Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Final project (1)

181 views

Published on

  • You can ask here for a help. They helped me a lot an i`m highly satisfied with quality of work done. I can promise you 100% un-plagiarized text and good experts there. Use with pleasure! ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • ⇒ www.WritePaper.info ⇐ is a good website if you’re looking to get your essay written for you. You can also request things like research papers or dissertations. It’s really convenient and helpful.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Ted, these are awesome stuff! The plans are easy to read and understand for someone like me Plenty of detailed instructions making it easy to learn the techniques that I'm struggling with. ☀☀☀ https://url.cn/xFeBN0O4
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Final project (1)

  1. 1. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 1 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION- CASE STUDY OF KAKAMEGA FOREST Research Project Report HILLARY OJWANG NANDWA BA/338/12 Signature…………….. Date…………………. Department: Sociology and Psychology A research project report submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Sociology) Supervisor: Dr. Baraza Francis Signature…………….. Date…………………. Instructor Dr. Baraza Francis Declaration
  2. 2. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 2 This research project is my personal and original work. It has not been presented for a degree in another university or any other academic qualification whatsoever. Signature …………………………………………………………………………..Date…………………… ……………………………….. HILLARY OJWANG NANDWA BA/338/12 The work Presented in this report was performed by the student under my supervision Signature…………………………………………………………… Date …………………………………………………………………………… Dr. BARAZA FRANCIS Department of Sociology and Psychology Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge the effort of my instructor Dr. Baraza Francis whose guidance and efforts has been instrumental in the compilation and creation of this report. My gratitude further goes to the KEEP officer, KWS officer and community around Kakamega forest for being helpful and assisting me to collect the information discussed in this report. The whole Moi
  3. 3. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 3 University community for being with me for the full four years I have been in campus. Finally, would like to appreciate the contribution my classmates who I consulted together with my family for availing me with resources I needed to carry out field research. Dedication I dedicate this research report all those who supported my education since childhood. Growing up without parents is tough and all those who supported my education at various stages I would wish you all to witness this. I hope I have lived to make all of you proud. Finally to my Dad even though you are no longer around anymore, I thank you for believing in me when nobody else did. Whenever you are I hope you look at me and smile with satisfaction. Acronyms KFS: Kenya Forest service
  4. 4. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 4 KEEP: Kakamega Environmental Education Program ICRAF: International Center for Research in Agroforestry KEFRI: Kenya Forest Research Institute ICIPE: International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology UNCED: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development ILO: International labor organization KWS: Kenya World Life Service CFA: Community forest association CBO: Community Based organization UNDP: United Nations Development Program KAFOPAMA: Kakamega Forest Participatory Management Committee Preamble Participatory resource management is a resource management technique that involves all stakeholders and beneficiaries of particular resources in the management process. Community participation in resource management and conservation is a participatory concept that seeks to involve communities in the conservation of resources. The concept was developed at the Rio- Earth summit in 1992 in the publication of the Agenda 21. Community participation in
  5. 5. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 5 conservation of natural resources stresses the inclusion of a community’s full input into the conservation activities. As such the community participates at different levels. Community participation in forest resource conservation and management was introduced in the management of Kakamega forests in the 1990’s synonymous with other parts of Kenya that are forested such as Arabuko Sokoke. Community participation has had an impact at Kakamega forest but not to the desired level yet. There is much more that could be done to enhance the state of the forest by working with local members around the area. There have been various challenges including resistance from some fraction of the community. This research project basically reports on the finding of a study that was conducted in Kakamega forest to determine the activities that are currently in place as part of the community participation in the conservation of the forest. The project reports on various stakeholders involved in the realization of the community participation program in forest management initiative, the challenges facing the process and also way of overcoming the challenges. TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration .................................................................................................................................................1 Preamble ....................................................................................................................................................4 1.CHAPTER ONE...........................................................................................................................................9 1.0. INTRODUCION...................................................................................................................................9 1.1. Background...................................................................................................................................9 1.2.Problem statement and justification...........................................................................................10 I.3.Research questions.......................................................................................................................10 1.4.Hypothesis...................................................................................................................................11 1.5.Objectives of the study................................................................................................................11
  6. 6. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 6 1.6.Significance and anticipated output............................................................................................11 1.7.Conceptual framework/Theoretical frame work.........................................................................12 1.8.Limitations of the study...............................................................................................................13 2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................................13 3.0CHAPTER THREE....................................................................................................................................16 3.0. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................................16 3.2. Study area...................................................................................................................................16 3.2.1. Geographical location .........................................................................................................16 3.2.2. Geology and soils.................................................................................................................19 3.2.3. Climate ................................................................................................................................20 3.2.4. Temperature .......................................................................................................................21 3.2.5. Population and sample size......................................................................................................22 3.2.6. Sampling techniques................................................................................................................23 3.2.8 Data Analysis and presentation................................................................................................24 4. CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................................................24 4.0. DATA ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................24 4.1. Characteristics of informants .....................................................................................................24 4.2. Economic activities in the community .......................................................................................25 4.3. Community members’ participation in the conservation ...........................................................27 3.1Conservation activities..................................................................................................................28 4.4. 1. On farm tree planting .........................................................................................................28 4.4.2. Community forest associations............................................................................................30 4.4.3. Ecotourism...........................................................................................................................31 4.4.4. Education and training.........................................................................................................31 3.2Resources mostly exploited by community members..................................................................32
