Course:CONS370/Projects/Impact of the African Forest Landscape Initiative (AFR100+) on Aboriginal Forestry in Kenya: The Ogiek Peoples

From UBC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Summary

The African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative (AFR100) was developed in response to the African Union’s mandate which aims to restore 100 million hectares of degraded and deforested land across Africa by 2030[1]. The central objectives of the initiative are to improve food security, increase climate resilience, and combat rural poverty[1]. Underlying the initiative is the Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) approach which balances social and environmental integrity through restoration[1][2]. Twenty-eight African countries are voluntarily participating in the initiative[1]. This case study focuses on Kenya, home to the Ogiek Peoples, an ethnic group whose traditional communal lands span a large region of the country[3]. Their lands encompass the Mau forest, one of five critical watersheds in East Africa[3]. For decades, multiple parties have tried to dispossess the Ogiek of their lands in the interest of both the exploitation and preservation of the Mau forest, posing a direct threat to traditional Ogiek communities, culture, subsistence practices, and sacred sites[4]. This case study will evaluate how AFR100 affects the Ogiek Peoples, based on its progress and on the ground practices, as well as make recommendations to enhance the initiative in the context of the Ogiek’s concerns and values.

Introduction and Context

The Ogiek are a minority ethnic group found in Kenya, East Africa and are one of the last forest-dwelling communities within this region[5]. Their traditional communal lands encompass the Mau forest in Kenya’s central Rift Valley[5]. The Ogiek Peoples' traditional forests, occupied since time immemorial, are strongly tied to their identity and are depended upon for food, shelter and non-timber forest products. In addition to hunter-gatherer practices, the Ogiek are also involved in bee keeping and small-scale farming[6]. The exact length of time that the Ogiek have existed in this region is not known. however historians believe they were the original inhabitants due to their lack of a corporately organized social system unlike the surrounding tribes in the region [7]. The Ogiek have faced a long history of injustice and marginalization by the Kenyan government which has repeatedly tried to deny their rights to their ancestral lands and attempted to evict them out of the region so as to clear the way for natural resource conservation and extraction[8].

Ogiek Peoples locating their traditional spatial knowledge on a participatory 3D Model, Nessuit, Mau Forest Complex. (2015). Source: Giacomo Rambaldi.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 3 million hectares of forest are lost each year in Africa. The remaining forest land is severely degraded, which is driven primarily by agricultural expansion as well as by the timber trade and demand for fuel wood[9][10]. Within Kenya, deforestation and degradation are serious issues which have resulted in the desertification of many regions, brought about by poor land use practices such as overcultivation and overgrazing of the land by livestock[11]. Consequently, more than 65% of Kenya’s total land area is considered suitable for reforestation and restoration. The health of the Mau forest has been declining in the last few decades due to human encroachment for purposes of agriculture, charcoal production, and logging which are significantly reshaping the landscape[12]. On September 8th, 2016, the government of Kenya acknowledged these issues and committed to restoring 5.1 million hectares of degraded land, representing more than 13% of the suitable restoration area[11]. This commitment is in response to Kenya's contribution to the AFR100 initiative. By participating in AFR100, Kenya's national objectives are to restore and rehabilitate degraded natural forests, promote agroforestry and improve the quality of their natural resources [1].

Given the deep connection of the Ogiek Peoples with their forested lands, this ambitious global movement of reforestation and restoration is highly relevant and essential to maintaining their way of life. Last year, the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF), which is dedicated to promoting the FLR approach and whose parent organization is the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), held its Prospects and Opportunities for Restoration in Africa conference. This conference included for the first time in the five year history of the GLF a plenary session composed of community member representatives to discuss significant achievements and progress[9]. Among these representatives was Daniel Kobei, the founder of the Ogiek People's Development Program (OPDP), who stated that for restoration to be successful, local peoples must be involved and given the opportunity to incorporate their values and knowledges[9]. Evidently, AFR100 presents significant potential to empower the Ogiek Peoples by further securing their rights to their traditional lands and providing them with a platform to advocate for themselves how they want their lands to be managed. However, deeper analysis is required to determine if AFR100 is in fact living up to its social objectives and creating relevant and meaningful impacts for the Ogiek Peoples.

Tenure Arrangements

Mau Forest in the Rift Valley, Kenya. (2008). Source: Rotsee 2.

