| NOTES |
|
The
first attack on the heart of Ogiek came in form of wanton destruction
of Ogiek forest habitats. As mentioned earlier this started with
the planting of exotic trees which were useless to the Ogiek. But
of late the destruction of both the remaining natural forest and
the continued harvesting of the exotic trees have marked the final
turning point with a hanging threat for the destruction of the entire
Ogiek ecology.
This will no doubt
leave the Ogiek with no alternative but to adapt to a life they
are not familiar with. The quintessential of Ogieks' life and
culture are the management of wild bees and harvesting, processing,
trading and consumption of honey and also; the hunting of forest
game, consumption of meat and the processing and trading of skins.
This expertise in honey
collecting and animal hunting is borne of acute powers of observation
and profound knowledge of forest wildlife and natural history.
|
| 44
Munuhe Gichuki, "The rape of Mau East Forest", The People,
April 9, 1999. |
|
Wanton large-scale
destruction of Ogiek forests is a recent phenomenon and was first
reported by A freelance journalist Munuhe Gichuki for the first
time in 1999.44
In his piece Gichuki
wrote:
|
| 45
Wangari Maathai is a leading Kenya-born environmental activist who
has won many international awards. |
|
"The rate of Mau East
Forest destruction in Nakuru District is serious. Should Green
Belt Movement co-ordinator Prof Wangari Maathai make a tour of
the area she would surely cry at the destruction.45
An extensive tour of the area makes one shudder. Burnt trees,
logs and dry branches are strewn all over. Tractors and state-of-art
lorries are racing up and down Elburgon and Njoro townships to
feed numerous insatiable sawmills while communities living inside
the forests are burning the trees to pave way for cultivation.
Foresters, timber merchants and anybody else who holds sway in
the forest matters is making a kill..."
The leader of the Ogiek,
Joseph Towett Kimaiyo could only watch as that happened. Kimaiyo
who is the leader of the Ogiek Welfare Community spoke to the
journalist and said:
|
| 46
Munuhe Gichuki, "The rape of Mau East Forest", The People,
April 9, 1999. |
|
"It is a quick buck
business. It is a death knell to our God-given resources".46
Indiscriminate felling
of trees had not started then. Rather, it had been going on at
the Ogiek forest bases especially in Teret and Likia. Although
Teret and Likia are still gazetted as forests logging had continued
with non-Ogiek — who care less about the forest — allowed
to harvest logs and clear the bushes.
Rather than lose the
entire forest the Ogieks had no alternative but to agree to the
five acres given out by the government hoping that this would
help them save the forest as their own. But surprisingly they
were informed that they would get only 100 trees while the rest
was said to belong to the Forest Department.
This saw a scramble
in the forests as wanton destruction started in 1995 with the
Forest Department personnel selling of the trees. Log harvesters
descended with tractors, powerful saw and other mechanized tools
and besieged both Likia and Teret.
This was despite the
fact that besides offering the Ogiek, part of their livelihood,
the forest also hosted important rivers including Njoro, Ndarugu
and Bagaria, which feed the Lake Nakuru. The rivers are also relied
upon by the local communities as a source for domestic water.
In October 1996 angry
Ogieks decided to bar saw millers from entering Nessuit. The area
chief then ordered the arrest of the Ogiek leaders. Three of them
Simon Muchura, Johana Tekeju and Mrs Agnes Ngeywa were arrested
and locked at Njoro Police Station. They were never taken to court.
|
| 47
"Official: Forest Owned by Government", Daily Nation, 29
October 1996. |
|
The government insisted
that it owned the trees at the forest and local media quoted Rift
Valley Provincial Forest Officer John Rotich, saying that the
7,500-acre cypress tree plantation was established by the government
with a loan from World Bank.47
The official said that the government, through the Department
of Forestry, had licensed a timber company to fell trees worth
Kenya shillings 2 million in the areas settled by the Ogiek.
But what was happening
was different.
|
| 48
Munuhe Gichuki, "The rape of Mau East Forest", The People,
April 9, 1999. |
|
"Trees that should
go for shillings 800 is sold at between shillings 20 and shillings
50...ninety percent of the sawmillers in Elburgon are not licensed.