  7. 7. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 7 3.3Contribution of various stakeholders............................................................................................33 3.3.1Kakamega Environmental Education Program (KEEP)............................................................33 3.3.2International Center for Insect Physiology.............................................................................35 3.3.3Kakamega Forest Participatory Management Committee.....................................................37 3.3.4Community forest associations..............................................................................................38 3.3.5Other groups ........................................................................................................................39 3.4The disincentives to community participating ............................................................................39 5.0CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................40 5.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................40 5.1. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................40 5.2. Recommendations......................................................................................................................41 Appendix....................................................................................................................................................42 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................47
  8. 8. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 8
  9. 9. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 9 1. CHAPTER ONE 1.0. INTRODUCION 1.1. Background Essentially, community participation in natural resource conservation stands for the sustainable use and management of natural resources by involving the people living in a region in which they are integrated socially, economically and above all ecologically. Community participation in natural resource conservation involves incorporation of a community’s indigenous methods of resource conservation in the conservation process. Age-old indigenous practices have been subject to negligence in the modern world. Yet, these practices have not only sustained the world’s ecosystems for generations, but also provided insights for the development of modern scientific methods of resource use conservation. The concept of community participation in resource conservation was a brain child of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. Agenda 21, of the document produced during this summit recognizes the input of various categories of people and organizations in sustainable development (UNICED, 1992). Among this is the role of indigenous peoples in conservation of natural resources and champions for the strengthening of this role. According to the Rio Earth Summit, the objectives of community participation in resource conservation includes a lot of activities for instance, putting in place processes that empower indigenous communities, establishment of arrangements that facilitate indigenous peoples and their communities to participate in formulation of policies, laws and development processes in the utilization and conservation of resources and involvement of the local communities at national and local levels in resource management and conservation strategies and other relevant programs necessary to support, and review sustainable
  10. 10. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 10 development strategies. The International Labor Organization’s (ILO), Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No 169) also recognizes the inclusion of local communities in development initiatives and the distribution of social welfare for equitable social, economical, and political development. Community participation in conservation of natural resources particularly in the conservation of the Forest resources has been attempted and actualized in many countries across the world including Kenya 1.2. Problem statement and justification Kakamega forest is one of the remnants of equatorial rain forest in Africa. The forest is an important biodiversity conservation area with several endemic species of plants. However, the very existence of the biodiversity in the forest is threatened by human acetifies despite efforts to conserve it. There is sill mass felling of trees by illegal loggers and charcoal burners who hide from government forest guards and cut trees for their activities at night or in the absence of the forest guards. Clearly the efforts to involve the communities in the conservation of the forest have not been successful and there is a need to find out on how to improve on the present initiatives and encourage the community to participate in the conservation of the forest. Furthermore, the forest guards who get paid to conserve the forest also end up selling forest trees so that they earn some money on the side since most guards also come areas around the forest. I.3. Research questions II. What measures and activities have been instituted or put in place to facilitate community participation in forest management? III. What is the perception of community forestry by the community members?
  11. 11. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 11 IV. What are the obstacle hindering the participation of community members in forest management? V. What can be done to overcome the challenges facing community participation in forest management? VI. What can be done to improve community participation in forest management? 1.4. Hypothesis The efforts to involve communities in the conservation of Kakamega forest have not been successful because the community living around the forest is not fully empowered to participate in the conservation of forest resources. The community is also not fully involved in the planning and implementation of the storages. The extent with which the community gets involved in the process has not been achieved. 1.5. Objectives of the study • Establishing the measures in place for community participation in forest resource conservation • To determine the extent of community participation in Kakamega forest conservation • To find out the challenges to community participation • Suggest strategies to support and promote community participation in forest resource conservation. 1.6. Significance and anticipated output The significance of this study is to identify the level of community participation in forest management practices, evaluate their shortcoming and achievements and advise on how to improve the practices to strengthen the ability of communities to contribute positively to the conservation of the resources.