Article 63(2)(d) of the Kenyan Constitution, enacted in 2010, states that “ancestral lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherer communities” are to be classified as common property[13][14]. Therefore, the Ogiek Peoples, who have occupied the Mau forest since time immemorial and whose hunter-gatherer practices remain integral to their culture and long-term subsistence, should legally be able to claim community rights to the Mau forest under common property[15][3]. However, because of the role of the Mau forest as Kenya’s largest water catchment area and because of its severe and continuing ecological degradation, the Kenyan Government has resisted its status as common property, enacting the Forest Conservation and Management Act of 2016 to designate the Mau Forest as state property, under the control of the Kenya Forest Services (KFS)[15][14]. Using this new designation as state property, the KFS has continuously and forcibly removed the Ogiek Peoples from their traditional homes within the Mau forest[14]. This violently disrupts their communities as well as their cultural and subsistence practices. While the government claims that removing the Ogiek Peoples is in the interest of conservation, evidence has been presented that informs us of the unlawful logging practices and collusion with forest authorities that continue to occur within the Mau forest in the financial interest of government and aligned private sectors[14].

On behalf of the Ogiek Peoples, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) based in Arusha, Tanzania, took the matter of the Ogiek's forced evictions to the African Court in 2012[14]. In May 2018, after five years of legal dispute, the African Court ruled that the Kenyan Government was in violation of eight rights of the Ogiek Peoples under the African charter and that the Ogiek Peoples were entitled to the use and occupation of their traditional lands, restoring their communal rights to the Mau Forest[14]. The African Court ordered that within six months, the Kenyan Government must rectify all violations and damages done to the Ogiek Peoples[14]. Today, after the expiration of this six month period, the Ogiek Peoples are still being forcibly removed from their homes and no restitution has occurred on the part of the Kenyan Government[16]. Therefore, while the Mau Forest now exists as state property in law, in practice it is the customary land of the Ogiek Indigenous People while being illegally logged by powerful private sector interests.

Administrative Arrangements

Institutions

The AFR100 platform is composed of a broadly diverse range of institutions and partners. AFR100’s objectives are aligned to collaborate with other global efforts such as the Bonn Challenge, the African Resilient Landscapes Initiative (ARLI), and the Sustainable Development Goals in improving resilience of landscapes[17]. Institutions under AFR100 can be divided into three categories: the AFR100 Secretariat, the AFR100 Management Team, and participating countries.

The central purpose of the AFR100 Secretariat is to provide effective communication across the initiative[18]. In addition, it coordinates the technical and financial sectors, mobilizes political support, facilitates knowledge exchange, and manages monitoring and reporting of the initiative's progress.

Under the AFR100 Management Team are the technical and financial partners. Technical partners map out restoration opportunities, provide guidance and instruction for implementation on the ground, and address barriers to implementation[18][19]. The largest technical partners working with AFR100 include the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The financial partners are responsible for raising funding for the initiative, leveraging a variety of financial instruments for specific cases, and allocating funding to different areas of the initiative[20]. The main financial partners are made up of the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and the World xxx as well as private sector partners such as Green Fund.

AFR100 is a country-led initiative and African countries can voluntarily join the initiative. In doing so, they set commitments towards restoring and reforesting degraded lands. Each participating nation has unique commitments which are specific to their nation's needs and restoration capacity. The role of participating nations is at the core of AFR100, as it is the communities within these countries who execute the on the ground restoration activities and processes which ultimately fulfill the objectives of the AFR100 initiative.

Traditional Management Rules, Authority, and Reporting System

Since the beginning of British colonial rule in Kenya, the Ogiek have never been in a position of full autonomy over the management of their ancestral lands[12]. As described earlier, the Ogiek have been in a constant struggle to resist violent evictions imposed by the Kenyan Government. Accordingly, the Kenyan Government holds ultimate authority over the Ogiek’s ancestral lands. Although the Ogiek Peoples have sustained their livelihoods for many generations through the Mau forest’s resources, their access to the land has been limited since colonial times. Despite the Kenyan Government holding management authority, the Ogiek Peoples have played an integral leadership role in addressing the drivers behind the Mau forest’s gradual ecological degradation. Ogiek community members patrol the forest weekly to intervene in and prevent illegal activities such as illegal logging and charcoal production from taking place on their land. They do this even though they receive no monetary compensation for their efforts[12]. Through the OPDP, Ogiek elders, opinion leaders, farmers, and professionals have assembled a platform which aims to free the Ogiek communities from oppressive systems of past and present institutions[21]. As we have seen, the OPDP plays an essential role because it provides a pathway for Ogiek Peoples to transfer their concerns to higher-level authorities such as the Kenyan Government. The recent victory for the Ogiek Peoples in the African Court appeared initially to mark the beginning of a new era for management and authority over the Mau forest by Ogiek Peoples. Unfortunately, as described above, the Kenyan government seems to be withdrawing their support of the African Court’s decision and there are signs that communities may continue to be evicted, with Ogiek Peoples fearing they too will be targeted again[12].

