Proposal_Calvin_Kiru-_final.docx

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW, ARTS, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT VIS A VIS PROPERTY RIGHTS; A CASE
STUDY OF ENCROACHMENT AND EVICTIONS FROM THE MAU FOREST
COMPLEX IN KENYA.
KIRUI KIPRONO CALVIN
C153/CTY/OL/20347/2022
A Research Proposal Submitted to The School of Law, Arts and Social Sciences in Partial
Fulfillment of Requirement for The Award of The Degree of Master of Arts in Public Policy and
Administration of Kenyatta University
2022

i
Declaration
I, Kirui K. Calvin, declare that the research presented herein is my original work that has not
been presented in any other Institution of Higher Learning for the award of a degree.
Name: Kirui K. Calvin
Signature:
Date: 20th
December, 2022.
Supervisor:
This research project has been submitted for examination with my approval as university
supervisor.
Name: Dr. Weldon Kibet Ng’eno
Signature -
Date
Department of Public Policy and Administration

ii
Dedication
To my dear wife, Eva Cheptoo, our son Danvin Kiplang’at Rono and our parents Dr. Jackson
Lang’at and Angeline Chebet Maiywa for their prayers, constant support and encouragement
during my studies.

iii
Acknowledgment
I sincerely thank God for accomplishing this proposal. I thank my lecturer for his teachings and
guidance that informed and shaped this project from the beginning of the semester and the
course to its end. My gratitude also goes to my professional colleagues, my work supervisor,
family and classmates whose support in diverse ways and aspects have enabled me accomplish
this research.

iv
Abstract
Forest covers significantly contributes to the environmental conservation. However, in the recent
times, there has been a decline in the forest cover globally. This has instigated concerns among
nations and environmentalists and efforts have been taken by different countries towards
reducing the deforestation and restoration of the forest covers. Different efforts have been
employed by different nations and some of them include forest evictions. In Kenya, communities
and individuals that have encroached into the forest covers have evicted. Such forests in which
rampant evictions have occurred in Kenya is the Mau forest complex.
The specific objectives of this research ate to assess the balance between the need for
environmental conservation and the state’s fundamental duty to protect its citizens’ rights and
analyze the legal and policy framework for environmental management in Kenya. It will also
focus on the effects of eviction on the communities’ livelihoods, whether the evictions have had
the intended environmental impacts of forest restoration and the challenges facing the displaced
communities.
It has been well documented by various national and international rights-based organizations that
the evictions at Mau Forest have not followed the laid down procedures, laws, and policies. The
government has twice sought to cancel title deeds to individuals alleged to have obtained them
illegally. In some areas, the court has imposed a caveat on the properties, depriving the people
living on the said properties of their full enjoyment of their property rights. Due to historical
encroachment and excision of the Mau Forest land coverage, there is also the question of unclear
boundaries of the forest cover. Different government regimes have sought to demarcate a clear
forest boundary, each different from the other. As such, the affected communities have faced

v
want on the loss of properties, sources of income, shelter, and livelihoods and have been
rendered homeless. The evictions have even gone to the extent of causing death to the affected.
The government has not sought to mitigate evictions’ effects by protecting human rights. There
is no tacit resettlement plan, even for the victims who had title deeds and legitimate expectations
of property rights. On environmental impacts the evictions have caused positive environmental
impacts on a section of the Mau Forest. In other areas, evictions have not met the intended
purpose, and in some instances, the evicted communities have resorted back to their properties
and continued with their livelihoods. This study is based on the right-based development theorem
and the notion that environmental conservation and respect to the fundamental human rights are
not mutually exclusive. The two aims can be achieved and satisfied simultaneously. The study
seeks to analyze the effects of the evictions in Mau Forest on the property rights of the affected
persons and communities and whether the evictions have had the intended effect of restoring the
forest cover.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
Declaration....................................................................................................................................... i
Dedication.......................................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgment ...........................................................................................................................iii
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENT................................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................................. 1
1.0. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background to the study................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem................................................................................................. 4
1.3. Objectives of the study......................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 6
1.5. Justification and Significance ......................................................................................... 6
1.5.1. Justification.................................................................................................................... 6
1.5.2. Significance ................................................................................................................... 7
1.6. Scope and Limitations...................................................................................................... 7
1.6.1. Scope ............................................................................................................................. 7
1.6.2. Limitations..................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.0. Literature Review..................................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Empirical review................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Environmental management........................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Forced Evictions and Displacement. ............................................................................ 11
2.2.3 Legal and policy framework of Eviction in Kenya. ..................................................... 12
2.2.4. Impact of Evictions on property rights........................................................................ 14
2.2.5 Socio-economic impacts of Evictions. ......................................................................... 15
2.2.6 Environmental impacts of eviction............................................................................... 18
2.2.7 Community inclusion in the conservation of the Mau Forest complex........................ 18

vii
2.3 Theoretical framework........................................................................................................ 19
2.3.1 Social Justice and Forced Displacements..................................................................... 21
2.4 Conceptual framework........................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 23
Research Methodology and Design .............................................................................................. 23
3.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Research Design.................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Sampling Frame .................................................................................................................. 23
3.3 Sampling techniques and sample size................................................................................. 24
3.4 Sources of Data ................................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Data collection instruments................................................................................................. 24
3.5.1 Questionnaire................................................................................................................ 24
3.5.2 interviews...................................................................................................................... 24
3.5.3 observation.................................................................................................................... 25
3.6 Methods of data analysis and presentation ......................................................................... 25
3.7 Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................................ 25
References..................................................................................................................................... 26