  12. 12. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 12 1.7. Conceptual framework/Theoretical frame work Most development agencies and policies aim at setting target pertaining development and achieving the target. However, most of them despite enlisting the community support do not take into consideration the communities need concerning the forest resources. In many cases the communities are encouraged not to exploit the forest and further educate on how to conserve the forest resources but they are not given alternative methods of livelihood. The policies and agencies further don’t mind the customs and the attachment of the communities to the forest resources. To attain productive community participation in forest management, it is imperative that policy maker recognize the indigenous knowledge of the people and the traditional leadership within the communities. Conceptual framework Forest resources and ecosystem Policies and scientific knowledge Development partners/ agencies Community systems, leadership and indigenous knowledge • Directives • Modern knowledge • Facilitators • Financiers • Facilitation • Provision of services • Clients • Knowledge gained through experience Forest resources and ecosystem Community systems, leadership and indigenous knowledge Forest resources and ecosystemForest resources and ecosystem Policies and scientific knowledge Development partners/ agencies Suitable participatory forest management approach • Directives • Modern knowledge • Facilitators • Financiers • Facilitation • Provision of services • Clients • Knowledge gained through experience Community systems, leadership and indigenous knowledge Forest resources and ecosystem Proper forest management and sustainable livelyhoods Policies and scientific knowledge Development partners/ agencies Suitable participatory forest management approach Directives Modern knowledge Facilitators Financiers Capacity building Facilitation Provision of services Clients Knowledge gained through experience Community systems, leadership and indigenous knowledge Forest resources and ecosystem
  13. 13. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 13 1.8. Limitations of the study • Limited funds • Poor weather • Language burrier • Danger of attacks from wildlife 2. CHAPTER TWO 2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW Many activities and incentives have been instituted to help implement and improve community participation of the management of Kakamega forest. However, most of these incentive have taken a top down approach which has not been effective because they do not take into account the needs of the local people, in most cases such approach seek to reflect the development or conservation inattentions at the expense of the traditions, values and needs of the local people. As a result the local community (Isukhas) distance themselves from such initiatives leading to slowing the conservation process. Like wise, other players such as NGO’s have given little attention to the community’s values. The alienation of the people from this important forest Suitable participatory forest management approach Proper forest management and sustainable livelyhoods
  14. 14. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 14 resource started with the gazettement of the forest as a trust forest land on 13th February 1933 which meant that the government was to manage the forest on behalf of the people. Ironically the government management approaches ignored the wishes of the same people it was managing the resource for. A study done by (Githiga & Maina, 2006) whose objective included Identification, description, and quantification of the incentives offered to encourage community participation in the conservation of the forest, generate satisfaction rankings of then local community towards the management regimes engaged in the conservation of the forest and identify the factors that influence the local peoples perception of local people towards management regimes, ignored the need for local people participation in the decision making and planning of the implementation of them. The study and other studies that preceded it focused and based their discussions on the role played by the major external stakeholders in the community forestry. In their discussion and recommendation they failed to emphasize the need to involve community members and leaders in the decision making and planning in order to ensure maximum and successful community forestry. The study found out that a majority of the respondents about 91% found the conservation of the forest suggested that the conservation of the forest is very helpful to them. 27 % still emphasized on extracting various forest products from the forest. A similar study by (Sikei, Mburu & Lagat, 2003) whose objectives was to determine community usage of tree products laid more emphasis on use of fuel wood from the forest and ignored other community interests in the forest such as agriculture, grass and medicinal products. In their discussion they focused on the strategies families adopt in order to overcome the scarcity of firewood. However they did not provide any recommendation on how to deal with overdependence on the forest for firewood and alternatives to firewood. The findings of this
  15. 15. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 15 study also indicated that a majority of house holds around Kakamega forest planted their own trees form use as firewood and production of timber. Surprisingly another 65% insisted on continuing to extract timber and fire wood from the forest. However little has been done to find out how the locals perceive the alien forest management regimes the have been forced down their throats. The previous attempts to improve community participation in forest management only aimed at enhancing the contribution of the local communities to the conservation of the forest which out provide the an alternative source of livelihood other than the forest resource the over depend on. Certainly, it is important to help the local communities develop new techniques of survival if they are to reduce overdependence on the forest. The incentives given to the local communities to participate in forest management are limited to permission to extract resources such as firewood. It is argued that allowing people to collect dead wood from the forest will prevent them from falling trees to provide fire wood a very import source of energy to the community. However it is forgotten that dead decaying wood from an important component of natural cycles of biodiversity provides food for the fungi, habitat and breeding ground for some organisms and also enhances nutrient cycling with the forest. There is no policy or clear guidelines on how fuel wood is to be extracted from the forest which make it vulnerable. Also grazing is done in the forest whereby the members of the local communities take their cattle to graze in open glades within the forest. As agricultural land continue to shrink and expand into grazing land out of the forest, it is to be expected that the demand for the grazing glade in the forest will rise putting a strain to the forest resources.
  16. 16. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 16 All the previous studies did not suggest alternative to current human economic activities that are dependant on the forest but focused on discussing what already exists thus added only little value to the community participation in the forest conservation. 3.0 CHAPTER THREE 3.0. METHODOLOGY In this section the methods or techniques that shall be employed in this study will be discussed. Different sampling methods will be combined: different purposive sampling techniques, identification of key informants and also 'random encounters'. 3.1. Research design A case study design will be used to bring out the prevailing conditions at the Kakamega forest and what the participatory forest management practices in this forest have achieved. It also looks at the way of overcoming the existing challenges. 3.2. Study area 3.2.1. Geographical location Kakamega Forest is located in Kakamega county which lies on the western side of Kenya, laying between latitudes 00°08’30.5’’ N (41 236 in UTM 36 N) and 00°22’12.5’’ N (15
  17. 17. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 17 984) and longitudes 34°46’08.0’’ E and 34°57’26.5’’ E at an altitude of about 1500 to 1700 m. From the 150 km remote Rift Valley it is separated by highlands like the Cheranganis in the north and the Mau Escarpment in the south (KIFCON 1994). The distance to lake Victoria in Kisumu is about 43 km. Kakamega town on the western side of the forest is located about 7.5 km to the nearest point of the main forest block. Kakamega Forest is located about 66 km from the border to Uganda and about 94 km of Mt. Elgon. A lot of small rivers and streams cross Kakamega Forest with two main river systems, the River Isiukhu in the north and the River Yala in the south. Two major hills loom inside the forest. One in the northern part named after the area around it as Buyangu Hill and another one, Lirhanda Hill in the south. The BIOTA - campsite as well as the KWS-head office are located near Buyangu Hill. That hill is covered with forest except of the southern slope whereas Lirhanda hill is covered with a dense waist-high grasslayer. Lirhanda Hill’s special feature is a tunnel cut into massive rock originated during the gold rush in and around Kakamega Forest.