Management Rules, Authority, and Reporting System under AFR100

Greatly emphasized throughout the recent 2018 GLF Conference was the principle of involvement of community members and affected stakeholders in both the design and implementation of forest landscape restoration activities[22]. Community-based approaches were identified as the backbone of successful management and as key in achieving meaningful progress. Major reflections noted at the Third AFR100 Annual Partnership Meeting in August 2018 found that the on the ground approaches used by participating countries must ensure that “coordination and ownership of restoration initiatives come from the people themselves”[23]. This element of coordination appeared to be vital for successful management both at the institutional level and on the ground, as well as between these levels. With the introduction of AFR100, it seems there have been improvements made in expanding management rules, authority, and reporting power of the Ogiek Peoples as well as other non-Indigenous communities. During the plenary session at the GLF Conference, speakers from the Ogiek community presented their experiences and stories on rights, responsibilities, and collaboration around restoration projects. According to Daniel Kobei, successful restoration has been underway due to the effective coordination between the OPDP, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), and the local community[24]. The KFS works with the OPDP to advise and organize restoration activities with the community members in preparing the land and planting trees. However, within these collaborations, the central challenge that Kobei identified is the need to secure long-term benefits for the Ogiek Peoples, not just a one-time project but rather a sustainable regime[25].

Power Analysis of Affected Stakeholders

Affected stakeholder include:

1. The Ogiek Peoples

Th Ogiek Peoples represent affected instead of interested parties because they depend on the Mau forest, their ancestral land, for long-term subsistence and cultural practices.

Relevant Objectives:

  • Restitution of their ancestral lands of the Mau forest which have been lost through land grabs and other irregular and corrupt schemes.
  • The return of the Mau forest to their ownership under the recognition that: a) their rights cannot be commercialized - this land will never be for sale b) they will act to protect the forest against encroachment, exploitation and degradation; c) they will work with the government to ecologically restore the forest to the furthest extent.
  • To be recognized as a People with a unique interaction with the Mau forest, recognized through the establishment of special cultural zones.
  • To ensure cultural survival.
  • For the Mau forest complex to be returned to them as communal lands.
  • For the resources accruing from the Mau forest's natural resources (forest products and waters flowing from the forest to the rest of Kenya) to have a benefit sharing arrangement.
  • Compensation for damages previously suffered and assurances that they will benefit from any employment opportunities within the Mau forest complex.
  • Formal entitlements that reflect their traditional territorial arrangements in the form of community land titles.
  • Operationalization of the Community Land Act 2016.
  • Individual land rights for each community landowner of each member household to be established by each community.
  • For their knowledge contributions and innovations contributing to the conservation of Mau forest biodiversity to be recognized and valued.
  • That their habitation be limited to naturally non-forested parts of the Mau forest.
  • That each community be able to define community forest reserves falling under the categories a) Community Protected Forests and b) Community Use Forests.
  • Inclusion within all agencies working towards the restoration of the Mau forest.
  • That while any processes of restoration of the Mau forest proceed, they will not be evicted from their homes.

These objectives have been sourced from the demands made by the Ogiek Peoples in their memorandum after winning the Ogiek vs. Kenya case in 2018[26]. The Kenyan government has not yet acted to address these objectives[16].

Relevant Power:

The Ogiek Peoples have a low level of power.

  • On paper, the Ogiek would seem to have a high level of power because they are united by the Ogiek Peoples Development Program (OPDP) which provides a platform for their advocacy, are supported by external centers of power (i.e. the African Court), and have captured national and international attention because their recent court victory is seen as setting a precedent for the treatment of Indigenous Peoples in all of Africa. However in practice, the Ogiek Peoples continue to have a low degree of power because they are unable to pressure the Kenyan government to enforce the rulings of the court. They continue to experience violent evictions and disruption of culture/subsistence at the hands of the Kenyan government.