1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0. Introduction
1.1. Background to the study
Global forest cover is estimated to be over 4 billion hectares (ha), which translates 30
percent of the total dry land. Forest covers are not even across the world, but the tropics has the
most significant proportion of the world’s forests (Xiao et al.,2022). Over time, the world has
lost 178 million ha of forest since 1990. From the year 1990 to 2020, effort aimed at reducing the
rate of deforestation were given significance and this saw the reduction of deforestation and
increase in the forest areas through reforestation, natural expansion, afforestation and
replenishing of forests. These efforts led to the net forest loss decline from 7.8 million ha per
year in the decade 1990–2000 to 5.2 million ha per year in 2000–2010 and 4.7 million ha per
year in 2010–2020.
According to Rotich and Ojwang (2021) the forest cover assessment in Kenya, as at
2013, indicated that as at 2010 the overall forest cover in Kenya was 4.18 million Ha. This is
equivalent to 6.99% of total land area. It was estimated that as at 2015, the total forest cover was
7.2%, as projected from the findings of the 2010 data. This data shows that the forest cover in
Kenya is below the recommended minimum global standard of 10 percent.
The largest block of forest cover in Kenya is the Mau Forest complex which measures
approximately 400,000 hectares. Mau Forest is a natural rain forest that forms an important water
catchment area. It is the source of 14 significant rivers and many streams that are depended on by
over 5 million people and millions of domestic and wild animals in Kenya depend on the Mau
for water (Albertazzi et al., 2018).

2
Mau forest is managed by five local authorities which are Nakuru, Koibatek, Kericho,
Bomet, and Narok county councils. However, the Ogiek community are the indigenous
inhabitants who also coined the name “Mau” which is a derivative of “Moou” which means “the
coolest of the coolest place.” Over a long time, the Mau Forest has been exponentially declining.
This is mainly attributed to human activities and majorly deforestation, excision by the
government, human encroachment, and logging.
Logging in the Mau Forest has been caused by forest excisions. The government has
periodically excised and degazetted huge pieces of land from the forest land to settle the landless.
This reason has been mooted as a pretense for the government to award huge pieces of land to
the influential, well-connected individuals and politicians. Under the repealed Forest
Act(Repealed in 2005), all forests belonged to the state. Management of the forests was by the
Forest Department on behalf of the state. As a result, the Forest Department faced rampant forest
mismanagement (Cuaresma et al.,2017). Huge pieces of forest land were oftenly excised for
flimsy reasons.
During colonial period and even after independence, huge pieces of the Mau Forest land
were deforested and cleared to establish tea plantations. This is the reason why, even to date, the
largest tea-growing areas are areas adjacent to the Mau forest. Between the year 1973 to 2003,
the government excised over 36,780 ha in the Eastern Mau Forest which was allocated to
influential individuals. Further, in 2001, the government excised another over 67,000 ha for
logging and purportedly to settle agricultural communities. In Trans Mara area where, through
Gazette Notice of 3rd March 1989, 937.7 ha were excised for timber and tea plantations. The
gazette notice was not accompanied by a legal notice - a mandatory requirement.

3
Between 1996 and 2003, over 30% of the Maasai Mau forest was depleted due to logging
and deforestation for human settlement (Kweyu et al., 2019). Maasai Mau measures
approximately 46,278 ha. The national importance of the Mau forest cannot be over emphasized,
but the forest cover has been dwindling over the past few decades. Due to government’s
involvement in excision of forest reserves, over 100 000 ha of forest has been destroyed since
2000. This represents roughly one-quarter of the Mau Complex area.
Upon excision, the government subdivided the lands and issued title deeds to individuals
and communities living in the Mau Forest. In the western Mau, the government issued title deeds
to the Maasai indigenous communities under the Narok county council. It included parts of the
now Narok South, Bomet east, and Konoin constituencies. In the Eastern Mau, the government
issued title deeds to individuals living in the Kuresoi-south, Molo, and Njoro constituencies. In
2005, the government under the Kibaki regime set out to rehabilitate the Mau Forest complex.
The government sought to reclaim lands that had been illegally excised and conduct
afforestation. As a result, families, and communities were evicted from the Mau Forest complex,
specifically from parts of Narok South and Kuresoi constituencies. Further, the ogiek community
sued the government in the east African court of justice, claiming to be the indigenous owners of
land comprising the now Tinet ward in Kuresoi south constituency and parts of Njoro
constituency. In a judgment, the court placed a caveat over the title deeds of the concerned lands.
The government has committed several evictions to reclaim more of the Mau Forest. This
is even though some of the persons living in the affected properties had legitimate title deeds
issued by the government. In 2018, the government issued a notice through the dailies of the
intention to cancel several title deeds affecting properties satiated in Narok south constituency.
The notice, however, did not give reasons for the cancellation of the titles, and the government

