Jump to content

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2024/The Ogiek Indigenous People of Kenya: Barriers and Opportunities to Inclusive Conservation

From UBC Wiki

Abstract

The Ogiek peoples of Kenya are an Indigenous community historically domiciled in the Mau Forest complex of Kenya which spans an area approximated to be about 400,000 hectares. [1] For a long time, the community has faced challenges maintaining their traditional ways of life that contributed to the sustainable conservation of natural resources. The challenges experienced by the Ogiek in sustainable conservation range from post-independence legal challenges to insecure land tenure systems, and environmental and socio-economic barriers. Today, the Ogiek continue to suffer marginalization and historical land injustices that can be traced back to settler colonial land policies. Studies have shown that Indigenous communities are the best stewards of natural resources, however, Indigenous peoples like the Ogiek still face exclusion from policy decisions aimed at conservation and natural resources management. Legal developments and judicial precedents such as the 2017 ruling by the African Court on Human and People’s Rights which upheld the community’s rights to their unceded, and traditional lands are a step in the right direction, offering opportunities towards fostering inclusive conservation. Land tenure reforms alongside strategies such as Community-Based Forest Management and the recognition of Indigenous knowledge systems could catalyse inclusive and sustainable conservation that is centred around safeguarding biodiversity and restoring forest ecosystems. This case study explores the barriers and opportunities the Ogiek face in promoting sustainable and inclusive conservation and emphasizes the importance of land tenure recognition and reforms in Kenya, inclusive governance, and integrating traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into conservation strategies.

Keywords

The Ogiek, Indigenous people, Conservation, Sustainable Forestry Management, Land Tenure Rights, Colonization, Kenya, Mau Forest Complex (MCF).

1. Introduction

The Ogiek Indigenous peoples: Source: The Earth&I

Natural resources across the world are being depleted at a faster rate than ever before. This depletion has devastating ramifications on the overall sustainability of natural resources as well as the future of our planet.[2] Forests and forest ecosystems play a critical role in mitigating climate change impact - creating a more sustainable world. While there have been deliberate and well-intended global efforts to protect forests by governments, non-governmental organizations, private sector organizations and other actors in the climate change space, these efforts have in some cases caused conflicts when they interact with local realities. Conservation programmes relating to forestry, and sustainable forest management such as carbon credits, have often resulted in unprecedented setbacks to Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ (IPLCs) ways of life. These changes are often preceded by dispossession of Indigenous lands, cultures and knowledge despite evidence showing that IPLCs are fundamental to biodiversity conservation because of their sustainable land use approaches. These changes include limiting access to forest ecosystems by the Indigenous communities and in some cases eviction and physical displacement.[3] Proponents of such global conservation agendas believe that the biodiversity of forest eco-systems must be devoid of human beings – contrary to many studies that show human beings, nature and conservation can co-exist in perfect harmony (Zocchi et al., 2020). This misunderstanding has formed the basis of many conflicts with Indigenous Peoples and local communities as witnessed in Kenya among the Ogiek. The Ogiek of Kenya is one of the few Indigenous communities in Kenya that are still fighting for their land rights in the Mau Forest ecosystem. Successive post-independent Kenyan governments  have on many occasions evicted the Ogiek from the Mau Forest complex under the guise of the conservation of watershed areas.[4] In 2017, the Ogiek community successfully challenged the unlawful evictions and dispossession of their ancestral land at the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, however, several years later, there have been no restitution and remediation efforts from the governments of the day.[4] Sustainable and inclusive conservation must be focussed on centering conservation agenda and initiatives around Indigenous rights, equity and access but at the same time respect a plurality of perspectives, different knowledge systems and worldviews.[5] While there have been attempts to reconcile Indigenous Peoples' rights with conservation in Kenya among some the Indigenous communities such as the Sengwer Indigenous Peoples of Embobut forest [6], such is not the case with the Ogiek, who continue to experience exclusion from conservation on their own traditional and ancestral lands. There is a need to identify ways for conservation initiatives, policies and strategies that deviate from the dichotomous view that pits people against nature. Modern-day conservation approaches must be anchored in policies and strategies that embrace the importance of the symbiotic relationship between people and nature. The case of the Ogiek Indigenous Peoples of Kenya is a microcosm of the barriers and opportunities that exist today in promoting sustainable and inclusive conservation in the global south countries.