Power Analysis of Interested Stakeholders

Interested stakeholders include:

1.      Kenyan Government Ministry of Environment and Forestry Officials

Relevant Objectives:

  • To protect the vitality of the Mau forest as a water catchment area and preserve the degrading health of the forest's plant and animal biodiversity.

Relevant Power:

  • High level of power and influence to achieve desired objectives for the fate of the Mau forest.

2.      Kenya Forest Service Employees

Relevant Objectives:

  • To carry out the orders of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Officials

Relevant Power:

  • Medium level of power and can influence government decisions based on what they see on the ground.

3.      AFR100 Secretariat Members and Participating Countries

Relevant Objectives:

  • To restore and rehabilitate degraded forested landscapes to create social, environmental, and economic benefits.

Relevant Power:

  • Medium level of power to determine the objectives of the initiative, where funding is allocated, how implementation should look, and how information is perceived by outside world. Participating countries can determine whether they participate, they set their own commitments, and can significantly influence how communities/citizens are affected by the initiative.

4. Ogiek Peoples Development Program Members

Relevant Objectives:

  • Upon formation, the OPDP's central objective was to support community-based development that reinforced and preserved the holistic perspectives of the Ogiek Peoples. This includes advocating for consultation and participation of the Ogiek in decisions affecting their community and ability to exercise their cultural practices. Today, the program has expanded its objectives and the nations it works in. Currently, it works in six other countries outside of Kenya and it aims to protect not only Ogiek Peoples rights but also other Indigenous and marginalized groups within these countries.

Relevant Power:

  • OPDP is a non-profit organization and works collaboratively with local and international development agencies. The program has a moderate level of power through its partnerships which enables it to reach higher-level institutions especially through its legal work.
  • The OPDP is categorized as an interested stakeholder because the program has evolved to not only encompass concerns for the Ogiek Peoples and it is also not run solely by Ogiek community members. Furthermore, members of the program are likely monetarily compensated for their work and ultimately they report to the program rather than the Ogiek community.

5. Global Landscapes Forum

Relevant Objectives:

  • To support AFR100 both technically and financially as well as to communicate progress and challenges of restoration implementation.

Relevant Power:

  • Moderate level of power to shed light on controversial issues and sway government decisions through public image.

6. Minority Rights Group

Relevant Objectives:

  • Strengthening the rights and well-being of minority groups through law and legal action.

Relevant Power:

  • Moderate level of power to improve minority groups' rights and influence government decisions directly and indirectly using public image.

7. German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development

Relevant Objectives:

  • Long history of commitment towards supporting international forest protection and landscape conservation.

Relevant Power:

  • Medium level of power as one of the largest donors of AFR100 and related landscape restoration projects.

Relative Power and Governance Assessment

In assessing relative power through the context of AFR100, the most relevant stakeholder groups include the Kenyan Government, AFR100 leaders and institution members, and the Ogiek Peoples.

Kenyan Government:

The Kenyan Government holds ultimate power over the fate of the Mau forest and the livelihoods of the Ogiek Peoples as well as Kenya's participation in landscape restoration. The Government continues to use their sovereignty to place conservation objectives above the rights of the Ogiek People. Evidently, the Government does not choose to recognize that the Ogiek are not responsible for the central causes of the forest's degradation. Neither do they recognize that nature protection can coexist with the presence of humans. The Ogiek People hold invaluable knowledge of their ancestral lands which has been built and transmitted through many generations. If the Kenyan Government continues to use their power to evict and oppress the Ogiek from their ancestral lands, it may result in devastating outcomes for both the Ogiek Peoples and the health of the Mau forest.

AFR100 Secretariat Members

Due to AFR100's substantial partnership, the initiative collectively holds medium power in shaping how landscape restoration is enforced and how communities are affected. AFR100's central concern as described before is the restoration of degraded landscapes. Across most of AFR100's publications, it openly supports the empowerment of Indigenous Peoples and community participation and as we have seen, the initiative has used their power to create new opportunities for the Ogiek Peoples to reach a greater audience and enabled the Ogiek to interact more directly with higher-level institution members. However, it should be noted that the initiative does not have enforcement power: it cannot specifically empower Indigenous Peoples, but rather it supports local community groups and Indigenous Peoples in an equal manner.