4
did not intend to compensate or resettle the affected people. It is not in doubt that the
encroachment has been wanton, with some having title deeds while others do not. However,
some of the settlers were issued legitimate title deeds by the same government seeking to evict
them.
The evictions have been interpreted by the communities living in the Mau Forest
complex and a section of the political leaders to be politically instigated. The government has
spent money developing the affected areas by building schools, hospitals, roads, and other social
amenities but evicting the settlers. The caveat on the properties in Kuresoi-south constituency
has also not been resolved. The owners of these properties can, therefore, not transact legally on
their properties, despite having legal ownership. This impedes their property rights. Moreover,
during the recent drought in 2009 and 2019, the Mara River and other rivers in the Mau basin
dried up completely. This trend has raised a question about local communities’ role in managing
Mau Forest. The environmental importance of the Mau Forest complex is, therefore, undoubted.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
This study aims to analyze the governing laws and find the gap in the proper
environmental management of the Mau Forest complex. It also analyses the property rights(if
any) of persons who legitimately and illegitimately encroached into the Mau Forest complex.
The analysis of the environmental impact of the encroachment as juxtaposed with the property
rights of the communities living in and around the Mau Forest complex was necessitated by the
infinite imposition of the caveat of some sections of the lands, frequency of unending evictions,
improper cancellation of title deeds without any repartitions on the victims and government’s
lack of political will to solve the Mau Forest complex issue conclusively.

5
This study is premised on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of Kenya, specifically
Articles 40 and 42. Article 40 of the constitution protects the right of every person to individually
or in association with others, to acquire and own property of any description; and in any part of
Kenya. Various articles, task force reports, and studies have been conducted on managing and
conserving forests in significant ecosystems, including Mau Forest, Mount Kenya, and other
forests. In 2010, Wamae conducted a study on the impacts of CFA in Managing Kenyan forests.
The research was premised on the Kenyan constitutional provision on Participatory Forest
management (PFM). Kweyu et al. (2019)examined surrounding communities’ perceptions of
forest management in the Kakamega forest. They affirmed that community involvement helps to
change society’s attitude toward managing forests, thus enhancing efficiency in managing
natural resources.
A study by Kinyili (2014) on the PFM approach in Olbolossat emphasized the
importance of community involvement in forest management. Likewise, Additionally,
community participation is an effective strategy for transforming knowledge and addressing
environmental challenges in his study on community involvement in managing the Kimothon
forest. All these studies have cemented the importance of involving various stakeholder in forest
conservation measures. However, none of the studies had looked at the persistent issue of the
Mau Forest complex through the spectrum of balancing the property rights of the communities
and individuals living in and around Mau Forest with the environmental rights of all and sundry.
1.3. Objectives of the study
They included;
i. To establish the legal framework and policies governing the management of forests in
Kenya and the historical chronology of encroachment into the Mau Forest complex.

6
ii. To determine the property rights of the persons and communities living in and around the
Mau Forest complex.
iii. To examine the environmental impact of the encroachment into the Mau Forest complex.
iv. To identify gaps and possible solutions to the management of Mau Forest Complex.
1.4. Research Questions
Based on the research problem, questions that guided the study included;
i. What are the effects of including prominent policy actors in the management of Mau?
ii. What are the effects of information sharing with prominent policy actors in the
management of Mau Forest?
iii. What are the effects of consultative forums with prominent policy actors in the
management of Mau Forest?
1.5. Justification and Significance
1.5.1. Justification
According to Human Rights Watch (2020), at least 40 percent of Mau Forest cover has
been exploited by deforestation and encroachment by more than 50,000 people. In addition, it
has resulted in frequent droughts in Kenya and trying up essential rivers like the Mara River,
coupled with frequent forest fires and constant eviction of neighboring communities. It is a
general feeling that the efforts made by the government in the conservation of the Mau forest
have not borne the intended results. Therefore, it is imperative to ascertain the current legal
framework governing the management of forest covers in Kenya, the effects of the evictions on
the affected communities’ rights, the socio-economic impacts and the environmental
conservation effects of the evictions.

7
1.5.2. Significance
The findings of this study form a vital addition to the available literature on the
conservation of the environment, especially forests. The study shall also analysis the balance
between the environmental conservation efforts and the solemn state’s role in protection of
human rights, especially the right to property. The study also aimed at providing relevant
information to the government of Kenya and all other stakeholders engaged in managing natural
resources in Kenya. The survey findings could be vital in providing a clear basis for how and
why society should be included in managing and conserving the forests and other common pool
resources.
1.6. Scope and Limitations
1.6.1. Scope
The study examines the balance between environmental conservation and property rights
in Kenya. The study has tried to evaluate the historical underpinning of the environmental
challenges facing Mau Forest, efforts made to restore the forest cover, legal and policy
framework governing environmental conservation and the impact of evictions on the affected
communities. In that regard, the study shall focused on the property rights of the affected
communities, how those rights were gained, the socio-economic impact of evictions and shall
evaluate whether the evictions have attained the intended aim of forest restoration.
All stakeholders tasked with managing Mau Forest, including the local communities,
representatives of local communities, government officials directly involved, and CBO officials
shall be consulted in the study to derive a clear picture of the effects of the evictions in the
managing of Mau Forest. The survey shall be conducted in the Eastern Mau forest section of
Kuresoi South, Molo and Njoro constituencies and Maasai Mau section of Mau Forest in Narok

