News & Analysis

The Place of Indigenous Knowledge in Biodiversity Conservation

Published

1 year ago

May 14, 2022

Admin

By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD (Leading Environmental Law Scholar, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources Lawyer and Dispute Resolution Expert from Kenya), Winner of Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021, ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and CIArb (Kenya) Lifetime Achievement Award 2021.*

The rights of Indigenous Peoples are considered to be of special relevance to conservation for two main reasons: The first is that priority sites for biodiversity conservation frequently overlap with the territories of Indigenous Peoples. This is often because of Indigenous Peoples’ custodianship of those lands which has meant that they have retained their value for biodiversity; and secondly, Indigenous Peoples very often have a close relationship to the land and to nature and, therefore, conservation has the potential to affect that relationship – both positively and negatively.

It has rightly been observed that the livelihoods of indigenous peoples, custodians of the world’s forests since time immemorial, were eroded as colonial powers claimed de jure control over their ancestral lands, where the continuation of European land regimes in Africa and Asia meant that the withdrawal of colonial powers did not bring about a return to customary land tenure. This is despite the acknowledgement that the rights of indigenous peoples’ are often particularly relevant for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, due to the frequent overlap of high biodiversity areas and indigenous lands, and the vulnerability of natural resource-dependent customary livelihoods to changes in access or use.

In addition, indigenous peoples’ traditional ecological knowledge, traditional systems of control, use and management of lands and resources, and traditional institutions for self-governance also contribute substantially to conservation. While across sub-Saharan Africa, natural resources remain central to rural people’s livelihoods with local norms and customs shaping people’s everyday forms of resource use, the commercial uses of natural resources often remain highly centralized, conditioned by government policies of the colonial and post-colonial eras. Notably, the term “indigenous knowledge” is generally used refer to how members of a community perceive and understand their environment and resources, particularly the way they convert those resources through labour.

Indigenous groups should be included in reforestation and forest management plans as they can potentially offer alternative knowledge and perspectives based on their own locally developed practices of resource use. Indigenous knowledge is the local knowledge that is unique to a culture or society, seen as the social capital of the poor since it is their main asset to invest in the struggle for survival, to produce food, to provide for shelter and to achieve control of their own lives. The SDGs recognises the importance of this body of knowledge as it has several goals that seek to incorporate the knowledge vested in indigenous people in order to achieve its main agenda. Indigenous knowledge has been hailed as capable of solving local problems, as it offers a resource to help grow more and better food, adds to maintain healthy lifestyles, and it provides opportunities to share wealth and prevent conflicts.

For instance, some commentators have observed that: with regard to agro-ecology, indigenous people practised mixed farming where organic manure in the form of plant remains, cow dung and urine, and chicken droppings was applied to gardens to improve soil fertility as they are good sources of organic fertilizer which tended to promote organic farming; the use of nitrogen fixing pulses in mixed cropping, growing of plants of different patterns, maturity and duration assisted significantly in stabilizing soil fertility and prevention of soil erosion; in addition, the practice was an effective way, biologically, of managing pests and diseases; it also conserved biodiversity of animal and biannual crops and plants while reducing labour costs; in addition, trees were planted in gardens to provide shade for the plants, to act as wind breaks, and also to demarcate people’s farmlands and homes; and as such, reviving organic agriculture would help conserve water, mitigate climate change and ensure sustained biodiversity.

Some of the main ways through which indigenous knowledge may be used in promoting biodiversity conservation include but not limited to: trees which were traditionally regarded as housing spirits or sacred were not be felled without performing rituals, thus achieving a protective effect on trees such as mugumo tree (Ficus natalensis/Ficus thonningii) among the Gikuyu community of Kenya; animals in a particular habitat may be regarded as sacred and are therefore protected from hunting; sacred groves or forests are pieces of land set aside for spiritual purposes, as shrines; traditional farming practices are champions in sustainable land and water management as they involve land rotation and shifting cultivation allowing the land for more than 10 years to restore its natural fertility; all over sub-Saharan Africa indigenous plants are used in preventing and curing diseases in plants, animals and humans thus guaranteeing their protection and conservation.

