Threats to Kenyan cultural heritage: a case study of the Kenyan coast

Kenyan cultural heritage has been exposed to various threats, ranging from simple negligence to deliberate destruction and illicit trade. This has led to a systematic demise that dates back to the earliest contacts with foreign cultures in the era of exploration. Cultural heritage was, from the beginning, treated with curiosity as an indicator of primitive development of human culture or lack of it (Tribble 2015). The Kenyan coast, with its rich and diverse heritage, has suffered significantly in the process, in particular the Mijikenda (‘the Nine Tribes’). These nine Bantu ethnic groups inhabit the coast of Kenya, between the Sabaki and the Umba rivers, in an area stretching from the border with Tanzania in the south to near the border Somalia in the north. A well-documented case cited by Udvardy, Giles and Mitsanze (2003) is the transatlantic trade in vigango, or memorial statues from the Mijikenda ethnic group, which were transported to various museums and universities worldwide as objects of curiosity. Unfortunately, the process of destruction and trade is in most cases facilitated by members of the community from which the objects originate. Their motives pit personal gains against the spirit of heritage conservation. The common practice of recycling ancient built heritage, widespread in Siyu historic town, off the coast of Lamu, is one amongst numerous cases that have been documented (Wahome 2013).

Case studies from the coastal region demonstrate a link between natural and cultural heritage and the need to protect both if the benefits of conservation are to be fully appreciated (Pannel 2006; Taylor & Lennon 2011). Poor management of either one is likely to affect the other and deny custodians access to their heritage, thereby militating against their human rights and peaceful co-existence as stipulated in domestic and international instruments. Many examples of violation of the rights to access culture are manifest in Kenya in the form of deliberate destruction or neglect.

The most severely affected heritage is located in the coastal region, which has a rich array of tangible and intangible history. The ecology is also highly susceptible to anthropogenic agents of deterioration. The coastal town of Lamu, a UNESCO World Heritage site, is threatened by a virtual lack of proper management of heritage, neglect and political intrigues (Mabulla 2000). The town was listed due to its rich Swahili tangible and intangible heritage and its continued occupation through time. Its outstanding architecture and general artistic traditions also distinguish it from similar settlements along the East African coast. Massive investment in Lamu Archipelago through the construction of a port serving a substantial part of East Africa, including Southern Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya, poses a threat to Lamu’s heritage since modalities for its protection are not yet in place primarily due to lack of resources and apparent rush for land by potential investors. The emerging Lamu Port-Southern Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor is expected to be the home of a massive port with 32 berths, an oil refinery and three airports. It will also serve as a key terminus for a connecting railway line, pipeline and a highway network. A 981.5 megawatt coal power plant, worth Ksh 180 billion, is also under construction and threatening to displace 60,000 from the island Manda, part of the Archipelago, to the dismay of county administration (Wasuna 2015; Jenje 2015).

Population explosion has also impacted resources like water and sanitary services. The population of the coastal region have continued to increase since the 1990s when national census indicated faster inter-censual growth rates, compared to other urban areas in Kenya, including Nairobi (KNBS 1999, 52). As an example, the population of the coastal region grew from 3.7 to 4.2 percent in 1979–89 and 1989–99 inter-censual periods, while all the urban population growth rates were on the decline (Figure 1.1). This is supported by a sudden increase in population from 894,131 in the 1999 census to 3,325,307 in the 2009 census (Figure 1.2). Population growth accompanied by poor living conditions, increasing pollution and housing and agricultural activity has led to massive destruction of heritage in the Archipelago, particularly through the recycling of old buildings and disposal of movable heritage.

Encroachments on the dunes, the primary water reservoirs for the island, due to corrupt practices further endanger the sustainability of ecological and cultural resources. Under these conditions, heritage conservation and the right to access heritage is compromised. UNESCO (2015) contends that LAPSSET will definitely impact the inscribed Lamu Old Town as the massive infrastructural development destabilizes the fragile ecology and culture. It also cites feasibility studies which foresee considerable social and environmental impact on the entire Archipelago’s fragile ecosystem (UNESCO 2015). One feasibility study projected a population increase in the Archipelago from the current 101,000 to 1,250,000, which increases the risk of further degradation (UNESCO 2015). Limited information and lack of community involvement in designing mitigation measures are considered as major limitations by UNESCO (2015). It contends that the World Heritage site and its surroundings are threatened by uncontrolled development, lack of clear buffer zones or management plans and the build-up of massive infrastructure. The ports, cities and resorts planned for the Archipelago will definitely impact on the outstanding universal value of the inscribed site. Such forms of destruction will negatively impact the right to heritage access for present and future stakeholders.

