and facilities in collaboration with other interested parties for tourism and for recreational and ceremonial use of forests. Section 5 goes on to say that another function of the KFS be to “enforce the provisions of the Act and any forestry or land use rules and regulations made pursuant thereto or any other written law”.

 

Part II, Section 9 gives one of the functions of the Forests Board as being to “establish and review policies and rules for the marketing and trade in forest produce” which is quite commendable given the initial definition of forest produce in Part I. Section 9, (O) goes further and gives another function of the board as “to approve the provisions of credit facilities and technical training for community based forest industries and the giving of incentives to persons who exploit wood and non-wood forest products sustainably. Apart from this sections’ emphasis on sustainable exploitation of both timber and NTFPs it also talks about providing incentives to community based industries, which is a step in the right direction.

 

Part II, Section 13, touches on the establishment of forest conservancies and conservation committees who shall report to the Board. One of the important functions of the forest committee will be to “in consultation with the Board, assist local communities to benefit from royalties and other rights derived from flora or fauna traditionally used or newly discovered by such communities.

Gaps

• Despite the fact that the Bill recognizes the need to enforce the Act and any other land use rules, it is important to take into account the fact that Kenya does not have a comprehensive land use policy or land use law in place yet. It may therefore be difficult for the KFS to undertake this task comprehensively.
  
• While the proposed composition of the Forest Board is fairly professional and includes quite a number of stakeholders, it is hoped that the Minister will appoint to it at least one public servant or NGO representative who would bring on board ASAL issues given their importance.
  
• It may be necessary for the draft bill to compare closely with the provisions of the Wildlife Act to see whether community based industries will be provided with incentives to utilize wildlife especially if it is found in forests.
  
• Unfortunately the Bill fails to include water as one of the forest products and thereby establish clear benefit sharing mechanisms especially to those communities who are involved in the conservation of watersheds which are also found in ASALs.
  

 

Part IV of the draft Bill touches on Community Participation in forest management and provides for the formation and registration of forest user associations by local communities together with other members or persons resident in the same area. Section 46 (2), confers certain user rights mainly on the use of NTFPs, on these associations and states that: “Pursuant to a mutually agreed management agreement between the Chief Conservator and an Association, all or any of the following user rights may be conferred on an Association-

 

1. Collection of medicinal herbs
   
2. Honey harvesting
   
3. Harvesting of timber or fuelwood for an individual’s own use
   
4. Grass harvesting and grazing
   
5. Collection of forest produce for community based industries
   
6. Ecotourism and recreational activities
   
7. Scientific and education activities
   
8. Undertaking of agro-forestry practices
   
9. Contracts to assist in carrying out specific silvicultural operations
   
10. Development of community based industries
    
11. Other benefits which may from time to time be agreed upon between an Association and the Service
    

Gaps

• Clearly local communities will be accorded grazing rights within forests. However should the Minister for Agriculture or Wildlife prohibit this (which they are both allowed to do), conflict will arise. The Agriculture and Wildlife Acts need to be consistent with other sectoral NR laws such as the Bill.
  
• One note worthy gap in this section is that it does not recognize water rights as user rights within a specific forest. This is going to be a key factor if forestry is going to take root in ASALs and among pastoral communities. If local communities take care of watersheds in ASALs they must be allowed to use the water within the watershed management area.
  
• The section mentions nothing on the harvesting of gums and resins and wildlife meat not only downplaying their importance but will also give way to the misinterpretation of this section by those who do not want these products harvested especially the KWS who are currently in charge of the management of some key forests in Kenya.
  
• The Bill mentions little in the appropriate marketing structures at local, provincial and national level to ensure the marketing of NTFPs. Efficient marketing structure must be put in place for the marketing of forest produce from ASAL areas as well.
  
• Production of charcoal as an forest commodity is not encouraged nor identified as a product that local communities can obtain from forests. This will definitely be a disadvantage for communities in ASALs
  

 

7.7    The Forests Act, Cap 385 of 1942

 

The Forests Act, Cap 385, currently governs forestry development and management Kenya. It was enacted in 1942 and revised in 1968 with the latest revision being done in 1992.

 

This Forests Act defines forests produce as including “beeswax, bark, canes, charcoal, creepers, clay, earth, fibreas, firewood, fruit, galls, grass, gum, honey, leaves, limestone, liter, moss, murram, peat, plants, red-ochre, reeds, resin, rushes, rubber, sap, sand, seeds, spices, stone, timber, trees, wax, withies and such other things that the Minister may by notice declare to be forest produce for the purposes of the Act”. Within this definition are many products that are also found in dryland forests in ASALs.

 

Section 8 (1) (a) (i) of the Act prohibits anyone from felling, cutting, burning or removing any forest produce unless unless he/ she has permission from the Director of Forestry.

 

Section (a) (xi) of the Act also prohibits anyone from collecting any honey or beeswax or entering the forest for such purposes unless he/ she has permission from the Director of Forestry.

