IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v7y2018i4p140-d183470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resilience of Traditional Livelihood Approaches Despite Forest Grabbing: Ogiek to the West of Mau Forest, Uasin Gishu County

Author

Listed:
  • Jemaiyo Chabeda-Barthe

    (Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Bern, Lerchenweg 36, 3000 Bern 9, Switzerland)

  • Tobias Haller

    (Institute of Social Anthropology, University of Bern, Lerchenweg 36, 3000 Bern 9, Switzerland)

Abstract

This paper is a summary of the findings of research work conducted in two case studies in the Rift Valley, Kenya. This study used the Neo-Institutional theory to interrogate how the rules and regulations (institutions involved) of the agrarian reform process in Kenya are constantly changing and helping to shape the livelihoods of social actors around Mau Forest. The first case study—Ndungulu, is a settlement scheme where the Ogiek ethnic community were resettled between 1995 and 1997 after the land clashes of 1992. The second case study is the Kamuyu cooperative farm, a post-colonial settlement scheme owned by a cooperative society that was founded in 1965 by members from the Kikuyu ethnic group. This study employed qualitative data collection methods intermittently between 2012 and 2017 for a total of two years. A total of 60 interviews were conducted for this research. Thirteen (13) of these were key informant interviews with experts on land. The qualitative interviews were complemented by participant observations and nine focus group discussions. The qualitative data from the interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed, coded and analyzed thematically. Observations documented as field notes were also analyzed to complement the study findings. In this paper, the challenges, bargaining position and power play between social actors and government institutions implicated in the agrarian reform process in Kenya has been brought to the forefront. For instance, due to the structural issues that date back to the colonial period, the Ogiek have found innovative ways to maintain their daily existence (e.g., maintaining traditional methods of apiculture in Mau Forest). However, constraints in accessing forest land has resulted in them taking desperate measures, namely; selling off land to the Kalenjin in what is called “distress land sales”. On the contrary, the neighboring Kikuyu have maintained their land ownership status despite recurrent ethnic clashes that have occurred during general election years.

