Cheruiyot Baliach

The problem of the Mau Forest complex is half solved now that it has been identified and debated. The final solution, however, does not lie in the changing shades of Mau politics.

Mau Forest destruction started before Independence. The word Mau is derived from the Mau Mau rebellion, which referred to freedom fighters who fled to the forests for cover when battling the colonialists.

After Independence, President Kenyatta rewarded the fighters with land by excising part of the Mau — the same forest cover the fighters used to launch attacks on white settlers in Molo, Nakuru and Uasin Gishu. Communities native to these areas viewed the allocation with suspicion and therein started the problem.

Some of the forests were gazetted vide Legal Notice/Proclamation No 44 of 1932. Since then there have been a number of excisions.

These have been made to give way for human settlements and activities, which include: 11,063.72ha in Lembus, Koibatek between 1959 and 1988; 2,649.5ha excised from Mt Londiani Forest in Koibatek (Sigoro, Tinet and Torongo Settlement Schemes) between 1946 and 1967; 8,460.07ha excised between 1934 and 1968 for tea estates development and Embomos Settlement Scheme in the then Kericho District and 8,274.71ha from Western Mau between 1950 and 1955 for tea estates development.

Ogiek/Ndorobo

The tea estates development in Kericho and Nandi districts started in the 1920s involving massive displacement of inhabitants, many of whom moved to the Mau Forest Complex for alternative settlement where they intermingled with the original forest dwellers — Ogiek/Ndorobo. Others were displaced by white settlers in Keringet, Molo and Njoro divisions.

The Kipsigis and Nandi were pastoralists while the Ogiek/Ndorobo were predominantly hunters and gatherers. The pastoralists tended to occupy areas with less forest cover for purposes of grazing livestock, mainly in Tinet, Kiptagich, Olenguruone, Saino, Likia, Teret, Sururu and Mauche.

Over time, conflicts over use and conservation of natural resources between the forest dwellers and Government as early as 1930s.

Successive governments used to invoke eviction orders on the forest dwellers. Evictions started immediately after gazettement of the Mau in 1932. The worst eviction was in 1974 in total disregard of the sanctity of life, human dignity, protection of family and public ridicule. Livestock was confiscated and sold by GSU at between Sh10 and Sh20.

This did not deter the people from returning to the forest because they were not given alternative settlement. The same exercise continued intermittently up to August 1992 when the Government through Kenya Indigenous Forestry Project engaged a consultant to study and propose a prototype settlement plan.

The consultant recommended establishment of settlement schemes while emphasising conservation of forest biodiversity and catchment areas.

Unfortunately, politically correct people were given land while the poor remained landless. Again they had no option but to settle in the forest. Again, a fresh wave of evictions was conducted in 2005.

It is, therefore, imperative that consultation, negotiation, agreement and joint public meetings be conducted so we don’t repeat past mistakes.

Immediate tree planting on open areas at Kipsaongoon, Chematich, Kusumek and Mongesse in the existing forestland can start through the Kazi kwa Vijana model in conjunction with local NGOs.

Remained landless

Why? Mau Forest Complex is the source of 12 major rivers: Mara, Sondu, Nyando, Yala; tributaries to Nzoia River, which all drain to Lake Victoria; Ewaso Ngiro which drains to Lake Natron; Rivers Njoro, Naishi, Nderit, Makalia feed Lake Nakuru; River Molo which keeps Lake Baringo alive while River Kerio succours Lake Turkana.

No organisation has ever undertaken conservation of Mau Forest. Not even Nobel Laureate Wangari Maathai or the Nile Basin Initiative. Most have targeted Mt Kenya, Aberdares, Coast and Nyanza.

The Mau is the real emergency.

The writer is Executive Director, Nature’s Wisdom.