8
County. Questionnaires and interview schedules shall be employed to gather data from
community members within and around the forest, CFA members, and the Kenya forest officials
at Maasai Mau forest and the county government and national level.
1.6.2. Limitations
As expected in other similar studies, this study is expected to face challenges and
limitations. For example, a segment of the respondents may not have provided first-hand
information due to personal reasons, thus posing a challenge to the findings. Other limitations
include financial constraints, poor road networks, language barriers, and poor accessibility.
However, some challenges shall be mitigated by obtaining supportive documents such as an
introduction letter from the University, NACOSTI, and local authorities to ascertain that the
study is mainly for academic reasons. In addition, establishing a local contact person shall assist
in terms of accessibility in the area during the data collection process. This shall also mitigate the
language barrier challenge. In the same breath, the study shall be contacted with a very high level
of confidentiality, adhering to the set code of conduct and other ethical principles for carrying
out research.

9
CHAPTER TWO
2.0. Literature Review
2.1. Introduction
This chapter looks at empirical studies related to the environmental management laws
and policies in Kenya and how the said laws and policies had been applied and implemented,
particularly in the Mau Forest complex. It focuses on the efforts to restore and conserve the Mau
Forest, particularly the eviction of communities. It deliberates the property rights of the persons
living in and around the Mau Forest complex and how those rights have been affected by the
government’s efforts(or lack thereof) in conserving the Mau Forest complex. The study seeks to
discuss the interaction, balance, and equilibrium between environmental conservation and
property rights concerning the Mau Forest complex. The chapter also presents the theoretical and
conceptual frameworks on which the study is based.
2.2 Empirical review
2.2.1 Environmental management.
Environmental management is the practice of protecting the environment and its natural
resources. The Kenyan laws provide for various approaches to environmental conservation. The
government has always use various ways to conserve the environment including banning
encouraging environmentally friendly sources of energy, ban on pullutants such as plastic bags
and civic education. It is argued that low income earners depend on forest products for at least a
portion of their income and/or to reduce their daily expenditure as a source of cheap energy.
However, due to the rapid increase in population and the scarcity of resources, dependency on
forest products does not correspond to the replenishment of the forest covers, leading to
dwindling forest covers worldwide.

10
In Kenya, despite the existence of various forms of environmental management methods,
it has not stopped the degradation of the environment. Impunity, mismanagement, and corruption
have led to the destruction of the environment. In some instances, the government has been
actively involved in sanctioning and legalizing actions with adverse long-term and irreversible
environmental effects. For example, the Kenyan post-independence governments failed to
implement a land program that met widespread expectations. Instead, the land was systematically
used as a tool of political patronage. As a result, vast tracts of public land were allocated to
political elites and supporters. Since independence, Kenya’s forest cover has shrunk to just 1.7
percent of the total land mass.
Land policies in Kenya, for over the last 50 years, has contributed to the forest cover
depletion (2010 report of the Task Force on Mau Forest Complex). This is through irregular and
unscrupulous degazettement and excisions of forests for the benefit of the political class and the
influential individuals. Between the years 1973 and 1985, the government excised Mau orest
land for the benefit of five group ranches. The five ranches are Sisian, Enkaroni, Enosokon,
Anakishomi, and Reiyo. These ranches have slowly but steadily encroached and extended their
boundaries into the Mau forest land. According to the Ministry of Land report, they have
increased their lands by an extra 1,807 hectares.
In 2001, the government excised and demarcated a total of 61,587 hectares of Mau forest
and allocated to individuals. Over time, the communities living around the Mau forest have
gradually encroached on an estimated 29,000 hectares. Further, it is documented that the
government, through its agencies allocated over 17,000 hectares on the Maasai side of Mau
irregularly.

11
The government of Kenya formed a commission in 2003 that came to be known as
Ndungu commission, and tasked to investigate and document land grabbing. The Commission
reported that the Ogiek community was the indigenous community of Mau forest. It also
documented that the beneficiaries of the excised land that was meant for the settlement of the
indigenous community did not benefit the Ogiek, but influential persons and companies. The
report made public the irregular allocations of public lands to influential persons, political
leaders, senior civil servants and military officers. Case in point is the 1,812 ha of Mau forest
land in Kiptagich, Kuresoi constituency which was Mau forest land and was cleared to settle the
landless. However, the said property ended up being the Kiptagich tea estate owned by
influential political class.
The enactment of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (1999),
introduced the Environmental Impact Assessment as a means used by the government to reduce
environmental degradation. The government has also since carried out massive evictions as
documented in 2004 and 2006. It is estimated that over 100,000 were forcibly evicted and
rendered homeless between these periods. Further, in 2018, the second phase of eviction was
carried out and it is estimated that over 50,000 people were lest landless.
2.2.2 Forced Evictions and Displacement.
UN-HABITAT (N.d) defined forced eviction as “the permanent or temporary removal
against the will of individuals, families, and communities from the homes and land which they
occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.”
Eviction is a means of removing the unlawful occupier, in order to protect the property
rights of the lawful owner. The fundamental point of undertaking an eviction process is that the

