TITLE:
The Impact of Governance Regime on Land Cover and Use Change and Forest Structure: Insights from Kakamega and Loita Forests, Kenya
AUTHORS:
Musingo Tito E. Mbuvi, James B. Kungu, Alfred Eshitera
KEYWORDS:
Forest, Regime, Appropriateness, Management, Livelihoods
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Forestry,
Vol.12 No.2,
April
11,
2022
ABSTRACT: Forests in Kenya are managed under different
management regimes, including traditional community based forest management, command
and control, participatory forest management,
leasehold, concessions, and private. Assessment of these regimes’ impact (positively or negatively) on forest
conservation has not been done. The
study was done to determine the impact on forest conservation of three management regimes traditional
community based forest management,
command and control, and participatory forest management. The survey was done through secondary data, focus group
discussion, key informant interview, household survey, ecological
survey, and land cover and land use analysis
through GIS. The results indicate that the forest site under participatory
forest management witnessed better forest management. In this site, the forest
zone witnessing best management was the one near the forest station where the
rangers are located and adjacent to the community that has been involved in
forest management and benefited most from project intervention, an
incentive for their participation
in forest management. The forests under traditional community based forest
management faced a high forest degradation rate. Forest under command and
control regime witnessed the best
forest condition improvement attributed to the management regime not allowing consumptive forest resource utilization. Each regime was best under its’
legislative framework and would facilitate better forest management and
contribute to improved livelihoods without compromising forest quality.
Participatory forest management was the most
preferred management regime contributing to better forest management,
improved community livelihoods, and formally involved communities and other
stakeholders. Each regime’s appropriateness
would be enhanced through stakeholder capacity building, institutional reform, adequate financial facilitation,
and appropriate implementation. Therefore, adopting participatory forest
management attributes to the other two
management regimes would enhance their appropriateness, while appreciating that the management objective
determines the regime being implemented in each forest.