2. Description

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

The Ogiek Indigenous people of Kenya is a Nilotic mosaic ethnic group that has historically inhabited the Mau Forest complex which is located in the Rift Valley province of Kenya (Zocchi et al., 2020). The Mau Forest Complex is estimated to be about 400,000 hectares in size.[1] It is also regarded as Kenya’s largest water tower. [7] While there is no clear information regarding the population of the Ogiek, data from Amnesty International (2023) estimates that the population of this community is about 20,000 people. Just like many Indigenous communities around the world, the Ogiek had and continue to have a social, economic and cultural dependence on the Mau Forest ecosystem since time immemorial. The Ogiek are hunters and gatherers and given this dependence, they managed the forest sustainably in accordance with their customary guidelines and principles. This has ensured that the forest is conserved. However, in the last century, anthropogenic activities such as clear cutting and conversion and expansion of forest land for agricultural purposes, increase in population size, logging, and changes in land tenure systems/agreements that have resulted in the privatization of Indigenous lands, have affected the Mau Forest complex and consequently affecting the Ogiek who have an intrinsic relationship with the forest.[8]

To date, the Ogiek continue to endure marginalization on their own traditional, ancestral and unceded territories. This marginalization can be traced back to settler colonial rule that promoted fortress conservation. The British rulers in Kenya designated the ancestral lands as state property. Even after Kenya attained independence there has been no progress made regarding reconciliation and returning the land to the traditional owners. Government land and conservation policies are still entrenched in colonial ideology and further dispossess the Ogiek of their lands which has further excluded them from conservation of the forest ecosystems.

Over the past years, national government policies in Kenya have promoted agriculture, and logging within the Mau Forest complex. These policies have caused biodiversity loss and deforestation within the Mau Forest, leaving forest-dependent communities like the Ogiek exposed and vulnerable. In 2010, Kenya adopted a new constitution that recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples. However, the implementation of the provisions still remains a challenge.

3. Tenure arrangements

Chapter 5 of the Kenyan constitution enacted in 2010 provides a legal framework for land tenure and governance that categorizes land as being either public, community or private land.[9] The 2010 constitution was a departure from the colonial land governance system that operated with impunity and total disregard for Indigenous Peoples' land rights. Settler colonial rule adopted the Crown Land Ordinance Act in 1902 which considered Indigenous lands as Crown Land.[10] Consequently, Indigenous communities like the Ogiek were dispossessed of their traditional and ancestral lands. This system of land tenure continued to be implemented post-independence by successive post-colonial government regimes – perpetuating a historical cycle of land injustice against Indigenous communities.

Although the 2010 Kenyan constitution does not expressly mention and recognise the right of Indigenous communities to own land, the designation of certain lands as community land was hailed as a step in the right direction towards restitution, healing and remediation of historical land injustices against Indigenous communities like the Ogiek.  The 2010 Kenyan constitution has been hailed as being the first ever piece of legislation in  Kenya’s history to recognise and designate community land.[11] This recognition provides a progressive framework for restitution and offers hope to Indigenous Peoples to regain access to their annexed lands. This recognition gave birth to the Community Land Act of 2016 - a framework that allows Indigenous communities like the Ogiek to manage their customary or ancestral lands collectively hence guarding against annexation or dispossession. According to Claridge and Kobei [4] the land tenure reforms recognised community land and led to the creation of the Community Land Act (2016). This formed the foundation for inclusive and equitable property governance, aligning it to the socio-cultural and organizational norms of the Ogiek Indigenous Peoples. This framework provides a pathway for participation in conservation decisions by Indigenous communities as well. While progress has been made regarding land agreements, systemic and institutional challenges such as government bureaucracies, compounded by weak legislation and enforcement, and a lack of harmonized conservation policies that align with Indigenous rights still abound, and are a barrier to implementing these agreements towards sustainable and inclusive conservation. Besides, recognizing land as being communal land is not enough. There must be statutory, constitutional or legal frameworks that protect and promote Indigenous peoples' rights. This seems to be lacking in Kenya.  Perhaps, this explains why the Ogiek people still face evictions from the Mau Forest complex ecosystem, fourteen years after the promulgation of the new constitution. The government through the Kenya Forest Service has from time to time displaced the Ogiek from their traditional land even in the presence of court orders that uphold the rights of this Indigenous community.