Access to heritage as a right is also threatened by insecurity, which has plagued the island. Terrorist menace makes cultural and natural heritage virtually inaccessible, particularly for non-residents. The situation is more complicated in the far-flung areas of Lamu Archipelago such as Siyu, Kiunga, Pate and Shanga that are rich in heritage but, unfortunately, neglected and vandalized repeatedly. Because most of the destruction of the heritage emanates from the community itself, the issue of human rights and the perceived value of heritage are therefore put into question. The problem also emanates from the conservation and heritage listing processes, which are largely based on scientific values rather than socio-cultural communal and individual values.

The heritage of the Mijikenda communities living along the coastal region of Kenya covers a wide area, which is listed as a World Heritage site. However, part of this heritage has been lost as the population expands and forests are increasingly hived off to create urban centres, residences and agricultural land. In fact humans’ economic survival is a primary determinant of the survival of heritage in Kenya. The sites are threatened by a combination of anthropogenic and ecological factors (Gathito 2005). The Mijikenda ethnic group, historically made up of nine inter-linked groups, have distinct ceremonial sites known as the Kaya. The ceremonial sites exist in the form of 11 strips of forest inscribed by UNESCO on the list of tangible and intangible cultural heritage of Kenya (2008). The sites were listed on the basis of religious and spiritual life of the community, historical continuity, ecosystem sustainability for the forest strips, and the vulnerability of both tangible and intangible heritage. While the Kayas were in active use from the sixteenth century to 1940, they are currently revered among the Mijikenda people as the homes of the ancestors, indicating some form of cultural continuity (Spear 1978). Many challenges have conspired to threaten this heritage and its central position in the community. First, the progressive displacement of the Mijikenda from their prime coastal lands by the Arabs and later by the Europeans coupled with the introduction of new ways of life and modes of trading impacted the sites negatively (Karanja 2009, 914). This change fast-tracked the commodification of available resources and endangered the traditional leadership system based on gerontocracy. It also destabilized the social hierarchy as wealthy merchants slowly edged out the elders and occupied the apex of the social pyramid (Spear 1978). Secondly, economic development encouraged the encroachment of the Kaya sites by illegal loggers, and emergent urban centres led to continued destruction of heritage (Githitho 2005). The third threat emanates from direct theft and sale of grave markers known as vigango (Deisser 2007). This kind of destruction takes place in spite of the existence of Kenyan and UNESCO legal instruments as the perceived economic benefits expand with increasing populations along the coast. The National Museums and Heritage Act provides for unfettered protection of heritage though financial challenges seem to hamper its effectiveness. Parts VIII and IX of the Act protect heritage through stringent rules on antiquities dealers (KLR 2006, 50) as well as exploration and export permits (KLR 2006, 54). In spite of the listing, the unabating destruction of the heritage due to increasing population and agricultural needs poses a threat to the universal value defining the sites (Figure 1.3). This essentially becomes a threat to the rights of the community and other interested stakeholders. The provision of access in the constitution and other international human rights instruments are therefore violated.

Finally, the future of the Kayas is further threatened by the discovery of large mineral deposits within the sacred forests and adjoining areas, thereby exposing them to extraction and displacement of indigenous people (Business Daily 2005, 12). Under the prevailing conditions, the sacred forests and associated conservation issues have been heavily politicized and concurrent discourses have been tilted toward the value of human development at the expense of the environment. ‘The outcome of politics on the Kaya is systematic weakening of the gerontocracy leadership structure through accusations and counter-accusations centred on amateurism, fraudulence, greed and disloyalty to their fellow Mijikenda’ (McIntosh 2009, 35). Such political intrigues and greed have translated into continued shrinking of the size of the original Kaya sites as documented by Mwandoto (2014, 41) and Gitau (2011, 22).