12
evicted person must be an unlawful occupier. The unlawful occupier is served with an eviction
notice and when he refuses to willingly vacate, they can be forcibly evicted. Forced evictions in
Kenya have been carried out majorly in the informal settlement and the forests. However, the
means employed and the execution have met both domestic and international condemnation.
2.2.3 Legal and policy framework of Eviction in Kenya.
The constitution of Kenya under Article 43 protects the right of every Kenyan to own
property in any part of Kenya. Consequently, the land has been the centerpiece of development
in Kenya since its independence. However, land issues have always existed and have often
caused conflicts among communities and insecurity in several parts of the country. In their paper,
Joseph Kieyah and Patricia Kameri-Mbote, securing property rights in land Kenya(2010), argued
that the essence of the land question confronting Kenya is insecure and unclear property rights.
Although Kenya has vastly developed since independence, most people continue to
depend on land for their livelihoods and well-being. Rapidly increasing population and historical
land problems have led to a labyrinth of problems that requires urgent and serious attention from
the government. The government’s failure to address the problem adequately continues to
threaten the nation’s social, political, and economic well-being. In addition, land issues have
emerged as one of the challenges that need to be dealt with if the underlying causes of violence,
such as that sparked by the disputed presidential elections in 2008, are to be avoided.
The Bill of rights as contained in the Constitution of Kenya has been lauded as the most
progressive. However, it does not have any provision for evictions. The South African
Constitution on the other hand provides under Section 26 for the prohibition of forced evictions.
It requires a court order and is only done after considering all the relevant circumstances.

13
Nonetheless, in Kenya, Section 2 of the Land Registration Act has defined eviction as the ‘act of
depriving or removing a person from the possession of land or property which they hold
unlawfully either executed upon a successful lawsuit or otherwise. From the definition, the
Kenya laws only envisaged the use of eviction as against unlawful occupiers. The Evictions and
Resettlement Bill defined an unlawful occupier as a person who takes possession of land or
structures without the tacit consent of the owner or without any right in law to take possession of
such land or structure
The lacuna left on the clear legal of forced evictions have been filled by the Application
of international laws and treaties ratified in Kenya. Vide the provisions of Articles 2(5) and (6) of
the constitution, Kenyan Courts are allowed to apply the general rules of international law,
treaties, and conventions ratified by Kenya as part of Kenyan laws. Kenya has ratified and
continue to apply international legal instruments such as the UN Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 7, ‘The Right to Adequate Housing
(Art.11.1) which requires states to refrains from forced evictions. Other legal instruments
include; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter). These laws seek to secure the fundamental human
rights including the right to properties.
The international community have previously voiced their concerns on the methods
employed in carrying out evictions in Kenya. On 6th
April 2016, the United Nations Economic
and Social Council observed that pastoralist communities and persons living in informal
settlements in Kenya are always under threat of eviction. There is a clear lack of legal security of
tenure over properties in Kenya and forced evictions without due processes and proceudres such

14
as sufficient notices. The council was also concerned that Kenya has failed to enacted a clear
and predictable legislative framework to govern evictions and protect communities’ right to land.
The Committee issued recommend ions that; Kenya should take concrete steps to secure
land tenure for all, enacting sufficient legal framework including the Community Land Bill and
the Evictions and Resettlement Bill, implement court orders and judgments that provide remedies
to victims of forced evictions. These recommendations led to the enactment of Land Laws
(Amendment) Act in 2016.
A United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires to prevent
any form of eviction and displacement with the effect of violating the rights of indigenous
peoples (Shrinkhal, 2021). Article 10 prohibits forceful eviction of indigenous people from their
territories without their free and informed and just and fair compensation. Further, under Article
30, the signatory states are also required to obtain free and informed consent before approving
any project affecting their lands and other resources.
2.2.4. Impact of Evictions on property rights.
Environmental conservation including forest protection is a legitimate cause. However,
how the government of Kenya has sought to achieve this goal has created a humanitarian and
human rights crises. The government has failed to reconcile its national and international interest
in environmental protection and its core mandate and obligation to protect the human rights of its
citizens. The right to clean drinking water and healthy environment on the one hand ought not to
overshadow the right to adequate dignity, shelter and the right to own properties. Evictions
therefore out to be a measure of last resort, and only carried out where necessary, and always in
tandem with the national and international human rights law.

15
The need to protect forest and the environment generally are not mutually exclusive.
When one overshadows the other, the objectives cannot be achieved adequately. In Mau Forest
evictions, the governments deliberate effort to ignore the resultant human rights issues has
undermined the protection of the forest. This is because, after evictions, the government failed to
address the victim’s right to shelter, which led to them returning to their former homes, from
which they were evicted from. The government has failed to take responsibility and acknowledge
that title deeds were issued to the people living in the Mau Forest through its actions, whether
legitimate or not. The government excised a portion of the Mau Forest to resettle settled
communities. After that, they subdivided the excised portion, gave them title numbers, and
issued title deeds to individuals and communities. Under the Land Act, a certificate of title is
prima facie evidence of property ownership. Whether the current owners of the subject
properties were the intended beneficiaries is a moot question.
Based on the preceding, the people living in the Mau Forest, with title deeds issued by the
government, have property rights to the subject properties. Over time, the government has sought
to cancel the subject title deeds. In February 2005, the Minister of Lands notified the public that
10,000 title deeds in Mau were cancelled. The process involved in the cancellation of affected
title deeds is novel and the individual owners of the affected properties did not receive an
individual notification. In August 2019, the Land Ministry also purported to nullify over 1,274
title deeds in preparation to evict the affected individual owners. However, the cancellation was
challenged in Nakuru court.
2.2.5 Socio-economic impacts of Evictions.
There are eight significant socio-economic impacts of evictions (Impoverishment Risks
and Reconstruction Framework). These are; Landlessness Joblessness, Homelessness,