  18. 18. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 18 Satelite photograph of Kakamega forest
  19. 19. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 19 Aerial view of Isecheno area 3.2.2. Geology and soils The underlying rocks of the Lake Victoria Basin at an altitude of 1134 m belong to the Precambrian. Kakamega Forest is situated on the Lake Victoria Basin which was formed during the middle Pleistocene by earth movements. The same movements created the western arm of the Great Rift Valley system stretching from north to south throughout East Africa. Kakamega Forest grows on rocks of the Kavirondo and Nyanzian age. These underlying rocks include basalt, phenolites, and ancient gneisses which are nerved with gold-bearing quartz veins (KIFCON 1994). The rocks from the Nyanzian System are made up of acid to basic volcanic lavas with minor tuff. Fertile clay-loam soils develop out of rock systems which predominantly are of granit. These soils belong to the latosols, more precisely to the ferrisols (Schultka 1975). They are well drained, very deep, reddish brown to yellowish red with a humid top soil. Soils of
  20. 20. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 20 granitic origin are known as fairly fertile and thus support large numbers of forest plant species. Organic material of the forest cover falling to the ground is reincorporated into the soil so that the soil can maintain on itself. This natural nutrient recycling activity is disrupted when the forest is cleared. With removing of live or dead fuel wood and the felling of trees the soil fertility declines. About 56 % of the soils of Kakamega Forest are granitic in origin while the others are mainly made up of basic rock such as basalt and phenolites or gneiss rocks. 3.2.3. Climate The climate is related to Lake Victoria which is an important source of precipitation. Annual rainfall is sufficiently high and well distributed throughout the year to support rainforest (White 1983). Beside the Intertropical Convergent Zone (ITCZ) with the movement of air masses between two temperature belts in the northern and southern hemisphere, Lake Victoria with its own circulation system of air masses mainly influences the precipitation in this region. Several publications dealing with objectives to Kakamega Forest deliver different information about precipitation and temperature, but in average over the last 60 years the annual rainfall measured at different weather-stations around Kakamega Forest was about 2000 mm per year. Rainfall records for 1976 to1981 at Kakamega Forest station show that the forest receives 2215 mm of rainfall annually, while the Agricultural Research Station in Kakamega records for 1923 to 1983 show an annual rainfall of 1956 mm (Greiner, 1991). Precipitation change ranges between dry and wet season can not be observed in Kakamega Forest. Authors of different publications differ in their information about that. KIFCON (1994) shows that Kakamega Forest area records among the highest amount of rainfall in the country. This rainfall is well-distributed over the year, but most of the rain falls from April to November. A short dry season is experienced from the months of December to March. The months with the lowest precipitation
  21. 21. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 21 are December and January. Available records from the Isecheno Forest station confirm these observations. Data from the southern part of Kakamega Forest, from the Isecheno Forest Station show the distribution of rainfall over a period of 20 years. A rainfall peak is observed around April, June, and July. Data recorded at the BIOTA meteorological station near the KWS office in Buyangu National Reserve shows that in the study year 2002 the sum of the annual precipitation amounted to 1.500 mm m-2. Most rainfall events from 2001 to 2004 occurred in the months April to July and October/November. The yearly mean temperature in 2002 was 20.0 +/- 4.8° C. Kakamega Forest itself influences the precipitation. The biomass of the forest vegetation is a big water system catchment. This leads to high transpiration rates during the day. In the afternoon the developed clouds release the moisture as rain. In case, that a forest is highly disturbed or fragmented the pattern of precipitation changes. A movement from moderate to heavy rainfalls happens. Soil surfaces without forest vegetation or with sparse vegetation cover heat up more during a day than surfaces covered with forest vegetation. These hot air masses are transported in higher atmospheric strata than air masses developed over the forest. The higher the hot air masses are transported the more likely they come in contact with the cold air in the higher strata. This leads to heavy hailstorms with strong rain. This phenomenon happens over Kakamega Forest and could be observed during this study. The fragmentation and clearing of the forest does not lead to fewer rainfall, instead provokes heavy rainfalls mixed with hail. 3.2.4. Temperature The diurnal changes in temperature are greater than the seasonal changes; therefore the climate is called “Tageszeitenklima”. Beside that the temperature is influenced by the altitude. Information about the average monthly minimum and maximum temperature depends again on the timeframe and on the station they were measured, for example the Isecheno Forest station in
  22. 22. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 22 the south of the forest or in the nearby town, at the Kakamega District Office. Average minimum monthly temperature ranges from 11 – 21° C and average maximum monthly temperature ranges from 18 to 29° C measured at the Isecheno Station. The coldest month in the year is July due to higher rainfall which cools the forest inside, whereas the hottest daily temperature can be measured in January and February. To measure the microclimate at the study sites two types of Gemini Data Loggers: Tinytag plus H°C/%RH (measuring air temperature and humidity) and Tinytalk 0/95 %RH (measuring humidity) were laid out. Humidity correlates with the environment conditions of the studied site. The more open a canopy was and the more sunlight could reach the ground; the lower the humidity. The Camp forest inside heats up more than the forest sites of Isecheno or Yala where dense vegetation occurs. There is an exception in Kisere, here the Logger overtops the dense vegetation of the lower canopy, because of its position in the crotch, and thus gets more sunlight than on the dense forest floor resulting in a low average humidity. 3.2.5. Population and sample size The study will be undertaken in the around Kakamega town (i.e. the part of the forest situated in the present Kakamega central district) the forest has approximately 350 villages. The sampling frame will be generated according to the number of villages located within Kakamega Central District. House holds shall be selected randomly from the villages. The questioners shall target ligurus (village elders), farmers, government officers (Kenya Forest Service employees) on ground and other stake holders in the management of the forest resources such as CBO. The question she enlist information on the kind of activities the community members undertake, their shortcomings and the community members’ perception of participatory forest management.