Yet with verve and virility, their 64 tractors are racing at break-neck
speed to get the most wanted product for processing. The foresters
are millionaires per se. What with their lavish lifestyle come
evening one does not need to ask who is who but to enter the local
pub where they share the spoils. The forest guards are the tax
collectors and bribing them to get a permit to mint millions for
yourself is not a crime there."48
The Ogiek protested
this wanton destruction and insisted that the trees did not belong
to the government and in any case they had been allocated the
land in question plus the trees. But the forest officer shot back
and told the press that that was government land:
"You cannot give out
government trees to individuals free of charge", he said.
A spokesman for the
Ogiek, Simon Muchura later accused the area chief Stephen Kiwotai
of ordering the arrest of Ogieks who were opposed to the presence
of saw millers in the forest. This saw the scenario change and
the new chorus was that the "Ogiek should stop politicising the
settlement exercise as doing so would derail the programme".
Although the Agriculture
Act says that logging should not be done on a 50% gradient slope
that was what was happening at the Ogiek land that was overlooked
when it came to the Ogiek land. Before the rape of the forest
began Mau East was a symbol of forestry gone right. The forest
was evergreen with trees towering 25 to 35 metres. Some of them
formed a canopy. Below the canopy were herbs, grasslands where
the Ogiek lived by hunting and collecting honey, thus earning
the nickname "Honey-Hunters of Kenya".
Nobody wants to comment
on Mau East Forest. And journalists who have tried to get to the
bottom of the saga found a thick wall from administrators. Munuhe
Gichuki did his best:
|
| 49
Munuhe Gichuki, "The rape of Mau East Forest", The People,
April 9, 1999. |
|
"The Marioshoni Forest
officer could not comment, would not say a word. At his office
the area District Officer, John Litunda was non-committal on forest
affairs and refered us to the office of executive officer who,
despite refusing to give his name, admitted that the rate which
the forest is being depleted is unwarranted".49
The official was quoted
saying:
"The grabbers are only
interested in selling the trees. They know that because forest
is not yet degazetted. It will be hard for them to become the
legitimate owners."
What that means is
that the purpose was to exploit the fall out between the Ogieks
and the administration and deplete the forest before the Ogieks
get the land after all the Ogiek were not keen on living in the
open.
In a memorandum written
to members of parliament the Ogieks lamented the continued loss
of their land.
|
| 50
"Help us live in Our Ancestral Land and Retain Both Our Human and
Cultural Identities as Kenyans of Ogiek Origin", a memorandum submitted
to all Members of parliament by the Representatives of Kenyans of
Ogiek Community living in Nessuit and Marioshoni Parts of the Mau
Forest, dated July 15, 1996. |
|
"Our
ancestral land has been turned into private property. We, as it
were, commit tresspass when we go to our ancestral land. Most of
the men in our community are employed as manual labourers by saw
millers earning as little as Kenya shillings 30 a day. We have been
driven out of Sururu, Likia and Teret forests. A part of our ancestral
lands has been allocated to "foreigners". We are forced to live
in Nessuit location of Njoro in abject poverty. We are, as it were,
in exile."50
|
| 51
"Mau Forest hit by degradation", Daily Nation, 11 March 1999. |
|
A
survey carried by local NGOs in March 1999 reported that most of
the plantation forests in the Mau had been cleared to pave way for
agricultural activities there-by opening up the core indigenous
forest block to much exploitation.51
|
| 52
"Mau Forest hit by degradation", Daily Nation, 11 March 1999. |
|
"The degradation of
the forest is destroying this catchment area thus affecting the
flow of water to the [Rift Valley] lakes". The reduced flow of
water has an adverse effect on the people living along the rivers".52
Mau Forest serves as
the catchment area for major Rift Valley lakes that include Nakuru,
Bogoria and Baringo.
|
| 53
Paul Njuguna, Maurice Mbegera and Daniel Mbithi, "Reconnaissance
survey of forest blocks in the West and East of the Rift Valley",
Permanent Presidential Commission on Soil Conservation and Afforestation,
1999. |
|
A recent survey53
in the major forest blocks in Kenya reported that the Mau Forest
where the Ogiek live is under real threat. The report showed that
the total closed forest in Kenya cover an area of 1.40 million
hectares representing 2.5% of the total land area.