16
Marginalization, Food insecurity, Increased morbidity and mortality, loss of access to common
property and Social disarticulation. This study shall constrain itself to the following five impacts;
2.2.5.1 Landlessness
Landlessness affects the primary rights t property and livelihood. This results in the
inability to secure basic human needs such as food and shelter. It also leads to the loss of capital
and pauperization of displaced people because land is the basic artificial and natural capital.
Unless the displaced community’s land is reconstructed or replaced with another source of
income and livelihood, they become landlessness and impoverished. Human Rights Watch
detailed how the communities evicted from the Mau Forest were deprived of their lands. In
addition, the Kenya National Human Rights Commission documented the lack of clear
compensation plans, and, to date, any existing plan has failed. This is how landlessness set in and
snowballed into other risks and losses to the communities.
2.2.5.2 Joblessness
Land is a natural and artificial capital that creates employment. This may be through
enterprises, services, or agriculture. Job creation is a complex process that requires substantial
investment. Loss of land leaves a lot of the affected community members unemployed or
underemployed. For example, landless community members lose access to work on land owned
by others, self-employed small producers such as shopkeepers, transporters, craftsmen and others
lose their small businesses. Even when the evicted communities are resettled, unemployment or
underemployment persists long after physical relocation.

17
2.2.5.3 Homelessness
The process and procedure of evictions in Kenya have not been effected particularly in
the Mau Forest complex. In the process used, the affected persons and communities are not
issued with notices and when issued, they are done so in a very lousy manner and without
sufficient time. The communities are not therefore accorded sufficient notice and time to find
alternative shelters. Evictions when carried out, involves torching of shelters which results into
homeless. For lack of alternative means the communities move into public utilities such as
schools for shelter. Some victims erect make-shift shelters by the roadside, which aggravates
their suffering. Because the Mau Forest complex is located on the high altitudes of the Mau
ranges, tropical rains are rampant. It aggravates the suffering of the homeless victims and often
leads to cold-related sicknesses and increased infant mortality.
2.2.5.4 Marginalization
Forced evictions cause marginalization because the affected community members lose
their capital, shelter, dignity and economic muscle. Poverty due to loss of income leads to social
alienation and may be accompanied by psychological marginalization. Even when the victims
are resettled, they take significant time to adjust to the new environmental, cultural and social
changes. The skilled and semi-skilled labor will be lost leading to loss of human capital. Poverty
and the huge capital needed in starting over life leads to significant drop in social status and loss
of self-esteem. Politically the victims habour feelings of injustice, victimization and
vulnerability.
2.2.5.5 Increased Morbidity and Mortality
Evictions leads to mass movement of populations and a decline in the health standards.
Such decline includes loss of shelter leading to cold related illnesses, reduction in hygiene, lack

18
of clean drinking water and often cause malnutrition due to scarcity of food. The victims
therefore become vulnerable to disease outbreak such as epidemics, parasitic diseases such as
malaria, cholera, diarrhea among others. Vulnerable members of the society such as the aging
population and infants are adversely and severely affected.
2.2.6 Environmental impacts of eviction
Eviction reduces population density in a given area. This reduces environmental pressure
and competition for resources and hence allows biodiversity to thrive. This is the primary aim
amd objective of evictions aimed at environmental conservation. However, evictions also have a
negative impact on the environment, especially on the resettlement areas. This is because it
increases the population density, completion for resources and environmental pressure thereby
leading to environmental degradation. Evicted population also hold negative attitudes towards
conservation, which can result in environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. In Uganda,
the communities that were evicted in 1983 and resettled in 1986 at Lake Mburo National Park
killed the wildlife to eliminate the conservation value and wade of future eviction possibilities.
2.2.7 Community inclusion in the conservation of the Mau Forest complex.
Forest Act 2005, recognizes the vital role played by the indigenous people and
communities living around the forest covers. The Act gives the communities the power, right,
and responsibilities to be contract managers or co-managers of forest resources. The government
has formulated policies that allows it to involve communities in the management of forest.
These policies have been implemented in such areas as Mount Elgon, Mount Kenya, Kakamega
forest, Cherangany forest, Mau Forest ecosystem, and other small ecosystems.