  23. 23. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 23 According to the 1999 national population census Kakamega district has a population of 672,254. Shinyalu division in which Isechene village is located had a population of 103,948 3.2.6. Sampling techniques The main sampling technique used was random sampling technique for the selection of respondents to answer the questionnaires. The same technique was employed for the selection of respondents to respond to interviews. Purposive sampling was used to select officers and division official for the administration of the interviews. 3.2.7. Data Collection Data collection made use of both primary and secondary sources of information. Both qualitative data and quantitative data were collected. Secondary sources of data record included collection of information from libraries, online or internet sources, journals, and records by Non Governmental Organizations Projects. Interviews were used to solicit information from people through interview schedules that targeted the residents of Isechene division, officers at Kenya Forest Service station in the area, Local leaders, and officers at KEEP. Special questionnaires were designed for informants like the villagers and officials of various institutions in the area. The interview schedules were most appropriate method for administering the interview and the questionnaires Transect walks were use as a means of observing what takes place in the forest and the whole division as a whole. This was particularly useful in observing biophysical changes and impacts of human activities on the forest.
  24. 24. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 24 3.2.8 Data Analysis and presentation Data analysis was done using both statistical and qualitative methods of data analysis. Computer packages like excel were used in making of graphs and diagrammatic representation of data being analyzed. 4. CHAPTER FOUR 4.0. DATA ANALYSIS 4.1. Characteristics of informants The research made use of a total of 50 respondents in the village of Isechene. A total of 22 men and 14 women gave their responses to the questioners. Another 6 women and four men were available for interviews. Four officers from the Kenya forests service and KEEP were also available for interviews. This information can be represented as follows:
  25. 25. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 25 4.2. Economic activities in the community The participation in various economic activities in the community varies grade across the gender divide. Many of the locals engage in economic activities that directly or indirectly depend on or affect the forest environment and its resources. A lager number of the people engage in agriculture. A lot of people engage in casual employed while another category engage in agriculture. However, most of those engaged in casual employment work on people’s farm thus translating to indirect participation in agriculture. Also, some casual employees’ work as lumbers felling trees with power saws owned by timber merchants who buy trees cut illegally and then sells the timber and firewood at a higher profit. Others work in the construction industry and transport transporting industries that carry people using motorcycles. The variation in gender participation in various activities 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Men Women Agriculture Formal employment Casual emplohyment Charcoal burning Trade Lumbering Others
  26. 26. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 26 This pictures show an illegal saw mil within the forest and aman transporting illegaly logged timber Illegal logers transporting timber
  27. 27. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 27 4.3. Community members’ participation in the conservation All respondent said they participated in forest conservation. The participation was however done at different levels. Some participate as educators educate the rest of the community on the importance of the frost and how to conserve it. Some serve as researchers and facilitate conduction of research to provide information about the forest. A good number of participate directly through watering of trees in the nursery to be planted in the forest. There was a group of community members trained by KEEP who serve as tour guides to tourists who visit the place. However over half of those who participate in the conservation did not have any kind of training. Those who had receive training found it to be very valuable since it enable them to understand perfectly the dynamics involved in the conservation of the forest. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Men Women Researchers Case Manager Teacher Others Overlay more men were involved in the conservation of the forest than women. More men than women had received formal training on the conservation of the forest resource and thus served as teachers, tour guides, and case managers. There were however more women serving as educator or teachers in the conservation initiatives spearheaded by KEEP.
  28. 28. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 28 3.1 Conservation activities 4.4. 1. On farm tree planting The On-farm tree planting and development of tree nurseries was being promoted to complement the energy conservation activities, in addition to providing the community with their wood requirements. The aim was to develop cost effective multipurpose tree planting to meet commercial and environmental objectives so as to protect the Kakamega Forest resource base. The component of the project was expected to provide the community with harvestable products. Tree Seedling Nursery
  29. 29. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 29 Promotion of On-farm agro forestry at the Kakamega Forest community was coordinated by ICIPE in collaboration with ICRAF and KEFRI. It involved selection and prioritization of multi-purpose indigenous tree species for on-farm agroforestry on the basis of potential multiple uses, ease of cultivation and acceptability by the community. ICIPE extension workers and KEEP members were trained by ICRAF and KEFRI in agroforestry techniques, tree seed collection, extraction, seed sowing, seedling management and planting out. The trained groups in turn have trained community youth groups, women's groups and school children in the propagation and on-farm planting of multi-purpose trees that may be used for firewood, timber, medicine and fodder. The extension workers also propagate and distributed seedlings to other members of the community for on-farm planting. Community members have also established a central nursery at the Forest Department compound at Kakamega Forest for raising of multipurpose tree seedlings for the community
  30. 30. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 30 The farmers engaged in the cultivation of Ocimum kilimandscharicum and Mondia whytei with intercropping being encouraged. 4.4.2. Community forest associations The introduction of Participatory Forestry Management (PFM) in Kenya from 1997 led to formation of community based organizations which have come to be referred to as Community Forest Associations (CFAs). Most of the CFAs are preparing to enter into forest management agreements with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS). This will confer management roles to the community with KFS retaining the forest resource ownership right and the right to withdraw the agreement in total or parts of it. In forests where PFM is active, the CFAs form confederates which are referred to as CFAs. The activities of CFAs in Kakamega forest were mainly geared towards • Integrated management • Traditional and cultural values • Stewardship • Community participation
  31. 31. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 31 • User pays principle • Intra and intergenerational equity • Market value of forest products • International cooperation The members of CFAs grow tress in their nurseries on land provided by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS). KFS helps the association to market the seed and also buys some of the seedlings for forest afforestation programs. Forest associations help in educating members and solving conflicts concerning the use of forest resources. 4.4.3. Ecotourism Ecotourism is basically managed by KEEP. It was introduced in the area to help the locals earn from tourism activities. The Local workers act as tour guides leading the tourists around the forest. The forest has beautiful scenery with animals such as the Columbus monkey, bird, and butterflies which attract tourists. The ecotourism program had bands that were used for camping. 4.4.4. Education and training Education and training activities were also conducted to empower community members to participate in the conservation of the forest. This was mainly done by CFAs, KEEP, and ICIPE. The training encouraged locals to participate directly in the conservation of forests or to participate indirectly through encouraging them to find alternative economic activities. 100,000 seedlings of multi-purpose trees have been planted by the local community in their farms by the end of 2001.