The single affected stakeholder group are the Ogiek Peoples

Ogiek Peoples

As the most vulnerable social actor, the Ogiek Peoples have very little power to make decisions which impact the fate of their livelihoods. That does not mean, however that they do not possess power. Their power is two fold. Intrinsically, the Ogiek Peoples possess power through their connection to the land and their certainty that they belong on their ancestral lands. Externally, the Ogiek receive power from the growing global recognition of Indigenous rights. The Ogiek use their power to reach higher level audiences and to bring justice to their community.

Governance Assessment

To assess the governance of these social actors, four principles can be applied: transparency, participation, coordination, and accountability[27].

In assessing the governance of the Kenyan Government, there is a lot of room for improvement. In terms of transparency, the Government does not readily provide information or justifications for their actions. Participation is a major weakness for the government as they do not effectively integrate public concerns into their decision making processes, nor do they facilitate a space for communities to participate in sharing their concerns. Coordination is moving in the right direction considering that the Government has taken steps to bring the Kenyan Forest Service together with the Ogiek Peoples to work together on AFR100 activities. However, an important aspect of coordination includes achieving common goals and thus far the Government has not given much effort towards developing common-goal opportunities with the Ogiek Peoples. Finally, the Government does not demonstrate adequate accountability, particularly due to their lack of response to the African Court's decision of the violation against the rights of Ogiek Peoples.

In comparison, the assessment of governance under the AFR100 initiative appears to be doing quite well with more effective than poor practices. Looking at transparency, information about AFR100 is widely available. It openly shares its principles, goals, strategies, and progress which are all collaboratively developed among AFR100's partners. Participation under the initiative is strong, with a clear emphasis placed on stakeholder engagement. This has been a running theme throughout the initiative, with high effort placed on bringing both interested and affected stakeholders together at early stages. Coordination under AFR100 is a complex factor in its governance. On paper, AFR100 appears to have very strong coordination frameworks, however, in implementation there are some significant gaps. This refers predominantly to the lack of coordination in terms of coordinating common goals and understanding between affected stakeholders and governments. Due to AFR100's large partnership, accountability is substantially met. The initiative enables its practices to be overseen and demonstrates its attentiveness to provide information and continually improve its approaches for successful restoration implementation.

Purpose of Case Study & Critical Issues

Aims and Intentions

AFR100 aims to restore 100 million hectares of degraded land in Africa by the year 2030[28]. Through the acceleration of restoration, this initiative intends to improve food security, increase climate resilience, and combat rural poverty. Underlying the initiative is the Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) approach which balances social and environmental integrity through restoration[1]. The AFR100 project is governed by ten guiding principles. Two principles relevant to the involvement of the Ogiek Peoples are as follows:

  1. Multiple stakeholders - "Multiple stakeholders frame and express objectives in different ways. Failure to engage stakeholders in an equitable manner in decision-making processes will lead to sub-optimal, and sometimes unethical, outcomes. All stakeholders should be recognized, even though efficient pursuit of negotiated solutions may involve only a subset of stakeholders"[1].
  2. Clarification of rights and responsibilities - "Rules on resources access and land use shape social and conservation outcomes and need to be clear as a basis for good management. Access to a fair justice system allows for conflict resolution and recourse. The rights and responsibilities of different actors need to be clear to, and accepted by, all stakeholders. Clarifying rights and responsibilities is now replacing the command-and-control approach[1]".

Successes and Failures

Because AFR100 is a country-led effort, we must look to the actions of Kenya's government to assess whether the initiative has been successful within the context of our case study. Kenya has declared the following as its priority interventions to be addressed by AFR100[1]:

  • Afforestation and reforestation of natural forests
  • Rehabilitation of degraded natural forests
  • Agroforestry
  • Commercial tree plantations
  • Tree buffers along water bodies
  • Tree buffers along roadways and railways
  • Range land restoration and management

With these interventions in mind, the Kenyan government has publicly committed to rehabilitating and protecting the Mau forest because of its importance as one of Kenya's five water towers. They have asserted that their goal is to "increase forest cover and volume of water flowing from the catchment areas" to ameliorate production and available volume of natural resources[29]. This commitment coincided with the implementation of the Forest Conservation and Management Act of 2016, which acted to designate the Mau forest as state property, under the control of the Kenya Forest Services (KFS)[15][14]. Under this act, the Ogiek Peoples were continuously evicted from their ancestral land in the name of conservation and restoration[16]. These evictions continue today, even after the African Court ordered that the Kenyan government must acknowledge the Ogiek People's ancestral rights to the Mau forest.

