In this paper, we explore the interactions between political, social and environmental changes and forest governance in Kenya, through a study of Mukogodo forest in Laikipia county. Drawing on findings from key informant and group interviews as well as analysis of policy documents, we argue that political reform processes – including devolution and changing land and forest policies – combined with “green militarisation” and socio-environmental changes have profound implications for the politics of forest governance in Mukogodo. The way policy reforms interact with wider political dynamics has important implications for the management of environmental change. We find that competing claims to authority both within and between communities are exacerbated by increasingly weaponised resource management regimes, electoral politics and a territorialisation of resource rights. Contestations and tensions between different social groups ensue as some gain secure access to forest resources while others do not. Claims to decision-making authority over resources or to socio-political positions in general are often made based on ethnicity, gender, age, clan, education levels or other dimensions of social differentiation. The way that groups and organisations portray others as mismanaging the forest – and themselves as solving the problem – also forms part of how authority claims are being made in forest governance. The result is a forest governance regime that exhibits less flexibility and cooperation between social groups living in and around the forest, thus undermining livestock mobility and other practices that are critical for the resilience of pastoral systems in a changing climate.

在本文中，我们通过对莱基皮亚县穆科戈多森林的研究，探讨肯尼亚政治、社会和环境变化与森林治理之间的相互作用。根据关键知情人和小组访谈的发现以及对政策文件的分析，我们认为政治改革进程——包括权力下放和改变土地和森林政策——与“绿色军事化”和社会环境变化相结合，对政治具有深远的影响。 Mukogodo 的森林治理。政策改革与更广泛的政治动态相互作用的方式对环境变化的管理具有重要意义。我们发现，日益武器化的资源管理制度加剧了社区内部和社区之间对权威的相互竞争，选举政治和资源权利的领土化。随之而来的是不同社会群体之间的争论和紧张局势，因为一些人获得了对森林资源的安全获取，而另一些人则没有。对资源的决策权或一般社会政治职位的要求通常是基于种族、性别、年龄、宗族、教育水平或其他社会分化维度。团体和组织将他人描述为森林管理不善的方式——以及他们自己解决问题的方式——也构成了森林治理中权威主张的一部分。结果是森林治理制度在生活在森林中和森林周围的社会群体之间表现出较少的灵活性和合作，