Arguably, while there is a need for deeper research to demonstrate to what extent indigenous knowledge rules are able to realize targets of sustainable use and the questions on effectiveness and efficiency of community based approaches to biodiversity conservation and management arise, in theory, when biodiversity can be maintained and monitored through customary laws, this is preferable over maintenance through codified law. Notwithstanding this, the provisions in the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Act, 2016 offer a rare opportunity for the state to realize the vision of the 2030 SDGs by incorporating Kenyan communities’ indigenous knowledge in the roadmap to the achievement of the sustainable development agenda. By including these communities and their knowledge, any development policies aimed to benefit these communities will be more likely to not only respond to their cultural needs and preferences but will also enable them meaningfully participate.

Some commentators rightly argue that, despite any gaps in knowledge in the place of indigenous knowledge in biodiversity conservation for realisation of SDGs, the following indigenous and other traditional communities’ rights should be respected, in relation to the lands, territories, waters, coastal seas and other resources which they traditionally own or otherwise occupy or use, and which fall within protected areas, subject to agreements with the agencies in charge of national protected area systems, and in the context of agreed management regulations and plans: rights with regard to sustainable, traditional use of their lands and resources; rights to participate in management; rights to participate in decision-making; rights to participate in determining priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands; rights to use their own traditional institutions and authorities to co-manage their lands and resources; rights to require that States obtain the free and informed consent of the respective communities, prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands and resources; rights to improve the quality of their lives, and to benefit directly and equitably from the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources; collective rights to maintain and enjoy their cultural and intellectual heritage, and the knowledge related to biodiversity and natural resource management; and rights not to be removed from the zones they have traditionally occupied within protected areas.

Some, however, argue that protected areas and community agriculture can indeed co-exist. As the number of crop species and varieties declines, local nitrogen-fixing bacteria, mycorrhizae, predators, pollinators, seed dispersers and other species that co-evolved over centuries with traditional agricultural systems die out. In addition, the use of fertilizers, pesticides and high-yielding varieties to maximize production and profits over the short term exacerbates this loss of biodiversity. Arguably, diversity of crop species and the diversity of varieties within a species have traditionally strengthened the resilience of agriculture, and Protected areas can contribute to this effort through maintaining wild relatives of crops. As such, the agricultural community should be seen as part of a larger and more comprehensive ecosystem which provides both goods and services from nature through a wellmanaged protected system. Fostering this positive relationship between agriculture and protected areas may however require broader adoption of the new approaches.

*This article is an extract from the Article “Fostering a Human Rights Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Kenya” by Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD, Kenya’s ADR Practitioner of the Year 2021 (Nairobi Legal Awards), ADR Publisher of the Year 2021 and ADR Lifetime Achievement Award 2021 (CIArb Kenya). Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a foremost Environmental Law and Natural Resources Lawyer and Scholar, Sustainable Development Advocate and Conflict Management Expert in Kenya. Dr. Kariuki Muigua is a Senior Lecturer of Environmental Law and Dispute resolution at the University of Nairobi School of Law and The Center for Advanced Studies in Environmental Law and Policy (CASELAP). He has published numerous books and articles on Environmental Law, Environmental Justice Conflict Management, Alternative Dispute Resolution and Sustainable Development. Dr. Muigua is also a Chartered Arbitrator, an Accredited Mediator, the Africa Trustee of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Managing Partner of Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates. Dr. Muigua is recognized among the top 5 leading lawyers and dispute resolution experts in Kenya by the Chambers Global Guide 2022.

References

Muigua, K., “Fostering a Human Rights Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Kenya,” Available at: http://kmco.co.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Fostering-a-Human-Rights-Approach-to-Biodiversity-Conservation-in-Kenya-Kariuki-Muigua-November-2021.pdf (accessed 10 May 2022).

