Mount Kenya Forest

Population is high and dense in the area around Mount Kenya Forest. There are more than 30,000 households living within 1.5 km of the edge of the forest within an area of nearly 400 km2 and some 65,000 households living in the 66 Sub-Locations, which border the forest. The land surrounding the forest is fertile, high-potential agricultural land and population density in the forest-adjacent area is among the highest in Kenya, rising over 600 persons km-2.

Much of the natural forest around Mount Kenya is in a critical state (Beentje 1991), and there have been changes in vegetation because of intensive cutting of valuable timber species and poor subsequent regeneration. Both commercial timber exploitation and local utilization are leading to forest loss and degradation. Ocotea usambarensis, Juniperus procera, Podocarpus spp. and Olea spp. are particularly threatened and have been extensively felled.

It is against this background of high biodiversity, ecological and environmental values, and rapid degradation, that recognition of the need to improve conservation efforts in Mount Kenya Forest has taken place. Current systems of conservation, based on intensive policing and protection, have proved to be ineffective and largely unworkable. We will describe how a recognition of livelihood values provides important lessons learned for the failure of forest conservation to date, and generates practical recommendations for future conservation efforts.

Forest livelihood values in Mount Kenya

Virtually all forest resource utilization has been banned in Mount Kenya Forest. Despite these restrictions, adjacent households rely on a wide range of forest products to fulfill their subsistence needs (Figure 1). Forest resources provide domestic fuel, shelter, pasture, medicines and nutrition, and play a significant role in local livelihoods.

Domestic forest use is worth an estimated $250 a year for forest-adjacent households, comprising a fifth of total household income, and is of even greater value among poorer families, households with small farms and limited sources of income and subsistence. Forest use is valued highly because there are few alternative sources of many basic subsistence items in the forest-adjacent area (Figure 2). The lands around Mount Kenya Forest are densely populated and intensively cultivated, meaning that there is a lack of open areas of grassland or woodland outside the forest or on individual farms. A decreasing resource base, and increasing poverty, means that local households are finding it more and more difficult to generate adequate income to provide for their daily needs, and dependence on the forest is rising.

Conclusions

Assessing the livelihood value of forest use around Mount Kenya Forest provides useful information for conservation planning. Most importantly, it demonstrates the significance of forest use in household income, especially for resource-poor households who have few alternatives.

Conserving Mount Kenya Forest has been difficult to justify in economic terms compared to land-use and investment options, which are perceived to be more profitable and to give wider and more immediate benefits to society. The high value of local forest use, and its central role in livelihoods, provides an important justification for maintaining Mount Kenya under forest cover, in addition to its less tangible ecological benefits.

Quantifying forest values highlights the heavy costs forest protection has incurred on local communities by cutting off legal access to vital sources of livelihoods. Likewise, it demonstrates the benefits of a conservation system based on sustainable forest use according to local needs and priorities rather than on protection and exclusion.

The high value of forest resources for local populations is linked to local forestry knowledge and practices and is reflected in a range of customary management systems designed to conserve highly valued forest resources. These mechanisms provide valuable building blocks for forest management.

Summary

Conventional economic tools are poorly equipped to deal with the subsistence value of forest resources within the context of local livelihoods. Methods for economic valuation must be based on locally meaningful economic categories, rather than an inappropriate and externally imposed market paradigm, if they are to be realistic and practical. Using the case of Mount Kenya Forest, this paper demonstrates that recognition of the livelihood value of forest resources forms a key part of conservation planning and practice. As well as presenting a strong justification for forest conservation in the face of competing demands on scarce land and financial resources, local forest values provide insights into methods for forest conservation, which are both equitable and sustainable over the long-term. The paper concludes that attempts at forest conservation are unlikely to succeed unless they recognize the importance of forest resources in local livelihoods. Ignoring local use values not only marginalizes forest adjacent communities and jeopardizes their livelihoods, it also gives rise to the danger that forests will be under-valued and that forest management efforts will fail to achieve conservation goals.