September 1 2009

THE MAU FOREST PROBLEM is a multi-dimensional conundrum that provides important pointers about tensions in policy approaches and outcomes which often result in non-action.

First, Mau raises serious questions about the nature of property rights in Kenya. It is inarguable that presidential discretion in the control and allocation of public land is at the heart of the current problems in the Mau.

With both presidents Moi and Kibaki having issued titles to various groups and individuals in the Mau, the property rights of these title-holders comes into focus.

On the one hand, Rift Valley legislators have argued that the sanctity of title requires that the property rights of the Mau owners be honoured and any eviction preceded by adequate compensation and relocation to land of equal value.

THE CONTENTION OF MAASAI LEGISLATORS and other pro-eviction supporters on the other hand, is that the titles issued are dubious and no compensation should accrue to title-holders, particularly the beneficiaries of large acreage. Forgotten in this contest of the titans is the aboriginal claim of the Ogiek.

These irreconcilable positions suggest the need for policy to remove the trusteeship of public land from Executive control. Indeed, such has been the proposition of the Draft National Land Policy which vests public land in the yet-to-be-established National Land Commission.

Second, the Mau has become the metaphor for indiscriminate environmental destruction that has prejudiced various sectors of the national economy, including agriculture, energy and tourism, among others.

The Prime Minister’s effort to reclaim the Mau is largely focused on reasserting State control over an environmental resource of immense strategic importance to the entire country and the region. The policy actors in the environment sector, however, are a multitude, and each appears to pull in a different direction for political mileage, creating serious coordination problems.

The notices issued by the Forestry Department which were later quashed by the Prime Minister epitomise this coordination problem. It could also suggest the existence of an asymmetrical information problem, with some of the policy organs having more information than others, leading to disparate decisions.

Third, the Mau issue has further emphasised the relationship between State power and issues of identity, ethnicity and cultural hegemony. Clearly, the State has appeared to pander in the wake of unyielding pressure from Kalenjin MPs.

What this demonstrates is that small homogeneous groups with strong communities of interest are more effective suppliers of political pressure than larger groups whose interests are more diffuse.

For instance, 23 MPs gathered in Eldoret last week could afford to issue ultimatums to the State – in a language laden with negative innuendo – due to the high level of unanimity they exhibited.

nation.co.ke