Suggested Citation

  • Jemaiyo Chabeda-Barthe & Tobias Haller, 2018. "Resilience of Traditional Livelihood Approaches Despite Forest Grabbing: Ogiek to the West of Mau Forest, Uasin Gishu County," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:140-:d:183470
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/140/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/7/4/140/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hans P. Binswanger-Mkhize & Camille Bourguignon & Rogier van den Brink, 2009. "Agricultural Land Redistribution : Toward Greater Consensus," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2653.
    2. Jean Ensminger, 1998. "Anthropology and the New Institutionalism," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 154(4), pages 774-774, December.
    3. Alden Wily, Liz, 2018. "Risks to the sanctity of community lands in Kenya. A critical assessment of new legislation with reference to forestlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 661-672.
    4. Haripriya Rangan & Mary Gilmartin, 2002. "Gender, Traditional Authority, and the Politics of Rural Reform in South Africa," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 33(4), pages 633-658, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michele F. Fontefrancesco & Dauro M. Zocchi & Andrea Pieroni, 2023. "The Intersections between Food and Cultural Landscape: Insights from Three Mountain Case Studies," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Sonja Merten & Tobias Haller, 2023. "Interwoven Landscapes: Gender and Land in the Kafue Flats, Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Tobias Haller & Fabian Käser & Mariah Ngutu, 2020. "Does Commons Grabbing Lead to Resilience Grabbing? The Anti-Politics Machine of Neo-Liberal Agrarian Development and Local Responses," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-7, July.
    4. Walter Musakwa & Trynos Gumbo & Gaynor Paradza & Ephraim Mpofu & Nesisa Analisa Nyathi & Ntlakala B. Selamolela, 2020. "Partnerships and Stakeholder Participation in the Management of National Parks: Experiences of the Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-17, October.
    5. Bin Yang & Jun He, 2021. "Global Land Grabbing: A Critical Review of Case Studies across the World," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Marcello De Maria, 2019. "Understanding Land in the Context of Large-Scale Land Acquisitions: A Brief History of Land in Economics," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Santos, Florence & Fletschner, Diana & Savath, Vivien & Peterman, Amber, 2014. "Can Government-Allocated Land Contribute to Food Security? Intrahousehold Analysis of West Bengal’s Microplot Allocation Program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 860-872.
    2. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2022. "Are There Too Many Farms in the World? Labor Market Transaction Costs, Machine Capacities, and Optimal Farm Size," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 130(3), pages 636-680.
    3. Ayalneh Bogale, 2006. "Resource Scarcity Induced Conflict and its Management: Implication for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in Eastern Ethiopia," HiCN Working Papers 17, Households in Conflict Network.
    4. Flatø, Martin & Muttarak, Raya & Pelser, André, 2017. "Women, Weather, and Woes: The Triangular Dynamics of Female-Headed Households, Economic Vulnerability, and Climate Variability in South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 41-62.
    5. Tasso Adamopoulos & Diego Restuccia, 2020. "Land Reform and Productivity: A Quantitative Analysis with Micro Data," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 1-39, July.
    6. Ishmael B. M. Kosamu & Wouter T. De Groot & Patrick S. Kambewa & Geert R. De Snoo, 2012. "Institutions and Ecosystem-Based Development Potentials of the Elephant Marsh, Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(12), pages 1-20, December.
    7. Gudibande, Rohan & Nandy, Abhinaba & Srivastava, Vatsalya, 2024. "Land-redistribution and coercive violence," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1502, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    8. Lisa Alvarado, 2019. "Institutional Change on a Conservationist Frontier: Local Responses to a Grabbing Process in the Name of Environmental Protection," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Jain, Charu & Saxena, Disha & Sen, Somnath & Sanan, Deepak, 2023. "Women’s land ownership in India: Evidence from digital land records," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    10. Casiano Flores, Cesar & Tan, Evrim & Crompvoets, Joep, 2021. "Governance assessment of UAV implementation in Kenyan land administration system," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    11. Partson Paradza & Joseph Awoamim Yacim & Benita Zulch, 2022. "Benchmarking Zimbabwe'S Global Compensation Agreement Against The Provisions Of Existing Laws Guiding Compensation For Expropriated Properties," AfRES 2022-058, African Real Estate Society (AfRES).
    12. Netshipale, A.J. & Raidimi, E.N. & Mashiloane, M.L. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Oosting, S.J., 2022. "Farming system diversity and its drivers in land reform farms of the Waterberg District, South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    13. Alexis Rampa & Yiorgos Gadanakis & Gillian Rose, 2020. "Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    14. Santos, Florence & Fletschner, Diana & Savath, Vivien & Peterman, Amber, 2013. "Can government-allocated land contribute to food security? Intrahousehold analysis of West Bengal’s microplot allocation program:," IFPRI discussion papers 1310, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Colin, Jean-Philippe & Daoudi, Ali & Léonard, Eric & Bouquet, Emmanuelle, 2021. "From formal rules to local practices: A comparative perspective between Algerian and Mexican land reforms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    16. Duarte N. Leite & Sandra T. Silva & Oscar Afonso, 2014. "Institutions, Economics And The Development Quest," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 491-515, July.
    17. Schürmann, Alina & Kleemann, Janina & Fürst, Christine & Teucher, Mike, 2020. "Assessing the relationship between land tenure issues and land cover changes around the Arabuko Sokoke Forest in Kenya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    18. Escallón, Jose Michael Villarreal, 2021. "The historical relationship between agrarian reforms and internal armed conflicts: Relevant factors for the Colombian post-conflict scenario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    19. Salem Ahmed Alabdali & Salvatore Flavio Pileggi & Dilek Cetindamar, 2023. "Influential Factors, Enablers, and Barriers to Adopting Smart Technology in Rural Regions: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-38, May.
    20. Henrik Egbert & Teodor Sedlarski & Aleksandar B. Todorov, 2024. "Foundations of Contemporary Economics: New Institutional Economics vs. New Economic Sociology – The Granovetter-Williamson Debate," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 37-53.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:140-:d:183470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.