From these examples, it is clear that access to heritage as a human right is impended by failure to apply existing international and domestic standards. Knowledge and practice(s) by stakeholders in conservation form part of the right to participate in cultural life and natural environment as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The concepts of ‘human rights’ and ‘heritage’ are inextricably intertwined in peace-building and social development (Lotte 2014). Access to heritage conservation as a human right can be developed following the same thematic areas of sustainability: social, economic and environmental (Sullivan 2004). National legal instruments provide the foundation to appreciate heritage values and recognize the physical and intellectual property rights within the broader legal framework provided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This context sets the legal ground for academics, NGOs and local communities to develop shared conservation ethics and practices with the support of national and local authorities (Deisser 2008). However, from the analysis of African Union legal instruments and the Kenyan Constitution, it can be observed that a structured discourse on cultural heritage conservation policies is still in its infancy and the sector is yet to develop to the level of organization attained in the natural heritage conservation. The examples show that the ‘local’ best practices and legal tools are not implemented. There is a risk that an exclusively local approach to heritage conservation fosters political ‘manipulation’ and economic appropriation of the heritage by the private sector, driven by profit making. In that context, access to heritage conservation as a human right strengthens the need to fully appreciate the depth of spiritual, emotional and social links, which make up the approach to culture and its conservation that is critical to issues of socio-cultural and economic development. Development and conservation seem to collide due to divergent interests and unmet population needs. This complicates access to heritage as a human right.

The common patterns in the examples drawn from the Kenyan coast show a close link between nature and culture in the formulation and interpretation of the common local and international standards. The questions surrounding the ‘nature of culture’ and ‘culture of nature’ are inherent to every human society in scientific, philosophical and religious aspects. However, the meanings of the terms ‘culture’ and ‘nature’ are quite diverse. Is there culture in nature and is there nature in culture? This is a question that cannot be answered without looking at ‘our’ own place in nature, a place that is defined by our culture. Importantly, the existence of a culture means that knowledge and habits are acquired from other individuals. As culture involves, individuals learn from each other (Boyd & Richerson 1995). Cultural forces affect our perception of what is natural (Wilson 1991). In this regard, heritage professionals can play a role in our perception and experience of the value we attribute to our ‘natural’ surroundings (Strathern, M. 1980). The dichotomy doesn’t always exist for non-conservator experts; not all people make the distinction between nature and culture (Deisser 2015). For many communities and individuals, the boundary is ambiguous. In fact, conserving natural heritage may imply to conserve cultural heritage, and vice versa. This holistic approach is often applied in knowledge systems embedded in the cultural traditions of local communities, such as ‘traditional knowledge (TK), indigenous knowledge (IK), traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and the new and emerging technologies’. These knowledge classifications generally refer to the accumulated experience and know-how that people in a given community have developed over time.

The examples also show that an increase in population impacts cultural heritage and natural heritage in similar ways, especially in the case of the Kayas. The same can be said of the impact of LAPSSET on the fragile ecosystem and the equally susceptible indigenous Swahili cultures. Policymakers tend to see more direct benefits in the conservation of nature, where a higher level of activism is apparent than in cultural conservation. Even in cases where the two are inextricably linked, there are concerted attempts to separate them as distinct issues that should be handled differently, at the risk of breaching extant instruments, thus abusing human rights.

A case in point is the separation of two corruption cases on gazetted heritage presented to the Public Investment Committee (PIC 2012), which concluded that the gazetted Ojijo cultural property, which was threatened at the time, should be de-gazetted while the Karura Forest property retained its gazette status. It is also important to note that private ownership of title deeds of the individuals involved in Karura forest case were revoked while Ojijo cultural property owners retained their titles, though they had been acquired corruptly (PIC 2009, 2012). Ojijo cultural property remains a major political issue to date and to the dismay of conservators. This blatant breach of the sanctity of cultural properties emanated from a misconception among the top lawmakers in the nation that economic progress overrides all other forms of human ambitions. It is also informed by poor appreciation of cultural heritage in the community. This study highlights that the two forms of heritage need urgent protection through proper use of domestic and international instruments which the country is signatory to. The constitution is clear on the issue of culture and nature but the level of sensitization is low. Communities need to be sensitized on the access to culture as a human right and ultimately on the access to its conservation.