 

Gaps

• This law is conflicting with the current forest policy, which encourages the use of forest products by local communities
  
• This law conflicts with the provisions of the EMCA and the Forest Policy (2000) which all encourage local community involvement in NRM. It acts as a deterrent for people to enter into forests in order to collect anything or even cut anything for their use. The Act also discourages stakeholder involvement in any aspect of forest management vesting all the powers in the FD, yet it is still law.
  
• Even though the EMCA supercedes it in authority, the law Forest Act provides a legal basis to prosecute those who contravene it.
  
• Not much is mentioned about forests in ASALs within the Act. It would therefore be unclear what local community roles and responsibilities in forest management within ASALs would be. This is especially in view of the fact that ASAL forest management approaches would differ in nature from conventional management of forest on private land and in high potential areas.
  

 

7.8    The Environment Management and Coordination Act of 2000

 

This is an Act of parliament and was enacted in 2000. It provides the framework within which environmental matters in Kenya should be addressed. Of particular interest in the Act would be Part V, which touches on the protection and conservation of the environment.

 

Part V, Section 48 (1) touches on the protection of forests and states that “the Director-General may after consultation with the Chief Conservator of Forests, enter into any contractual agreement with a private owner of any land on such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreed for purposes of registering such land as forest land.

 

(2) States: The Director-general shall not take any action, in respect of any forest or mountain are, which is prejudicial to the traditional interests of the local communities customarily resident within or around such forest or mountain area. A good example of this is the Kaya forest in the coastal region of Kenya or the Mau forest in Rift Valley for the Ogiek.

 

Sections 29-36 mainly provide for the establishment of Provincial and District environmental committees in which local community represented. The Act generally emphasizes the devolution of power to local people which it sees as crucial to the sustainable management of natural resources in Kenya.

 

Gaps

 

• There is not much emphasis on products found in ASALs in the Act.
  
• The Act while being the supreme environmental “barometer” is still in contradicted contradiction with other Acts. These Acts need to be changed in order to conform with EMCA
  
• While the Act recognizes traditional rights of local communities to forests and other natural resources, it does not provide for indigenous natural resource management techniques. This applies to other sectoral NR laws and policies as well. Indigenous mechanisms should be promoted especially those that enhance sound environmental management.
  

 

7.9    Kenya’s Proposed Wildlife Policy

 

Following the 2004 meeting on wildlife management and utilization organized by KWS in Mombasa, the GoK agreed to formulate a new wildlife policy in line with the changes in wildlife management and following the recommendations of stakeholders. Some of the important issues that are likely to shape the wildlife policy scenario include: –

 

1. Utilization of wildlife should not only be seen in the context of hunting, or consumptive utilization, but in a wider context that encompasses non-consumptive use, whose potential has yet to be fully exploited or realized.
   
2. Ecological sustainability must be our guiding principal each time we talk wildlife utilization because this resource is not infinite. We can not have our cake and eat it. Limits, guidelines and regulations are therefore very important, if sustainability and conservation needs are to be met.
   
3. User rights over wildlife, and their benefits, will come with commensurate liabilities and responsibilities, which landowners and communities should be prepared to shoulder. Human-wildlife conflicts will be an immediate example.
   
4. Wildlife is a national resource and the government is obliged to ensure that this resource is shared out equitably. Strong cognizance must therefore be taken of both intra and intergenerational equity to ensure fairness and safeguard the needs of future generations.
   
5. Consumptive wildlife utilization is likely to become a major feature in wildlife management in Kenya. Sport hunting and trophy hunting will indeed become a reality. Proposals are that pilot projects begin in the ASALs particularly the Northern Frontier.
   
6. Communities will increasingly be involved in the management of wildlife outside parks and reserves.
   

 

Gaps

 

• Issues of local community capacities to manage wildlife have not been properly thought out. There must be a massive move to build capacities of local communities and other stakeholders to manage wildlife and be involved in sustainable wildlife utilization. If this is not done on the onset, wildlife management is likely to be abused again.
  
• Kenya’s Land Policy is also likely to form the shape of wildlife management. Without a proper land policy in place, wildlife management by communities may work but not as effectively as envisaged.
  

  7.9    The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act Cap 376 of 1977 (Revised 1985)
  

 

The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, Cap 376, of 1977 was revised in 1985. In relation to ASAL areas t is necessary to examine the Act especially where bush meat and animals as a product of forests is concerned.

 

Part III, Section 13 of the Act touches on offences in National Parks one of which is “collecting honey or beeswax or hanging on any tree or elsewhere any honey barrel or other receptacle for the purpose of collecting honey or beeswax in the park”.

 

Gaps

 

• One of the most glaring gaps in this Act is that it is in direct contravention of the proposed forest policy, the Forest Act, Cap 385, the Forests Bill 2002, the Environment Management and Coordination Act which all allow for local community involvement in natural resources management and therefore by extension permit the gathering of forest products found in ASAL areas such as honey and beeswax by local communities.
  