While their continued commitment to the conservation and restoration of the Mau forest may be considered a success, the Kenyan government fails to operate under the guiding principles of the AFR100 initiative as listed above. The Kenyan government has failed in the context of AFR100 in the following ways:

  1. Multiple Stakeholders: The Ogiek Peoples are not engaged in an equitable manner in decision making processes.
  2. Clarification of Rights and Responsibilities: The rights and responsibilities of different actors (i.e. the Ogiek Peoples) have been made clear, but have not been accepted by all stakeholders (i.e. the Kenyan government).

While the AFR100 initiative itself has not failed, having identified equitable engagement and acceptance of rights as guiding principles, the country responsible for upholding and implementing the initiative has failed in the context of upholding these key principles.

Issues and Conflict Management

Issues include:

  • Continued evictions of Ogiek Peoples from their ancestral land.
  • Failure to engage the Ogiek Peoples equitably in decision making processes regarding the conservation and restoration of their ancestral land.
  • Failure to accept the rights and responsibilities of the Ogiek Peoples in the context of the conservation and restoration of their ancestral land as mandated by the African Court.

At the heart of these issues, we see recurring conflict regarding a) the question of whether the nation-state is the only entity in which the conservation and restoration of ecologically damaged lands may be vested and b) the question of whether the Ogiek Peoples can be trusted as "forest owner-conservators" to operate in the national interest.

Little is being done by the Kenyan Government to address these issues[14]. The Ogiek Peoples, in an effort to demonstrate their capacity to act in the best interest of the Mau forest, have focused on maintaining and restoring their land using Indigenous species, successfully rehabilitating 100 acres of land since 2016[24].

Recommendations

On paper, AFR100 adequately promotes collaboration with and supports the rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, as seen in our case study, this does not always hold up on the ground, where the initiative is country-led. The Initiative emphasizes that community involvement is crucial for the success of the initiative's goals, however on the ground it is not addressing the human rights issues which are evident in the removing of community members from lands where restoration and monitoring are needed. To address this issue, AFR100 needs to further acknowledge government and corporate obstacles that impede the progress of Indigenous Peoples in claiming rights to their traditional lands and provide further support in countries where conservation and restoration are taking precedence to the ancestral rights and equal participation of Indigenous Peoples in matters concerning their traditional lands.

This could be achieved via a system of equality plus, wherein AFR100 requires that participating countries recognize that Indigenous relationships with land go beyond that of ‘stakeholder’ to something that holds more weight – a traditional occupation and relationship with the land, resulting in intrinsic rights. Indigenous Peoples should participate in AFR100 projects that affect their traditional lands not as stakeholders equal to government actors or civil society organizations, but as bodies whose interests in and relationships with the land are held above those of other groups; and whose cultural identities and long term subsistence practices are considered as equal to or more important than the economic and environmental interests of the state. AFR100, as a centrality, invites Indigenous Peoples to participate in its system, equal on paper to all other actors. However, this theoretical equality cannot be expected to translate into reality within a system that has historically (and presently) treated Indigenous Peoples and knowledge with violent oppression. Because of systemic and historical inequalities, inclusion through equality pushes Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge to the periphery. If Indigenous Peoples are to be included in the AFR100 in a meaningful way, they must be included through a system of equal-with-difference. In implementing this strategy, the AFR100 will better be able to gain the trust of Indigenous communities, allowing them to collaborate with and promote the stewardship abilities of Indigenous Peoples

Coordination is an additional area which could strengthen AFR100's advancements and further secure benefits for communities and Indigenous Peoples. As mentioned, coordination is an important theme running through AFR100's agenda. Its recent emphasis in landscape restoration forums may be for good reason, as it is an area in which the initiative could improve. Most notably, greater coordination is needed between the objectives of the Kenyan Government and the Ogiek Peoples because they both share concern for the degradation of the Mau forest. Yet, because they are not working together, they perceive one another as obstacles to achieving their own agendas. If there was enhanced coordination between these actors facilitated by AFR100, they might realize that their objectives, which at first glace seem very different, actually share common threads. Through stronger coordination, we would likely see benefits arise in many areas for the Ogiek Peoples under AFR100.