This implies that Kenya
should increase but not decrease its forest cover. It was noted
that an approximated 5,000 hectares were lost every year through
excision and Mau Forest was one of the most threatened.
"Formal and informal
groups are asking to be allocated land from gazetted forests",
said the report commissioned by the Permanent Presidential Commission
on Soil Conservation and Afforestation".
|
|
54
See also, Mathews Ndanyi, "Report details the rape of government
forests", The People, 20 December 1999; Aghan Daniel, "Rift
Valley forests poorly managed", Daily Nation, 23 December
1999.
55
Mark Agutu, "Forests under siege", Daily Nation, 11 January
2000.
|
|
The
report further accuses forest managers in Mau of "being unable"
or "unwilling" to stop the destruction of the forests. It established
that some 60,000 ha of forest cover had been lost in the recent
years.54
It then appeared that the government did not want to get the blame
for what is happening with the Rift Valley. The region's Provincial
Commissioner Francis Baya argued55
that the forest guards and other officials deployed in the region
were too few to effectively curb illegal harvesting of forest products
in the Mau.
|
| 56
Stephen Mburu and Stephen Makabila, "Three Firms Exempted from logging
ban -PS", East African Standard, 3 July 2000. |
|
But
instead of stopping the harvesting, the government has slapped a
partial ban on logging which exempts three giant logging companies.56
It is these companies which are officially destroying the Ogiek
forests and they are Pan African Paper Mills, Raiply Timber and
its sister firm, Timsales Ltd. These firms have been allowed to
harvest timber from Bararget, Nesiut and Mauche areas according
to Dr Mohammed Isahakia, a Permanent Secretary at the ministry of
natural resources. Nesiut and Mauche are dominated by Ogieks.
|
| 57Kennedy
Masibo, "Logging ban explained", Daily Nation, 4 July 2000. |
|
The
government says that the three were exempted because Raiply and
Timsales "employ over 30,000 Kenyans and cannot therefore be closed"
while Pan African was exempted because "the government has shares
in it and is important to the economy".57
|
| 58
Elijah Kinyanjui and Patricia Sewe, "Sawmillers now question government's
licensing of Asians", The People, 16 July 2000. See also
"Saw millers allege bias in logging", Daily Nation, 5 July
2000; "Low supervisoty capacity abetting forest destruction", Daily
Nation, 6 July 2000. |
|
Raiply,
one of the largest licensed wood companies has been accused of capitalising
on lack of government supervisory capacity to even harvest indigenous
wood. Critics say that its owners have political godfathers who
protect them.58
|
| 59
Rocken Masinza and Titus Maero, "Government told to act on forest
destruction", East African Standard, 31 July 2000. Kosgey
was fired as a government minister. |
|
A cabinet minister,
Henry Kosgey publicly wondered why forests in the Mau area were
being destroyed and why the government was not taking action.
He said that those behind the destruction are known and wondered
why no action was being taken against them.59
The wanton destruction
of the Mau forest, which in the past was a haven for bees owing
to many beehives, the Ogiek had mounted in the forest. Animals
were plenty but are now running away fearing exposure due to the
continued obliteration of the vast forest. Also, streams are drying
up as a result of perturbation in catchment areas with a gradient
of 50 percent, which is unlawful.
|
|
60
Olivia Owuor, "Fire claims massive part of Likia Forest, The
People, 26 February, 2000
61
Chesot was interviewed in Marioshoni Forest in August.
|
 |
Also, the invading
communities have been burning parts of the forest in contempt
of the Ogiek tribe and in February 2000 some 100 hectares of land
were lost after a huge forest fire consumed parts of the Mau forest.60
Our investigations
revealed that the destruction of the forest has been continuing.
Daniel Chesot61
an official of Ogiek Welfare Council said:
"This morning the Marioshoni
forester, Paul Ochonda, told me all the trees in the forest settled
areas must be cleared by the end of next month (September)."
Conclusion
We conclude that the
destruction of the Ogiek land is not due to land pressure per
se but the demand of timber both locally and internationally.
We demand that a boycott of timber that is being harvested from
Mau Forests be put into place so as to safeguard the Ogiek right
to livelihood. MORE>>
|