The World Bank/WBI’s CBNRM Initiative
Case Received: February 4, 1998
Author: Anthony Githitho, National Museums of Kenya
Tel: +254 0127 22140
Fax: +254 01 88 2728
Email: cfcu.kilifi@swiftmombasa.com
INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES IN CONSERVATION: THE CASE OF THE SACRED KAYA FORESTS OF THE KENYA COAST
In recent years, the importance of developing enabling institutional environments has been increasingly acknowleged in the conservation and development fields. Effective institutional frameworks are now regarded as crucial if continuance of positive changes is to be assured. This case study on Kaya forest conservation in Kenya does not describe a process which is in any way complete or even well advanced. Rather it reports the result of a gradual analysis of the situation and increasing understanding of the institutional need. This has gone on while urgent circumstances have dictated that short and medium term activites be undertaken even before any consultation, strategic planning or formulation in the institutional area. Following from analysis of required changes, possible institutional objectives and activities have suggested themselves for the long-term conservation of Kayas. Problems and constraints experienced so far in implementation, and anticipated, are also discussed.
----------------------------
The Kaya Forests are situated in the Coastal plain and hills of Kenya, in East Africa. They are residual patches ( av.10ha - 200ha) of the once extensive diverse lowland forest of Eastern Africa ocurring within the Zanzibar-Inhambane Regional Mosaic (UNESCO classification). The Kayas are very botanically diverse and have a high conservation value as determined by various biological studies particularly two undertaken by the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) and funded by WWF (Robertson 1986, Robertson and Luke, 1993). More than half of Kenyas rare plants are found in the Coast Region, many within these forests. In addition to being small they are also distributed irregularly over an extensive range (appr 250km.) along the coastal strip. At present over 40 of these patches have been identified in three contigious coastal districts of Kwale, Mombasa, Kilifi and Malindi.
Kayas are regarded as sacred by the coastal communities and indeed owe their existence directly to the beliefs, culture and history of these (9) Mijikenda ethnic groups. According to local traditions the forest patches sheltered small fortified villages of the various groups when they first appeared in the region three centuries or more ago pursued by northern enemies (‘Kaya’ means homestead). Distinct signs of past settlement and use are still evident in many of the Kaya forests where the historical villages may have stood. It is assumed that as conditions became more secure particularly since the late nineteenth century, the groups left the forest
refuges and began to clear and cultivate the surrounding areas. However the small forested sites of the original Kayas were protected in varying degrees by the communities, led by their local Kaya Elders, as sacred places and burial grounds.Over the past few decades declining knowlege and respect for traditional values combined with a rising demand for land for agriculture and development, mining and forest products has led to loss and damage to these small forests, and associated sacred groves. Many have almost disappeared as has been indicated by the NMK and other surveys. This is not surprising as poverty is widespread in the areas where Kayas are found, with local communities existing at subsistence level,and struggling to meet basic needs.
Growing concern about the Kayas in recent decades among local Kaya elders, conservationists and scientists culminated in an initiative by the NMK to have the Kayas provided with some protected status as National Monuments (NMs). The first group of 23 was gazetted in 1992 and the process is continuing. With donor (WWF) support the NMK established a Coastal Forest Conservation Unit (CFCU) in the same year which was charged with the task of continuing investigation of coastal flora and promoting the conservation of the Kayas in consultation with the local communities for their biological and cultural values.
The original immediate objectives of the NMK-CFCU included:
The development of an enabling insititutional framework was initially not specifically targeted although certain elements related to this are included in the above objectives. Most of them were related to direct management or resource interventions in which significant progress has been made since the project started. However it has become clear that without attending to institutional issues in a concerted way, there will be little hope of sustaining effective locally driven conservation and management activities in the long term. As a result there has been much reflection within the project on this subject including analysis of institutional, socio-economic, geographic and other factors relevant to the formation of enabling structures for Kaya conservation. Ideally, such structures would seek to offer a reasonable degree of resolution for various prevailing problems and conflicts.
The Status Quo
Numerous factors need to be considered when studying the current status quo relating to intitutions but the following are among the more important
Common agreement on the importance of certain values and the need to safeguard them is fundamental to institution forming and is largely satisfied for the Kayas both locally, nationally and even globally. Local communities have protected them for traditional cultural values and still value them in this way. The Government is gazetting them for their national biological and cultural heritage importance. In this it is supported by the global community (represented by international NGOs and Donors) which has shown an interest in Kayas and Coastal forests as part of a world natural biodiversity heritage
.Local Kaya Elders traditionally instituted rules and regulations to protect Kayas from disturbance, relying heavily on taboos and other social sanctions rather than active policing. With the changes in society the local communities are no longer as socially cohesive as before and the hold of traditional institutions has weakened particularly in the face of economic and developmental forces emanating from ‘without’.