4. Institutional/Administrative arrangements

Until the late 1990s, the management and conservation of forests in Kenya was a preserve of the national government through a centralized command.[12] A centralized system of forest management and conservation was anchored on a top-down approach that excluded important stakeholders such as the Indigenous Ogiek peoples. Later, there was a paradigm shift to a decentralized system of forest management. The events leading up to the decentralization of forest management in Kenya can be traced back to the 1980s.[12] During this period, there was mounting pressure on the government to move from a centralized system to a decentralized system that would be more inclusive and effective in managing forest ecosystems. The reason underpinning this push to a decentralized system was the increasing rate of forest degradation.[12] It was believed that involving local communities and other stakeholders in forest management and conservation would slow down and possibly reverse forest degradation. In 2005, through the Forest Act,  the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) was formed as a semi-independent government agency [13]. KFS was tasked with the responsibility of addressing forest conservation issues and adopting sustainable and participatory approaches to managing and conserving forest ecosystems. The formation of the KFS marked a new beginning in forest conservation policy and was centered on Participatory Forest Management approaches such as Community Forest Associations.[13] Whereas these administrative arrangements and reforms are progressive in fostering a collaborative and inclusive approach to forest management and conservation, there exists little to no institutional support mechanisms that prioritize Indigenous knowledge, ensure equitable resource access, and foster co-management with government and non-governmental organizations.

5. Affected Stakeholders

The Ogiek Indigenous peoples

As the affected stakeholders, historically the Ogiek have had an intrinsic relationship with the forest. For many years, they have depended on the Mau Forest for cultural, social and economic value. The Mau Forest is a source of their livelihood. Yet still, they continue to experience dispossession of their lands and are excluded from decision-making processes regarding forest management.

Relevant objectives

The objectives of the Ogiek are as follows:

o  Recognition of their land tenure rights as the ancestral owners of the land.

o  Involvement and participation in decision-making processes relating to the forest.

o  Preservation of their cultural heritage.

o  Equitable benefit-sharing. The Mau Forest is a source of revenue for the government through forest-related activities such as eco-tourism and carbon trading. These benefits do not trickle down to the Ogiek despite being the ancestral owners of the land.

Relative power

o   Contrary to popular belief, the Ogiek still have a very low degree of power over decisions involving the Mau Forest complex. This is reflected in their inability to influence and mount pressure on the Kenyan government to enforce existing and previous court orders that uphold their rights. They continue to face marginalization and eviction even from their government which should be protecting them.

6. Interested Stakeholders

Various factions have shown interest in the Mau Forest complex for varied reasons. The interested stakeholders in this forest ecosystem include the following

1. The Government of Kenya through the Kenya Forest Service Department and the Ministry of Environment

As an interested stakeholder, successive post-independence government regimes in Kenya have had a transactional relationship with the Mau Forest complex, building on the foundation laid by colonial fortress conservation policies. The Government of Kenya has conducted mass evictions and displacement of the Ogiek from the Mau Forest under the guise of conservation of the forest yet at the same time grants licenses to logging companies who have commercial interests in the forest. Recently the government of Kenya has been in the spotlight for mass forced evictions and displacement of the Indigenous Ogiek without their free prior, and informed consent (Amnesty International, 2023b). Evictions of the Ogiek from the Mau Forest complex have also been attributed to carbon credit sales.[3]

Relevant Objectives

  • Conservation of the Mau Forest complex water Towers.
  • Promotion of sustainable forest management.
  • Economic exploitation of the forest.

