Why Mau land issue has been a political hot potato for a long time

Rift Valley politicians DP William Ruto, former minister Franklin Bett and former governor Isaac Rutto in past event where they met Mau victims. [Photo/Courtesy]

The furore that greeted Senate Majority Leader Kipchumba Murkomen’s recent comments as he addressed the Mau Forest evictees did not come as a surprise, at least not to me. 

First, it is all in our breed of politics. Ours is centred on politics of self-preservation, drama, diversion, name-calling and finger-pointing.

On the Mau question, successive governments, through different politicians, have pulled in different directions. It has never been certain what will clear the matter once and for all.

Yet it is clear that the unresolved issue of settlements in one of the largest water catchment areas in East Africa is a sore thumb in Kenya’s collective conscience.

The fact that about 40,000 families live in the Mau and 20,000 in the Maasai Mau under the management of the Narok County government is telling.

For starters, it is well known that the Mau Forest complex acts as a natural water tower for Kenya, storing water during the rains and releasing it during the dry season. Approximately 10 million people — not to mention countless wildlife species — depend on the rivers fed by the forest complex.

However, human activity, including agriculture, logging and settlement, have reduced the Mau Forest to less than a quarter of what it once was, disrupting its role in storing and distributing water to outlying areas.

Shamba system

Historically, it seems that re-settlement of squatters in Mau Forest may have begun in the 1930s, when the colonial government cleared parts of it to create forest plantations of exotic species.

At the same time, millers obtained licences allowing them to practise logging and the 'shamba system' was introduced. This system initially allowed people to practise limited livestock grazing, firewood harvesting and cultivation in the forest under the supervision of guards or rangers.

The system was expanded to facilitate the establishment of plantations. The only positive attribute to the system was that it provided food security to the landless. This encouraged communities living around the forest to move in and settle in areas that had been cleared.

Subsequently, successive governments degazetted large sections of the forest and allocated them to the 'landless'.

A number of the so-called 'landless' individuals are senior politicians and other well-known and well-connected figures in the current and past governments. Some politicians retained the farms, while others sold them to unsuspecting third parties.

This is when and how the rain started beating Kenya on the Mau issue; politics and conservation intertwined.

Clearly, the issue has had serious political and ethnic undertones every time it resurfaces. This is because the area is inhabited majorly by the Kipsigis and the Maasai.

Truth be told, if politics and ethnic considerations are put aside, the rehabilitation and conservation of the forest on which more than 30,000 families are laying claim would succeed.

But our ethnic politics is the biggest impediment to this and Kenyan politicians are known to work overtime on this account.

Settlement schemes

There is also the issue of resettlement as part of the solution, which is unsettling. Badly planned and executed settlement schemes have been a large part of the land problem in Kenya.

Again, there is the issue that majority of those living in the Mau Forest are Kalenjins. It is also true that those evicted in previous years were the Sabaots, Marakwets and Kikuyus.

Paying the settlers may look like an unjust enrichment of a certain group while the poor suffer. Poor people such as the Ogiek feel deprived because, unlike the others, they have no title deeds and therefore are not eligible for compensation.

This is where the problem lies. Knee-jerk reactions in solving such long-standing issues won’t and can’t wash. On this, the Kenyan Government has made its bed, and now it’s time to lie on it.

Obviously, there is a need to strike a balance between the livelihoods of settlers in the forest and protecting the environment. Economic considerations and stability of the settlers should be put on the table.

In doing all this, there are doubts whether we all know what problem we are addressing.

There are doubts regarding whether the Government is treating the right problem or the symptoms of a deeper malaise: land issues.

Part of President Uhuru Kenyatta’s legacy should be to put strong mechanisms in place to effectively manage and stop further degradation of the Mau and also restore the degraded forests and critical water catchment areas.

The President owes this to himself. Ultimately, we must ensure that we leave something for our children to inherit.

Prof Mogambi, a development communication and social change specialist, teaches at the University of Nairobi. hmogambi @ yahoo.co.uk