  32. 32. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 32 3.2 Resources mostly exploited by community members There were great differences in terms of the resources that community members could like to acquire from the forest despite the fact that direct extraction of the resources from the forest was not permitted. The people had farms around the forest and grew mainly food crops which were at times sold if the harvest was abundant. A good number of the community members also engaged in casual work which included activities such as working on other people’s farms for some cash. Firewood Herbs Seedlings Grazzing Beekeeping Most people would like to be allowed to collect firewood from the forest. Fire wood is the basic source of energy for use in the rural setting. Grazing in the forest is yet another activity the community so much desires to be allowed to conduct. The presence of KEEP in the area has considerably helped to create new employment opportunities in the area. KEEP has introduced community conservancy and in turn facilitated community participation in the area.
  33. 33. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 33 3.3 Contribution of various stakeholders 3.3.1 Kakamega Environmental Education Program (KEEP) KEEP trains the locals and the employs them as environmental educators and tour guides to show tourists who visit the ecotourism sites which was a project facilitated and funded by the program. KEEP has also introduced the means of harvesting of non timber forest products. For instance the locals have been educated on the keeping of bee and harvesting of honey. Moreover, KEEP has introduced butterfly farming in the area. Another invention by the KEEP program was in the making of brick wet which was made form trees leaves and papers and was used to serve as fuel. The butterfly farming project has stalled due to the government’s reluctance to license the project. Apparently the issuance of a license to facilitate the continuation of the project has taken too long. Another project facing the same fate is the snakes’ park project. KEEP had helped the community to create Snakes Park the snake park was completing and awaiting the government’s license to start operating. KEEP introduced ecotourism in the area and trained community members to participate in the project. Isecheno Bandas is an Ecotourism Kenya-implemented project that is now fully owned and managed by Kakamega Environmental Education Programme (KEEP), a local Community Based Organization (CBO). It consists of 5 bandas that can accommodate a maximum of 15 people, a kitchen and a dining/ meeting area. Seed funding for the project was provided by UNDP.
  34. 34. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 34 Isecheno bandas, Kakamega (an Ecotourism Kenya implemented project) Signpost to Isecheno bandas, Kakamega
  35. 35. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 35 3.3.2 International Center for Insect Physiology In 2000, projects coordinated by the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) brought together international and local organizations to diversify economic opportunities and increase productivity on existing agricultural lands at the forest margins, thus relieving pressure on the forest. Those efforts included the introduction of agroforestry trees as an alternative source of timber; commercial cultivation and processing of indigenous medicinal plants, energy conservation techniques, beekeeping and silkworm rearing, and credit loans to community groups. Since the start of the project, more than half a million indigenous tree seedlings have been planted by community members on their farms. Extension workers who were trained in agroforestry techniques such as tree seed collection, extraction, sowing, and management in turn have gone on to train community youth groups, women's groups, and school children. The extension workers also propagated and distributed seedlings to be used for firewood, timber, medicine, and fodder by other community members. Community-based commercial cultivation and processing of two medical plants, Ocimum kilimandscharicum and Mondia whytei, was also introduced as a means to diversify economic opportunities. Facilities for processing the two medicinal plants were established adjacent to the forest. Two commercial product lines were developed from the two plants and are now on retail shelves across Kenya. Because the communities living around Kakamega Forest rely so much upon fuel-wood, the project also focused on energy-saving techniques to reduce the amount of forest-wood harvesting. More than 53,000 community members have so far been introduced to methods such as mud stoves, shielded fires, saw-dust metal stoves, and clay food warmers. Over 17,000 fuel-
  36. 36. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 36 and energy-saving devices have been installed. The project has also set up a Financial Services Association (‘village bank’) to provide credit facilities for business, agriculture, school fees, medical expenses, and other activities. In addition, community members were trained in more efficient methods of beekeeping, honey production, and silkworm rearing through workshops and demonstrations. More than 800 langstroth hives were installed in rural households during the life of the project. Community- based women’s groups now cultivate honey from the modern hives and silkworm cocoons from six silkworm rearing huts and mulberry farms established by the project. The project has promoted community-driven environmental and conservation education through training and improvement of the facilities and activities of a community-based environmental conservation group, the Kakamega Environmental Education Programme (KEEP). The group has taught environmental and conservation education to over 29,000 children and 5,000 adult community members at its resource centre in Kakamega forest. KEEP also conducted over 1,500 visits to schools and community groups and attended more than 110 public meetings in villages around the forest to promote conservation awareness. Women groups: energy saving stove and medicinal plants used for manufacture of Naturub
  37. 37. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 37 3.3.3 Kakamega Forest Participatory Management Committee Kakamega Forest Participatory Management Committee (KAFOPAMA) has consolidated a number of community based organizations that are involved in forest related development activities within one umbrella organization. KAFOPAMA operates through three sub-organizations namely Secheno, Ileho and Muranda, each with a number of user groups. Sechero has twelve user groups; Ileho has six, and Muranda has six user groups. All the user groups operate within and around Kakamega forest. The main of the user group’s activities include raising and distributing tree seedlings, and bee keeping as a complimentary activity that uses pollen on trees in the farms and Kakamega forest. Currently KAFOPAMA is operating with EU funding to enhance capacity in the communities around Kakamega forest to raise tree seedlings on individual farms and in groups for the purpose of planting on own farms, planting in communal open spaces, giving to Forest Department to plant in degraded areas, and selling for additional income. It developed Participatory Management Plan for Kakamega Forest that aimed at bringing together the communities living around Kakamega forest, Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS), and Department of Forest in collective afforestation and reforestation activities in areas surrounding the forest and within the forest itself, with both indigenous and exotic tree species. KAFOPAMA encouraged the farmers to include tree species known for high nectar content such as calliandra and passion to serve the interests of the bee keepers. The umbrella organization was helping in linking the honey producers to markets in Nairobi – African Bee Keepers, and acquisition of modern bee hives on loan basis payable from sales of honey. The multi-purpose approach taken by KAFOPAMA in its endeavor to develop afforestation/reforestation had inherent advantages that were important to sustainability of the