With gazettement in recent years the Kayas have been brought under the protection of National Laws which implies state protection but these laws are felt to carry weak sanctions or penalties and enforcement has proved difficult. They are also not adequately phrased to cater for biological heritage protection. The National Museums of Kenya NMK is authorized by law to protect and conserve the Kayas as National Monuments under the relevant Act for natural and cultural heritage value. NMK is a Government parastatal and has access to state resources and machinery for its work and presumably state backing. However NMK has no enforcement arm and must rely on other security departments for assistance with arrest and prosecution.
Currently there are no local Non Governmental Organizations specifically concerned with Kaya conservation in the region with respect to either the cultural or biodiversity values.
Resources for Management
As stated above the Kaya Elders committees in general lack the means to deal with the pressures faced by the Kayas today . The NMK and other national bodies are provided with state funds but these tend to be inadequate due to competing National demands. NMK is also able to attract resources from further afield as is demonstrated by donor funding for CFCU although most donor project funding by its definition can only be for a limited period. NMK has a considerable pool of technical expertise for resource research and management.
Through historical and other processes including the creation of modern state structures with powers to appropriate land, the Kayas find themselves in various land tenure situations including Central Government owned, Local council owned and even privately owned. This raises questions of access to Kaya sites by community members in some cases eg. private areas, and
public lands are vulnerable to allocation hence not secure. The process of gazettement as National Monuments places constraints on land-use but does affect land ownership.The Kayas are mostly small and scattered over an extensive area as opposed to occurring in one location. While tenuous links have existed between some of them, in general the various groups have tended to work in isolation despite largely similar beliefs and interests. This was formerly understandable with self contained communities but changing conditions may call for greater collaboration to promote Kaya conservation
The populations in most of the Kaya areas exist at subsistence level. The general environment for agricultural production at the Coast tends to be difficult which has a harsh climate and poor soils. Farm incomes are low and seasonal employment in the local tourism sector very prevalent. Any institutional developments would need to recognize this socio-economic reality and in some way contribute towards community welfare.
From the above brief analysis it would appear that an effective institutional framework or environment for Kaya conservation would need to be fairly complex to meet various requirements. This is a direct consequence of the multiplicity of Kayas as well as the numerous of interested parties. The process of putting the framework in place would be multidimensional and involve a number of parallel processes. It would need to be effected locally, regionally and at other strategic levels.
Some key needs to be met are:
As is indicated above The National Museums through the CFCU has been the main initiator of Kaya conservation activities in the region since the early 90s apart from the elders themselves. The Unit will therefore presumably be the main catalyst of institutional changes prompted by the needs of the Kaya conservation. Although CFCU itself is a stakeholder with particular interests, Its advantage may be NMKs national character and links with Government which lend it a certain widely accepted legitimacy. Possible difficulties may arise later however if Kaya conservation activities will tend for various reasons to involve elements of non-governmental advocacy.
Some strands of the developments suggested above have already been taken up by the CFCU, with project funding. A significant number of Kayas have been gazetted under National Laws and this is continuing. Also, a process of review of the relevant laws has been started, facilitated by CFCU, to make them more effective concerning natural heritage sites like Kayas. The Project has supported Kaya Elders Committees by providing funds for the deployment of local community guards in a number of Kayas although questions remain about funding such activities beyond the project period if alternative sources are not found. It is also intended to assist in the strengthening of elders committees by promoting their recognition as legal entities and perhaps building their capacity to initiate projects on their own. This could extend to ownership of land, although weaknesses in the committees suggest that a more desirable land custodian may be a representative umbrella body providing checks and balances. The transfer of land to any entity would require the political support of local councils, not easy to come by.
The question of management/co-ordination institutions to serve all the Kayas is more difficult, the only certain fact being the clear need for such organs. At present the Kayas of the South Coast have formed a committee of representatives although it has tended to rely heavily on CFCU for secretarial facilitation and has not been very active. Kayas of the North Coast may follow suit. The role of CFCU in this case is related to the issue of a real need for a support or service organization for Kaya conservation providing some kind of focus, and link with other formal institutions including law enforcement. Questions arise about whether in the final account all parties will agree to continue being assisted by a Parastatal department like CFCU or go the Non-Governmental route. Certainly at present most players seem to be happy with the situation especially regarding NMK’s wealth of technical resources and national stature.
Whatever the structures agreed the need for sustainable inputs, particularly funds will need to be addressed. What options exist? It is likely that project funds may be available for a significant period due to international interest in the Kayas as a unique world heritage but it will still be necessary to invest in financial mechanisms for the long-term. This question is currently under considerable debate within CFCU. Other conservation organizations including the national Kenya wildlife Service (KWS) are also wrestling with the issue and in this regard, the concept of Trust Funds or Endowment funds is currently attracting considerable interest.