Relative degree of power

The government wields a lot of power and influence regarding conservation decisions in the Mau Forest complex. Unfortunately, government officials from government agencies like the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) have abused this power by conducting mass evictions and dispossession of ancestral lands. Several court rulings that recognize the role of the Ogiek in environmental stewardship as well as their land rights remain unenforced by the government

2. Civil Society Organizations, Human Rights Groups  and Non-governmental organizations

Over the years, the issue of the Ogiek has attracted the attention of Civil Society Organizations such as Ogiek Peoples Development Program Members, Human Rights Groups such as the Kenya National Human Rights Commission and international NGOs like Amnesty International and Minority Rights Group. These interested stakeholders have been critical of government actions in dispossessing and displacing the Ogiek from their ancestral land. Their collective efforts and actions have helped to amplify the voice and plight of the Ogiek and other minority and Indigenous communities in Kenya on an international platform.

Relevant Objectives

  • Protection and respect for Indigenous people’s rights.
  • Remediation of historical land injustices.
  • Protection of human rights.

Relative degree of power

These organizations have a moderate or medium level of power. They have used their power to highlight cases of Indigenous land rights violations which then attract the attention of more powerful institutions and partners that can hold the government to account.

3. The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights

As an interested stakeholder in this case, the African Court on Human and People’s Rights made a landmark ruling in 2017, recognising the rights of the Ogiek to claim the Mau Forest. A subsequent ruling was made in 2022 which barred the Government of Kenya from evicting the Ogiek from the forest as a precursor to conservation. The court ruling established that there was damage and degradation to the forest, and the Ogiek were exonerated.

Relevant objectives

  • Restitution, reconciliation, and reparations for the Ogiek.
  • Justice for Indigenous communities.

Relative degree of power.

The African Court on Human and People’s Rights has a moderate level of power. While court decisions are binding, the court lacks enforcement mechanisms, making it have a moderate or medium level of power. State compliance remains a challenge in implementing and enforcing this court decision.

7. Discussion

Aims and Intentions

For a long time, modern conservation policy in Kenya has been anchored on the premise that conservation and human beings cannot co-exist in perfect harmony. Yet, studies show that there exists a symbiotic relationship between human beings and nature. This case study aims to examine how the Ogiek Indigenous peoples of Kenya can effectively contribute to conservation and sustainable forestry in the Mau Forest Complex as well as highlight the systemic barriers Indigenous peoples face that exclude them from conservation decisions. Traditionally the cultural aspects and ways of life of the Ogiek have been consistent with principles of sustainable forestry and conservation. Indigenous communities like the Ogiek are fundamental to biodiversity conservation because of their sustainable use of land and nature. Yet still, conservation decisions and policies have continued to exclude them from participation in conservation, entrenching the dispossession of their lands, knowledge and cultural practices. Traditional and land-based knowledge has contributed to the conservation of biodiversity. As such, there is a need to continue to anchor conservation decisions and initiatives around Indigenous peoples’ rights, access, inclusion and equity while at the same time respecting the plurality of perspectives (including Indigenous perspectives), world views and knowledge systems. This case study seeks to highlight the barriers that entrench the marginalization of the Ogiek from conservation decisions, explore the opportunities that exist towards inclusive conservation as well and recommend strategies that integrate Indigenous rights and perspectives into the broader conservation agenda while ensuring a balance between ecological preservation, economic development and cultural wellbeing.