Up Next

The Relationship between Environmental Democracy and Biodiversity Conservation

Don't Miss

The Need for a Human Rights Approach to Biodiversity Conservation

Click to comment

News & Analysis

The Roles of the Three Parts of the Permanent Court of Arbitration

Published

1 day ago

May 30, 2023

Admin

H.E. Amb. Marcin Czepelak, the Fourteenth Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

(more…)

News & Analysis

Brief History of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

Published

6 days ago

May 26, 2023

Admin

By Dr. Kariuki Muigua, PhD, C.Arb, Current Member of Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Representing the Republic of Kenya.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a 124 Years Old Intergovernmental Organization currently with 122 contracting states. It was established at the turn of 20^th Century during the first Hague Peace Conference held between 18^th May and 29^th July 1899. The conference was an initiative of then Russian Czar Nicholas II to discuss peace and disarmament and specifically with the object of “seeking the most effective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and, above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments.” The culmination of the conference was the adoption of a Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which dealt not only with arbitration but also with other methods of pacific settlement, such as good offices and mediation.

The aim of the conference was to “strengthen systems of international dispute resolution” especially international arbitration which in the last century had proven effective for the purpose with number of successful international arbitrations being concluded among Nations. The Alabama arbitration of 1871-1872 between the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) under the Treaty of Washington of 1871 culminating in the arbitral tribunal’s award that the UK pay the US compensation for breach of neutrality during American Civil War which it did had demonstrated the effectiveness of arbitration in settling of international disputes and piqued interest of many practitioners in it as a mode of dispute resolution during the latter years of the nineteenth century.

The Institut de Droit International adopted a code of procedure for arbitration in 1875 to answer the need for a general law of arbitration governing for countries and parties wishing to have recourse to international arbitration. The growth of arbitration as a mode of international dispute resolution formed the background of the 1899 conference and informed its most enduring achievement, namely, the establishment of the PCA as the first global mechanism for the settlement of disputes between states. Article 16 of the 1899 Convention recognized that “in questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions” arbitration is the “most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.”

In turn, the 1899 Convention provided for the creation of permanent machinery to enable the setting up of arbitral tribunals as necessary and to facilitate their work under the auspices of the institution it named as the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). In particular, Article 20 of the 1899 Convention stated that “[w]ith the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the signatory Powers undertake to organize a Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention.” In effect, the Convention set up a permanent system of international arbitration and institutionalized the law and practice of arbitration in a definite and acceptable way.

As a result, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was established in 1900 and began operating in 1902. The PCA as established consisted of a panel of jurists designated by each country acceding to the Convention with each country being entitled to designate up to four from among whom the members of each arbitral tribunal might be chosen. In addition, the Convention created a permanent Bureau, located in The Hague, with functions similar to those of a court registry or secretariat. The 1899 Convention also laid down a set of rules of procedure to govern the conduct of arbitrations under the PCA framework.

The second Hague Peace Conference in 1907 saw a revision of the 1899 Convention and improvement of the rules governing arbitral proceedings. Today, the PCA has developed into a modern, multi-faceted arbitral institution perfectly situated to meet the evolving dispute resolution needs of the international community. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has also diversified its service offering alongside those contemplated by the Conventions. For instance, today the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration serves as a registry in important international arbitrations. In 1993, the Permanent Court of Arbitration adopted new “Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes between Two Parties of Which Only One Is a State” and, in 2001, “Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment”.

Reference

PCA Website: https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/introduction/history/ (accessed on 25^th May 2023).

News & Analysis

Former KCB Company Secretary Sues Over Unlawful Dismissal

Published

4 months ago

January 19, 2023

Admin

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania who has sued the Bank for Unlawful Dismissal

Former KCB Group Company Secretary Joseph Kamau Kania has sued the lender seeking reinstatement or be compensated for illegal sacking almost three years ago. Lawyer Kania was the KCB Group company secretary until restructuring of the lender in 2021 that saw some senior executives dropped.

Through the firm of Senior Counsel Wilfred Nderitu, Kamau wants the court to order KCB Group to unconditionally reinstate him to employment without altering any of the contractual terms until his retirement in December 2025.