19
2.3 Theoretical framework
The right-based theory of development guided the study. Noh (2021) posits that the right-
based approach to development upholds and respects the fundamental human rights of the
affected persons as the core consideration in development policy. These rights include economic,
social, cultural, civil, and political rights. Economic rights include the right to own property in
Kenya. Land is a fundamental property that is highly valued as both natural and artificial
resource. In addition, the rights-based approach to development upholds inclusivity of the
marginalized and vulnerable members of the society in development programs.
Land and natural resources are essential for individuals and households to meet
subsistence needs, including food and shelter. To this end, access to land and natural resources is
critical for poverty alleviation and food security. The importance of land as an asset and
community identity in Kenya cannot be over-emphasized. Displacement and evictions of any
nature and for any reason deprive the affected persons of their rights to property. The concept of
sustainable development has made society conscientious of the problems currently facing the
environment, such as conservation, sustainable use of ecosystems, climate change, pollution, and
maintenance of biodiversity are complex and dynamic. There is a global consensus that
sustainable development cannot be alienated from environmental conservation. At the
international level, the United Nations climate change conference(COP26) listed its
achievements, including; boosting efforts to deal with climate impacts. It also mobilizes billions
and trillions towards climate finance goals, attaining collaboration among governments, civil
societies, and businesses to deliver on climate goals.
Environmental conservation and the protection of human rights are not mutually
exclusive. Evictions and displacement of communities as a means of environmental conservation

20
have proven ineffective and have led to perilous suffering for the affected. This is especially true
when the government that purports to conserve the environment was actively involved in the
efforts that led to environmental degradation. When the government exercised portions of the
forest to settle landless communities, the communities issued with the title deeds had a legitimate
claim over the said properties. Their legitimate expectations are that the government of the day,
which they actively participated in electing, should protect their property rights under the social-
contract theory.
Muldoon (2016) postulates that the social contract theory, as proposed by John Locke
states that humans would be in a constant state of war and competition for resources in their
natural state. Because the natural state is undesirable, humans are driven to consent to give up
certain rights and freedoms to protect their property better. Humanity can only give up these
freedoms through such systems as democracies where, by consent, establish a government to
rule, and we consent to its laws and rulings by majority votes.
In the social contract theory, scarcity of resources and protection of property rights is at
the epicenter. Therefore, the state is expected to protect its citizens and their rights to property.
However, when the same government engages in malpractices such as corruption in the realm of
property rights of its citizens, the essence of the social contract is defeated. As earlier stated in
this study, the importance of environmental conservation should not overshadow and trample
over the rights of the affected persons. This is why the government and the international
community have enacted laws and policies to govern evictions and displacement of populations
whenever the need arises. However, when these laws and procedures are not followed, it leads to
grave consequences and injustices to the affected communities.

21
2.3.1 Social Justice and Forced Displacements
Forced evictions, aimed at environmental conservation and/or development reasons
creates a pervasive and intrinsic contradiction. They create an inequitable distribution of
resources and developments that strains the environment of the raise significant ethical questions
because they reflect an inequitable distribution. Environmental conservation programs are
indisputably needed. However, the involuntary displacements caused by such programs also
create major impositions on some population segments.
Forced evictions curtail the rights of the affected populations through limitations of the
property rights by the state. In Kenya, evictions have been executed inhumanely and in ways that
leaves the victims and the affected populations worse off and without any reprieve. This creates
issues of social justice and equity. The state invokes the principle of the “greater good for the
larger population”, to sanitize and justify forced displacements. This principle is abused to justify
and rationalize avoidable suffering and ills against the affected communities. The resultant
effects are some people enjoying the developments at the expense of others.
2.4 Conceptual framework
Mau forest is among major forest in Kenya. Given its significance, its conservation and
restoration is the cornerstone of environmental conservation in Kenya. Over the past few
decades, the Mau forest has been facing rampant deforestation and human encroachment. The
government of Kenya has been actively involved in sanctioning the encroachment through forest
excision and degazettement, demarcation, subdivision and issuance of title deeds. As such the
government as the eminent dominant, created property rights to the persons issued with title
documents.

22
The effect of deforestation if felt across the country and in the region. This has
necessitated quick actions from the government to mitigate the resultant environmental and
climatic impact of the deforestation in order to restore and replenish the forest cover. Among the
efforts taken by the government is the forced eviction of the communities living around and in
Mau forest complex. This includes the Ogiek community, which forms the indigenous
community and with, arguably, traditional rights to the forest. Before embarking on forced
evictions, the government failed to ascertain the true boundaries of the forest and did not issue
sufficient notices to the affected persons.
The manner in which the forced evictions have been carried out has led to criticism and
condemnation of the Kenyan government. Different humanitarian agencies and international
community has raised concerns over the trampling of the rights of the affected communities.

23
CHAPTER THREE
Research Methodology and Design
3.0 Introduction
This chapter deals with the specific procedures and techniques used to generate data that
is relevant to the study. The chapter shall also deal with the methods of analysis and presentation
of the collected data. Primary sources of data and secondary sources of data will be used. Data
analysis shall employ qualitative and quantitative techniques.
3.1 Research Design
In this study the descriptive survey method shall be used because it is suitable for
collection of data from the communities and individuals living in and around the Mau forest. The
study shall also collect data from the eviction victims in camps in Kuresoi South, Molo
constituency, and Narok South settlement scheme. The study shall seek to obtain data relating to
the extent of eviction, the effect of the evictions on the property rights of the affected
individuals, number of affected individuals and households, environmental impact of the
eviction, the resultant community attitudes and perceptions.
3.2 Sampling Frame
Due to the vast geographical area, huge population involved and the limited resources
and time, this study shall develop a sampling frame from crucial informants. The target
demographic shall be the Kipsigis, Maasai and Ogiek communities and particularly the
individual and household living in and around the Mau forest complex. The local administration,
government agencies and non-governmental organizations shall also inform the survey frame.