• It important to note that many of the national parks in Kenya are to be found either within or in close proximity to forests and that the current forest legislation allows for honey and beeswax gathering from forests. This legislation is therefore in direct conflict with other sectoral legislation, which allows this practice. It is therefore likely that these sectoral legislations will be on constant conflict with each other and thus probably lead to institutional conflict between the FD and KWS.
  

 

Section 23 (1) goes on to talk about Game licenses and does in effect permit hunting in national parks subject to the awarding of a license by the issuing authority or the Director.

 

Gaps

 

• Despite this clause in the legislation, there has been a ban on hunting game since 1977. This not only denies the country revenue through commercial hunting ventures but also restricts the hunting of game for subsistence purposes by local communities.
  
• Once again this conflicts with the provisions of the EMCA, which allows for local community management of natural resources including wildlife. In order for both the government and local communities to benefit from wildlife, it is necessary to involve both of them in wildlife management, which is not the case currently. There is need to overhaul this piece of legislation and make it more people friendly. This will create a sense of ownership by local communities over wildlife and serve to minimize cases of human-wildlife conflict.
  
• There is no section in the legislation that allows for small-scale subsistence hunting for local community benefit. A section such as this will allow local communities not only to benefit from the wildlife but also to create a sense of ownership among them over the wildlife. There is need to introduce such a clause in this legislation. This will benefit communities in ASALs areas where there is abundant wildlife.
  
• The roles of nomadic pastoralist communities in wildlife management are not clear and will need to be addressed in relation to wildlife management and eco-tourism ventures in ASALs.
  

 

Part III, Section 47 (1) gives the Minister powers to “by regulation prohibit, control or regulate the possession or movement of, or any dealings of any nature whatsoever in, any meat.

 

Gaps

 

• Again the issue of trade or possession of game meat can be prohibited by the Minister thereby denying people the chance to benefit from wildlife.
  
• Massive trade in bush-meat still thrives in Kenya despite this law. The government (KWS) should ensure that they obtain revenue through wildlife conservation not only through charging of park fees but also through licensing small-scale subsistence hunting or through encouraging community wildlife management schemes throughout Kenya.
  
• Despite the current outcry about food insecurity in Kenya, the government is not willing to let pastoralists benefit potential source of protein that bush-meat can sustainably supply.
  
• Sections of the Wildlife Act must be overhauled in order to ensure that it conforms with the principles and tenets of the EMCA. As it is currently, it conflicts with not only the EMCA but also with other sectoral Acts such as the Forest Act, the Trust Lands Act etc.
  
• The Act does not address the issue of National Parks and Reserves that are found in forests.
  
• Currently no wildlife policy exists. It will be necessary to come up with a comprehensive wildlife policy, which ensures that local community needs and aspirations with respect to wildlife management are met.
  

 

7.10    The Livestock Act

 

7.11    Land Use Policy

 

Land use policy issues relate to the system of laws, rules and regulations and practices that govern the rights and obligations of land owners, particularly the pastoralists in the ASALs. An appropriate land use policy ultimately aims at the achievement of the public interest and ensures optimal use available land to meet the needs of the population.

 

Kenya’s constitution guarantees the right and security of tenure subject to laws and regulations governing the usage laws. Generally, land issues revolve around the specific of land tenure systems which involve consolidation, adjudication, registration and the use to which land may be put. Land rights are sensitive and complex. The major problem arises out of the fact that most of the country’s land laws have been borrowed from the British legal system and have been adopted without considering the customary laws governing land tenure and usage particularly among the pastoralists, the pastoralist communities.

 

Most pastoralist communities were operating democratic systems of governance which was based on their environmental perception, cultural adaption and resource availability. Through this consultative civic approach which included council of Elders, the pastoralist communities were able to control the usage of pastoral resources. Included in these were the grazing lands, water resources, forests and salt licks. To-day some of the resources are not accessible to the pastoralists as they have become private or State land.

CONCLUSION

Development experts should recognize the fact that the western science of range management is not entirely suitable for the ASAL communities. Therefore, lessons must be learned from the pre-colonial period and this points to the fact that in the ASALs, extensive grazing by pastoral nomads is the best form of land use. This calls for a re-examination of other competing and conflicting land uses. The options do not seem to be very many; either the ASAL livestock keepers convert to sedentary agriculturalists, industrialists we may have to the ASAL address their problems according to their social-cultural and environmental setting. In other words, we should avoid imposing highland or wet regions resource utilization and development models to the ASAL.

 

Of course with the current structural adjustment policies and privatization, the financial implications of providing the necessary infrastructural facilities and water for “settled” pastoralists is enormous. This is the challenge in policy formulation and development for sustainable livelihoods in the ASAL areas of Kenya.

REFERENCES

SNV Kenya, 1999, “Livestock Marketing in Arid and Semi Arid areas in Kenya: Description of opportunities and Bottlenecks”