  38. 38. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 38 whole program. First, through sale of tree seedlings the participating communities were assured of monetary income, which acts as an important incentive to continue being involved in the afforestation/reforestation activities; second, production of honey as a purposive complementary activity ensures an added source of income and thus further incentive to participate in afforestation and reforestation activities. The recently developed Management Plan for Kakamega Forest would help coordinate and direct the activities of all stakeholders and in essence help avoid duplication of effort. Through the effort of recently initiated Western Kenya Bio-Carbon Fund, the individual farmers under KAFOPAMA were bound to benefit from carbon credit offsets from their afforestation/reforestation activities. Through the bio-carbon fund, the capacity for the community to estimate and monitor carbon sinks was developed in collaboration with local NGO’s. 3.3.4 Community forest associations Like the KAFOPAMA community forest associations are community owned associations. The association’s existence however is backed by the Kenya forest policy. The roles of the CFAs have been changing over time from being directly controlled by the KFS to a more decentralized system where they were more involved in decision making. They have further expanded their roles from lobbying to conflict management, fundraising, negotiating with KFS, initiating rural development, and forestry development activities. These new trends have also led to the formation of splinter groups due to power and leadership wrangles. Although their roles as associations were beginning to be recognized by the government, there were still challenges especially before the decentralization process was implemented. The situation was further aggravated by the fact that the officers of the Kenya Forest Service feel that
  39. 39. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 39 some of their roles were being taken over by the CFAs. This weakened their position and denied them the right to participate in some activities. Some donors have also openly preferred working with the CFAs while totally ignoring the presence of the forest officers, a development the forest officers’ view as threat. 3.3.5 Other groups Other groups that participate or contribute to the participatory forest management include the Kenya forest service United Nations Development Program and BIOTA, 3.4 The disincentives to community participating Inadequate Training and information Exclusion from Decision Making and Planning Luck of alternative employment Government Restrictions Luck of Alternative Resources to Forset Resources others The inhabitants feel that the conservation of the forest is a very valuable. However there are numerous problems facing community participation in the conservation of Kakamega forest. Many community members cited luck of alternative sources of livelihood and overdependence
  40. 40. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 40 on wood and charcoal as their sole source of heat as main hindrances to full community participation. Villagers wanted to be allowed to collect firewood from the forest as well as graze their livestock which was restricted. Firewood can be collected but after payment of a minimal fee to the Kenya forest serve. To this most community members felt that the resource belongs to them and thus it shouldn’t be sold to them. Inadequate training, luck of alternative resources to forest resources, luck of alternative employment, government restrictions, and lack of inclusion in decision making were the major factors that discouraged most of the community members from participating in the conservation of the forest. According to an officer at KEEP, most people do not participate in the conservation of the forest because they perceive the forest a source of quick money while other believes that the conservation is only meant to benefit the government. Many of the community members felt that they were not part of the decision making and planning of the management of the forest recourses. Most of the initiatives being encouraged were alien to the community. 5.0 CHAPTER FIVE 5.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Conclusion Community participation in conservation of Kakamega Forest was still far from becoming a reality. Many challenges face community participation in conservation of this great resource in the region. Though the answers lied within reach the cooperation of various stakeholders was very important. Achieving such corporation however was yet another riddle that requires to be solved. The participation of community members if hindered by several factors among them, luck of inclusion in decision making, luck of government inclusion, lack of
  41. 41. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 41 alternative source of income other the forest resources. Though there had been some training very few community members have been trained. Inadequate of training leads to minimal community participation in the conservation of the forest and its resources. 5.2. Recommendations 1. The government and other major participants in the conservation of the forest should ensures that the community members are involved in the decision making process. The community members should be given a chance to be heard and their opinions should be considers during decision making. Special attention must be paid to their cultural needs. 2. The government and the other influential stakeholders in the management of the forest should facilitate the training of more community members to ensure that they have the capacity to participate in forest planning and decision making. 3. The government should also encourage the people to adopt newer and cleaners sources of energy that do not lead to destruction of the forest such logging and use of fires wood. 4. The government should also cooperate with the community based organizations in the area to help create other alternative sources of income to community members. 5. The government should also employ appropriate mechanism to facilitate development or improvement of the markets for non-timber forest product so that the community members do not solely depend primarily on the timber products.