8. Critical Issues

8.1 The legacy of colonialism, Indigenous Injustices and Conservation

The concept of protected areas is a form of conservation that was first conceived in the United States of America in the early 19th Century [14]. This method of conservation was anchored on the belief that biodiversity protection and human existence are mutually exclusive [14] This approach came to be known as fortress or colonial conservation, and it quickly spread and gained prominence in other parts of the world, including areas inhabited by settler colonialists such as Kenya. The relationship between biodiversity protection and human existence, specifically in Indigenous communities is symbiotic (mutually beneficial) xxx.[8] Fortress conservation is a colonial conservation ideology that has entrenched and perpetuated historical land injustices against Indigenous Peoples. This colonial conservation ideology is still very much alive and permeates modern-day conservation policies and approaches in Kenya and other global south countries such as Zimbabwe, Botswana and the Democratic Republic of Congo. [14] [15] In Kenya today, the Indigenous Ogiek are alienated from their traditional lands by their own government under the guise of protecting the environment. As was the case during settler colonial rule, land use in protected areas in Kenya is more focused on economic exploitation, rather than ecological preservation with the latter being the focus for the Ogiek community.[15]

8.2 Legal and policy constraints

Litigation and judicial precedents have been seen as a catalyst for community-led conservation anchored on the premise of Indigenous autonomy. [4]  In 2017, a ruling by the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights (ACtHPR) provided a legal framework that recognized the role of the Indigenous Ogiek peoples in conservation and biodiversity protection. This landmark ruling was widely regarded as a step in the right direction towards involving Indigenous communities in conservation. However, state compliance and political goodwill remain the greatest barriers to ensuring compliance with these court orders. The court made it clear that conservation needs cannot be the basis of evicting an Indigenous community such as the Ogiek because they too have a stake and responsibility in managing forest ecosystems. This court decision is supported by frameworks that recognize the Indigenous conservation roles such as the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UN CBD). Litigation and judicial precedents offer a window of opportunity for inclusive conservation. Legal frameworks can catalyse inclusive conservation. however, compliance by state actors and enforcement agencies remains the weakest link between legal recognition of Indigenous-led conservation initiatives and the actualization or implementation of these initiatives.

8.3 Land Tenure rights

Land tenure agreements in Kenya have had a profound impact on Indigenous communities. These agreements often interplay with land rights issues and conservation policies which affect the Ogiek. Kenya’s constitution which was enacted in 2010 recognizes community land[9] though, it does not expressly recognize and acknowledge the right of Indigenous people to own land. This recognition was a progressive step in promoting inclusive conservation. however, it lacks the specific legal, statutory, and constitutional frameworks that promote Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The land tenure agreements in Kenya do not recognize the Ogiek’s customary land rights and still recognize forests as being state property. Consequently, the state has designated lands belonging to the Ogiek as protected areas. Successive post-independence regimes in Kenya have often enacted policies that have led to evictions from the forest, undermining Indigenous Peoples' traditional practices that promote conservation of the forest. Such policies exclude Indigenous communities from conservation and decision-making processes regarding the Mau Forest Complex, often framing and characterizing their presence in the forest as a threat to biodiversity. Insecure land tenure is one of the most critical barriers to inclusive conservation.[16] Such is the case with the Ogiek, who continue to experience exclusion and marginalisation in conservation and natural resources management.

8.4 Carbon markets, Indigenous communities and Conservation

A woman and her daughters sit near her demolished houses. Source: Anthony Langat for Mongabay.

The concept of carbon markets gained traction in 1997 due to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol - a legally binding international agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). As part of this agreement, a mechanism to facilitate emissions reduction created the basis for carbon trading. This mechanism allowed countries and companies to trade carbon credits and invest in emissions-reducing projects beyond their borders. Whereas carbon trading has been hailed as a new paradigm in conservation and sustainable forest management, it has been a contentious issue and of late has become a subject of debate attracting criticism from many quarters, including industry professionals, environmental groups, and human rights lobby groups, with some terming this as slow violence against Indigenous communities in the global south. Though well-intended, this framework has been in the spotlight for its role in furthering the marginalisation and exclusion of Indigenous Peoples from conservation. This is because many of the world’s most important carbon sinks are on land that is inhabited by Indigenous communities.[17] For both to flourish, the rights of those communities must be secured.