With the rise of environmental initiatives around the world, critical analyses of these initiatives like this UBC Wiki page will continue to grow in importance. It is our hope that these initiatives serve as empowering platforms which set higher standards for Indigenous Peoples' participation into practice and that they strive to further advance Indigenous Peoples' rights at the greatest capacity.

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 AFR100 (2016). "AFR100 Content". 
  2. Besseau, P., Graham, S. & Christophersen, T. (eds.). (2018). "Restoring Forests and Landscapes: The Key to a Sustainable Future" (PDF). Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration. 
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Ogiek Community (2009). "Ogiek Community- Mau forest is Our Ancestral Home" (PDF). Ogiek Peoples Development Program (OPDP). 
  4. UNHCR (2018). "World directory of minorities and Indigenous Peoples Kenya". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 
  5. 5.0 5.1 Minority Rights Group (2016). "Kenya: Guaranteeing Ogiek Rights. African Commission of Human and Peoples' Rights v Kenya (the 'Ogiek case')". Minority Rights Group. 
  6. CIFOR (2018). "Rights, responsibilities and collaboration:The Ogiek and tree growing in the Mau" (PDF). Global Landscapes Forum. 
  7. Kamau, J. (2000). "Ogiek: History of a Forgotten Tribe". www.ogiek.org. 
  8. Minority Rights Group (2018). "Ogiek justice: now!". Minority Rights Group. 
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Pallares, G. (2018). "GLF Nairobi shines spotlight on communities in Africa restoring degraded landscapes". Landscape News. 
  10. Mbugua, S. (2018). "Monitoring the ambitious land restoration commitments in Africa". Mongabay: News and Inspiration from Nature's Frontline. 
  11. 11.0 11.1 Higgins, H. (2016). "Kenya to Restore Denmark-sized Area of Degraded Land". World Resources Institute. 
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Siegel, N. (2018). "Kenya: Indigenous Ogiek face eviction from their ancestral forest… again". Mongabay. 
  13. National Council for Law Reporting (2010). "The Constitution of Kenya" (PDF). p. 43. 
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 Wily, A. L. (2018). "Risks to the sanctity of community lands in Kenya: A critical assessment of new legislation with reference to forestlands". 
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 Chabeda-Barthe, J. & Haller, T., J. (2018). "Resilience of traditional livelihood approaches despite forest grabbing: Ogiek to the West of Mau Forest, Uasin Gishu County". 
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 Oluoch, F. (2018). "Ogiek face new eviction threats". 
  17. AFR100 (2016). "AFR100 About Us". 
  18. 18.0 18.1 AFR100 (2017). "Terms of Reference for AFR100 Governance Bodies" (PDF). AFR100. 
  19. AFR100 (2016). "AFR100 Technical Partners". 
  20. AFR100 (2016). "AFR100 Financial Partners". 
  21. Ogiek Peoples Development Program (2017). "Who We Are". Ogiek Peoples Development Program. 
  22. Mbugua, S. (2018). "Monitoring the ambitious land restoration commitments in Africa, para 25". Land Portal. 
  23. Hagmann, J., Chuma, E., & Ramaru, J. (2018). "The third AFR100 annual partnership meeting: "Scaling African forest landscape restoration"" (PDF). p. x. 
  24. 24.0 24.1 Mwangi, E. & Evans, M. (2018). Rights, responsibilities and collaboration The Ogiek and tree growing in the Mau. In 2018 Global Landscapes Forum (p.2). Nairobi, Kenya: Global Landscapes Forum & CIFOR.
  25. Mwangi, E. & Evans, M. (2018). Rights, responsibilities and collaboration The Ogiek and tree growing in the Mau. In 2018 Global Landscapes Forum (p.3). Nairobi, Kenya: Global Landscapes Forum & CIFOR.
  26. The Ogiek Community (2019). "Memorandum From the Ogiek Community" (PDF). p. 7-11. 
  27. Governance of Forest Initiative (2016). "Part I: Conducting a Governance Assessment" (PDF). World Resources Institute. 
  28. Mbugua, S. (2018). "Monitoring the ambitious land restoration commitments in Africa". 
  29. Kenya Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2016). "Technical report on the national assessment of forest and landscape restoration opportunities in Kenya 2016" (PDF). 


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
This conservation resource was created by Maya Brassard & Nolita Kay. It has been viewed over 0 times.It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.