In his court documents filed before Employment and Labour Relations Court, the career law banker seeks the court to declare the reorganization of the company structure a nullity and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution. He further wants the court to declare that the position of Group Company Secretary did not at any time cease to exist within the KCB Group structure.

He further urged the Employment Court to declare that the recruitment and appointment of Bonnie Okumu, his former assistant, as the Group Company Secretary, in relation to the contemporaneous termination of his employment, was unprocedural, insufficient and inappropriate to infer a lawful termination of his employment.

“A declaration that the factual and legal circumstances of the Petitioner’s termination of employment were insufficient and inappropriate to infer a redundancy against him, and that any redundancy declared by the KCB Group in relation to him was therefore null, void and of no legal effect and amounted to a violation of his fundamental right to fair labour practices as guaranteed in Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau says he was subjected to discriminatory practices by the KCB Bank Group in violation of his fundamental right to equality and freedom from discrimination as guaranteed in Article 27 of the Constitution and the termination of his employment was unfair, unjustified, illegal, null and void.

Lawyer Kamau further seeks the court to declare that the Non-Compete Clause in the 2016 Contract is unenforceable by the KCB Group as against him and is voidable by him as against the Bank ab initio, byreason of the termination of the Petitioner’s employment having been a violation of Articles 41(1) and 47(1) and (2) of the Constitution, and of the Employment Act.

He also wants the Employment Court to find that finding that KCB’s group legal representation by Messrs of Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates law firm in respect of his claim for unlawful termination of employment resulted in a clear conflict of interest by reason of the fact that a Founding and Senior Partner at the said firm lawyer Mohammed Nyaoga is also the Chairman of the CBK’s Board of Directors.

“A Declaration that the circumstances of KCB’s legal representation by Messrs. Mohammed Muigai LLP Advocates resulted in a violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to have the employment dispute decided independently and impartially, as guaranteed in Article 50(1) of the Constitution,” seeks lawyer Kamau.

Kamau is seeking damages against both KCB Group and Central Bank of Kenya jointly and severally for the violation of his constitutional and fundamental right to fair labour practices.

He wants further wants court to declare that CBK is liable to petitioner on account of its breach of statutory duty to effectively regulate KCB Group to ensure that KCB complied with the Central Bank of Kenya Prudential Guidelines and all other Laws, Rules, Codes and Standards, and that, as an issuer of securities, it complied with capital markets legislation.

Kamau through his lawyer Nderitu told the court that he was involved in Shareholder engagement in introducing the Group aide-mémoire that significantly improved the management of the Annual General Meetings, including obtaining approval without voting through the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Kenya Commercial Bank Limited among others.

He said that during his employment at KCB Bank Kenya and with the KCB Group, he initially worked well with former KCB CEO Joseph Oigara until 2016 when the CEO allegedly started sidelining him by removing the legal function from his reporting line.

He further claims he was transferred from the Group’s offices at Kencom House to its offices Upper Hill under the guise that the Petitioner was merely to support the KCB Group Board.

He adds that at that point his roles were given to Okumu for reasons that were not related to work demands. He stated that Oigara at one time proposed that he should leave his role in the KCB Group and go and serve as the Company Secretary of the National Bank of Kenya Limited, a subsidiary of the Group, a suggestion which he disagreed with to Oigara’s utter annoyance.

Kamau stated that his work was thenceforth unfairly discredited, leading to his being taken through a disciplinary process whose intended outcome failed miserably, and the Petitioner was vindicated.

“More specifically, the Petitioner contends that the purported creation of a new organizational structure towards the end of 2020 was in fact Oigara’s orchestration targeted to remove certain individuals by requiring them to undergo interviews in the pretext that new roles were created, and amounted to a further violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental right to fair labour practices under Article 41(1) of the Constitution,” said in his court documents.

He further adds that this sham reorganization demonstrates how the role of the KCB Group Company Secretary purportedly ceased to be and was then very briefly replaced with a new role of the KCB Group General Counsel. The role of KCB Group Company Secretary then ‘resurfaced’ immediately thereafter, in total violation of legal and regulatory requirements.