Recently in Kenya, carbon trading has been in the spotlight for its role in the eviction of Kenya’s Indigenous Ogiek people. [3] This makes carbon markets appear as a tool for the continued exclusion and marginalization of Indigenous peoples in sustainable forest management and conservation. Eviction of the Ogiek community not only displaced them but also deprived them of their rights to manage the forest and benefit from their ancestral lands, bringing to the fore the issue of land rights.

9. Assessment

The governance of the Mau Forest Complex adopts a multi-level and multiscale approach that involves various stakeholders from the national government, local communities and local government, otherwise known as county government. [13]The adoption of a multi-level approach was aimed at fostering sustainable forestry and inclusive conservation. While the intentions of such frameworks are good and well-meaning, glaring gaps and challenges still exist that hinder the integration of Indigenous peoples such as the Ogiek in conservation, mainly due to overlapping governance systems.

Local-level governance structures have adopted frameworks such as the Community Forest Associations (CFAs) which are intended to provide platforms for Indigenous people’s participation and involvement in conservation. Yet, the voices of Indigenous peoples remain unheard in the formal governance structures.  While the traditional decision-making frameworks still exist, they do have little to no recognition. On the national scale, the promulgation of Kenya’s 2010 constitution marked a new beginning in Kenya’s history regarding Indigenous people’s rights.  While this was a progressive step that would involve the Ogiek in conservation decisions, systemic challenges continue to undermine the provisions of the constitution of Kenya regarding Indigenous people’s rights. This can be seen in instances such as failing to comply with a 2017 court ruling by the African Court on Human and People’s Rights.

Beyond Kenya’s borders, litigation at the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has supported forest governance regime changes, further amplifying the clamour to include the Ogiek in forest management and conservation. However, this has been met with challenges such as a lack of political and state goodwill to comply and enforce court decisions as well as misalignment with local realities. Fragmented governance systems, that involve multiple stakeholders with conflicting and competing objectives, create inefficiencies. These challenges in governance are compounded by issues such as conflicts over land use and competing priorities among the Indigenous Ogiek, settlers (local communities), conservationists and environmentalists, and national and local government agencies.  Besides, the lack of alignment in governance scales between the government and the Ogiek has resulted in a lack of coherent management strategies. The national government is mostly concerned with short-term policies most of which prioritize economic benefits while the Ogiek are concerned with longer-term ecological stewardship. From the foregoing, governance structures must adopt a more inclusive approach that is centered around Indigenous traditional knowledge of the Ogiek and align it to the multi-level efforts of all the stakeholders.

10. Recommendations and Conclusion

The legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism still dominates current conservation policies and institutional frameworks in Kenya, alongside other compounding factors thereby preventing inclusive conservation. Colonial rule is still present and permeates modern conservation models and policies in Kenya. An inclusive approach to sustainable conservation and natural resources management has to begin first by decolonizing the mind and adopting a paradigm shift in conservation strategy. It is recommended that the following practices be adopted to enhance sustainable and inclusive conservation:

  • Institutional reforms:  Inclusive conservation must first begin by enacting policies that bring institutional reforms in conservation. Government agencies such as the Kenya Forest Service require a complete overhaul of conservation policy.
  • Integrate Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Conservation: Alongside institutional reforms, these policies must prioritize Indigenous knowledge and respect Indigenous knowledge systems. The policies must leverage Ogiek's traditional ecological knowledge in national conservation strategies.
  • Co-management and co-creation with Indigenous communities are essential in achieving sustainable conservation. Government agencies tasked with conservation must perceive Indigenous communities as partners in conservation and co-create solutions that are mutually beneficial. Co-management may adopt the form of Community-Based Forestry Management programs that actively involve the Ogiek in conservation and forest governance. Co-creation gives the Ogiek a voice in decision-making and encourages a participatory approach to natural resources management and conservation.
  • Carbon trading: Strict regulation of offset projects is essential for affected Indigenous Peoples and ensures equal benefit-sharing.
  • Legal Recognition and Reforms: Expedite the implementation of court rulings to grant the Ogiek secure land tenure.
  • Policy Advocacy: Strengthen partnerships with NGOs to advocate for indigenous rights in national, regional and international forums


Theme: Community Forestry,Indigenous Peoples and Conservation
Country: Kenya
Province/Prefecture: Rift Valley
City: Nakuru

This conservation resource was created by Brian Lisaka.
It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0.