24
3.3 Sampling techniques and sample size
This study shall focus on the communities living in and around the Mau forest. By use of
purposive sampling, the Ogiek community, Kipsigis community and the Maasai community
shall be chosen as primary focus groups.
3.4 Sources of Data
In this study primary dada shall be collected using questionnaires, interviews and
observations. Secondary data shall be generated from government publications, laws of Kenya,
parliament Hansards, books, journals, articles, unpublished theses and dissertations.
3.5 Data collection instruments
The methods that shall be used to collect data shall be questionnaires, interviews and
observation.
3.5.1 Questionnaire
Questionnaires shall be administered to community leaders and local administration
officers. It is intended that both structured and non-structured questions shall be contained. A
questionnaire allows the collection of many data within a short time, is easy to administer and
very economical. It also saves time and allows the researcher to civer a wide area of study within
a very short time.
3.5.2 interviews
Interviews of sample population of the affected communities shall be conducted. This
will allow face to face interaction with the respondents and will be useful in obtaining
background information and the participants experiences. In this study, it is intended that both
open-ended interviews and fixed-response interviews shall be employed.

25
3.5.3 observation
Upon visiting the affected areas and communities, observation shall be useful in obtaining
information on the level of encroachment into the Mau forest, the extent of environmental
degradation and the impact of the evictions on the livelihoods of the affected communities.
3.6 Methods of data analysis and presentation
In this study, descriptive analysis techniques and the inferential analysis techniques shall
be employed. Under descriptive analysis, quantitative data will be processed using measures of
central tendencies such as frequencies, means, and percentages. Qualitative data will processed
and interpreted in accordance with the research objectives and questions. The resultant data will
be presented in figures, tables, maps and any other appropriate means of presentation.
3.7 Ethical Considerations
Ethics are the norms for conduct that distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable
behavior (Blackburn (2021). It is the objective of this study that none of the participants gets
harmed or suffers any adverse consequence from the activities undertaken to accomplish this
task. The foreseeable ethical issues can arise during this research include confidentiality,
fabrication or falsification of data, and conflicts of interest. In order to mitigate the cited ethical
issues, several steps shall be made undertaken including; obtaining authority from National
Council of Science and Technology before collecting data, informing all participants of the
purpose of the research and seeking informed consent where necessary. The participants shall be
informed of their right to decline to participate in the research and that their confidentiality and
anonymity of the information shall be observed. The resultant data will be reported without any
misrepresentation or fabrication.

26
References
Albertazzi, S., Bini, V., Lindon, A., & Trivellini, G. (2018). Relations of Power Driving Tropical
Deforestation: A Case Study from the Mau Forest (Kenya). Belgeo, (2).
https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.24223
Bank, W. (1AD). Poverty and shared prosperity 2022. Open Knowledge Repository. Retrieved
December 19, 2022, from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/37739
Blackburn, S. (2021). Ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Crespo Cuaresma, J., Danylo, O., Fritz, S., McCallum, I., Obersteiner, M., See, L., & Walsh, B.
(2017). Economic development and forest cover: Evidence from Satellite Data. Scientific
Reports, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40678
Development Co-operation Report 2021: Shaping a just digital transformation: En. OECD.
(2021). Retrieved December 19, 2022, from
https://www.oecd.org/development/development-co-operation-report-20747721.htm
Glasgow Climate Change Conference – October-November 2021. Unfccc.int. (2021). Retrieved
December 19, 2022, from https://unfccc.int/conference/glasgow-climate-change-
conference-october-november-2021
Homewood, K. M., Trench, P., & Brockington, D. (2012). Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife
revenues in East Africa: A case for coexistence? Pastoralism: Research, Policy and
Practice, 2(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-19

27
Kenya: Abusive evictions in Mau Forest. Human Rights Watch. (2020, October 28). Retrieved
December 19, 2022, from https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/09/20/kenya-abusive-evictions-
mau-forest
Kepha Omondi Onjuro & others -vs-Attorney General & 5 others (High Court At Nairobi
(Milimani Law Courts), 2015).
Kinyili, B. M. (2014). Impacts of Participatory Forest Management Approach in Ol Bolossat
Forest, Nyandarua County, Kenya.
Kweyu, R., Kiemo, K., Thenya, T., Emborg, J., & Gamborg, C. (2019). Spatial and political
factors in Forest Resource Conflicts: The Eastern Mau Forest case 1992–2014. Society &
Natural Resources, 32(11), 1276–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2019.1620899
May, C. (2013). Towards a general theory of implementation. Implementation Science, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-18
Muldoon, R. (2016). Social contract theory for a diverse world: Beyond tolerance. Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group.
Noh, J.-E. (2021). Review of Human Rights-based approaches to development: Empirical
evidence from developing countries. The International Journal of Human Rights, 26(5),
883–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1981869
Rotich, B., & Ojwang, D. (2021). Trends and drivers of forest cover change in the Cherangany
Hills Forest Ecosystem, Western Kenya. Global Ecology and Conservation, 30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01755

28
Shrinkhal, R. (2021). “indigenous sovereignty” and right to self-determination in international
law: A critical appraisal. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples,
17(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180121994681

Proposal_Calvin_Kiru-_final.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Proposal_Calvin_Kiru-_final.docx

More from kiokosoft

Recently uploaded

Proposal_Calvin_Kiru-_final.docx