  42. 42. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 42 Appendix A study on Community participation in the conservation of Kakamega Forest- Case Study of Shinyalu Division Note: This questionnaire is strictly for the purpose of the study and shall not be for any other purpose. Any information given by the respondent shall be treated with confidentiality and will not be divulged to any person therein. Part A. Social demographic data 1. Name of the Village………………… Age of respondent…………………………… 2. How do you identify yourself?(Check one) 􀂉 Male 􀂉 Female 3. Are you currently (check one): 􀂉 Married 􀂉 Separated 􀂉 Widowed 􀂉 Single 􀂉 Divorced 4. Is this your ancestral land (Check one) 􀂉 Yes 􀂉 No
  43. 43. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 43 5. Education level (Check one) 􀂉 No education at all 􀂉 Elementary 􀂉 Primary level 􀂉 High school level 􀂉 College 􀂉 University 6. What is your main economic activity? 􀂉 Agriculture 􀂉 Formal Employment 􀂉 Casual employment 􀂉 Hunting 􀂉 Charcoal burning 􀂉 Lumbering 􀂉 Other. Specify …………………………………………………… Part B. participation in the conservation of the forest 7. Dou you participate in the conservation of the forest (Check one) 􀂉 Yes 􀂉 No 8. If yes, what role do you play? (Check one) 􀂉 Administrator/Supervisor 􀂉 Case Manager 􀂉 Researcher
  44. 44. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 44 􀂉 Resident 􀂉 Student 􀂉 Teacher 􀂉 Other (Specify): __________________________________ 􀂉 Not Working 9. How long have you been participating in the conservation? (Years and months) _____________ ______________ Years Months 10. Do you have any training regarding the conservation of the forest? (Check one) 􀂉 Yes 􀂉 No 11. What do you think of the training? (Check one) 􀂉 No valuable at all 􀂉 Some what valuable 􀂉 Valuable 􀂉 Very valuable Part C. community attitude towards the conservation of the forest 12. What do you think about the conservation initiatives? (Check one) 􀂉 No valuable at all 􀂉 Some what valuable 􀂉 Valuable 􀂉 Very valuable 13. What do you think should be done to improve the conservation measures?
  45. 45. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 45 14. What do you think should be done to en hence the participation of the community members? 15. a).Do you think the involvement of the community in forest conservation has been successful? b).Why ___________________________________________________________________ Part D challenges facing community participation in the forest management 16. Do you participate in decision making and planning 􀂉 Yes 􀂉 No If no, why Would you like to participate in the decision making? 􀂉 Yes 􀂉 No 15. How often do you participate in forest conservation activities? 􀂉 Never participates 􀂉 Once in a month 􀂉 Weekly
  46. 46. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 46 􀂉 Daily 􀂉 when there is need 􀂉 Other (Specify 16. What problems affect the participation of the members of the community in the forest management? 􀂉 Inadequate training 􀂉 Luck of alternative resources to forest resources 􀂉 Luck of alternative employment 􀂉 Government restrictions 􀂉 Being left out of important processes such as planning 􀂉 Other (Specify): __________________________________ 17. Give your opinion on the incentives provide by the authorities to facilitate community participation in forest conservation Questions used to guide interviews with program /project offices working with the organization and institutions in the region 1. For how long have you been working on this project? 2. What is your main role in the program/ project? 3. Do you think the program/project is successful? 4. How does the community perceive your activities? 5. What is the major role played by community member and how can it be strengthened? (Check one)
  47. 47. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 47 6. What roles does your organization play in the management of the forest? 7. What do you think should be done to improve the community’s participation? REFERENCES Doolan, S. (1997). African Rain forest and the conservation of bio diversity: Proceedings at the Limbe conference.Limbe Botanical Garden: Earthwatch Europe Giddon, H (2003). Conservation and Market Development. Retrieved from http://www.metafro.be/leisa/1994/10-4-30.pdf Guthiga. P & Mburu. J, (2006).Local communities’ incentives for forest conservation: case of Kakamega forest in Kenya Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~iascp/bali/papers/Guthiga_Paul_Maina.pdf Greiner. A, (1991). Nature Conservation and local people at Kakamega Forest, ASA Project, Final Report, Stuttgart, Germany. International Labor Organization, (1989). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/indigenous/Conventions/no169/lang--en/index.htm KIFCON (1994). Kakamega Forest - The official guide, Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Program, Nairobi, Kenya
  48. 48. A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: KAKAMEGA FOREST 48 Schultka. W, (1975). Gehölz-Sukzessionen in Regenwald- und Feuchtsavannen-Gebieten bei Kakamega (West-Kenia), Oberhessische Naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, Band 42: 35-48 Sike. G. Mburu. J, & Lagat. J, (2004). Rural households’ response to Fuel wood scarcity around Kakamega Forest, Western Kenya retrieved from http://www.esee2009.si/papers/Sikei- Rural_households-response.pdf The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, (1992).The Earth Summit 1992. Rio de Jenario. White. F, (1983). The vegetation of Africa, UNESCO, Paris, printed in Switzerland

×