References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Amnesty International (25/6/2023). "Ogiek case: protection of an Indigenous community in Kenya". Retrieved 10/12/2024. Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  2. ↑ Larsen, S., & Busch, H. (2015). Threatened Forest, Threatened Culture:-­-a case study of subjectivities, nature and resistance in Embobut Forest. https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8234294&fileOId=8234295
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Marshall, C. (2023, November 9). Kenya’s Ogiek people being evicted for carbon credits - lawyers. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-67352067
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Claridge, L., & Kobei, D. (2023). Protected areas, Indigenous rights and land restitution: The Ogiek judgment of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights and community land protection in Kenya. ORYX, 57(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605322000989
  5. ↑ Vasquez, W., & Sunderland, T. (2023). The rights way forward: reconciling the right to food with biodiversity conservation. Oryx, 57(3), 370–378. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0030605322000916
  6. ↑ Bii, B. (2024, November 6). Win-win deal for Sengwer community, Kenya Forest Service in Embobut conservation plan. https://nation.africa/kenya/health/win-win-deal-for-sengwer-community-kenya-forest-service-in-embobut-conservation-plan-4813030
  7. ↑ Chaudhry, S. (2019). Politics of Land Excisions and Climate Change in the Mau Forest Complex: A Case Study of the South-Western Mau Forest. http://www.jsep.uonbi.ac.ke
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 Zocchi, D. M., Volpato, G., Chalo, D., Mutiso, P., & Fontefrancesco, M. F. (2020). Expanding the reach: Ethnobotanical knowledge and technological intensification in beekeeping among the Ogiek of the Mau Forest, Kenya. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-020-00409-w
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Constitution of Kenya. (2010). Constitution of Kenya. http://www.parliament.go.ke/sites/default/files/2023-03/The_Constitution_of_Kenya_2010.pdf
  10. ↑ Barume, A. K. (2005). Indigenous Battling for land rights: The case of the Ogiek of Kenya. Castellino J. y Walsh, N. International law and Indigenous Peoples. Martinuus Nijhoff, The Netherlands.
  11. ↑ Kameri-Mbote, P. (2016). Kenya Land Governance Assessment Report. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/829991504864783043/pdf/119619-WP-P095390-PUBLIC-7-9-2017-10-9-20-KenyaFinalReport.pdf
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Mbuvi, M. T. E., & Kungu, J. B. (2021). A transforming traditional community based forest management: the case of Loita community forest, Kenya. In Heliyon (Vol. 7, Issue 6). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07380
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Musyoki, J. K., Mugwe, J., Mutundu, K., & Muchiri, M. (2016). Factors influencing level of participation of community forest associations in management forests in Kenya. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 35(3), 205–216.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Domínguez, L., & Luoma, C. (2020). Decolonising conservation policy: How colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/land9030065
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Hitchcock, R. K., Sapignoli, M., & Babchuk, W. A. (2015). Settler colonialism, conflicts, and genocide: interactions between hunter-gatherers and settlers in Kenya, and Zimbabwe and northern Botswana†. Settler Colonial Studies, 5(1), 40–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2014.899549
  16. ↑ Campos-Arce, J. J. (2019). Forests, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and employment. https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/UNFF14-BkgdStudy-SDG8-March2019.pdf
  17. ↑ Oliver, G. (2022, November 16). Carbon markets and indigenous communities: interwoven fortunes. https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/carbon-markets/the-interwoven-fortunes-of-carbon-markets-and-indigenous-communities/?cf-view
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2024/The_Ogiek_Indigenous_People_of_Kenya:_Barriers_and_Opportunities_to_Inclusive_Conservation&oldid=854627"