In the early nineties there were those who argued that nothing can change, ostensibly because there wasn't a law to cover it but usually because of the fear of the unknown and the consequences of a more radical approach. Occasionally, more recently in Zimbabwe, it has been possible to bring about significant institutional change, but this has been the exception rather than the rule. The role of notaries for example has proved particularly difficult to alter in countries such as South Africa. What was so in the past must always be in the future - or so it seems.

It is however, important that we change the way in which we look at our past in order that we can anticipate change.

The Mau Mau like many revolutionary crusades against the colonialist was driven by the need to own land. Forty plus years since gaining self rule from the British Kenyans still continue to butcher each other for this very resource, and many more are squatters in their own country. Kenyan politicians continue to fan tribal hatred and cleansing using land as a rallying call. The Maasai community did protest against loss of their ancestral land, two years ago to no meaningful conclusion. The community has in my opinion misinterpreted land ownership and land utililization, which is an issue on its own.

The Kaya Bombo clashes at the coast (97), the Sabaot Land defence force inspired clashes (07) in Mt. Elgon, Enoosupukia (92) were all ethnic conflicts in which were committed widespread human rights abuses and murder in the name of defending tribal lands. These flare-ups mostly go on for months without government interventions indicating a break down of law and order due to weak institutions which have characterized the Kenyan government since independence.

From a historical perspective it is worth recalling that land administration began thousands of years ago. The origins of the cadastre are still debated, with some giving credit to the ancient Egyptians, some to the Greeks and some to the Romans. The focus in ancient Egypt was on land use and value but the European inheritance is based around classical Roman view that land extended from the centre of the earth to the infinite in the sky, those who owned the land owned what was below and above it from hell to heaven.

In more recent times the perception in Kenya has altered in the light of changing social and economic conditions and the realization that we can control only a limited amount beneath our feet and even less that is above our heads. It is acceptable here in Kenya that anything permanently attached to the soil such as a building is an integral part of the land. What we in Kenya should all share is the realization and recognition that the environmental pressures, like what is happening in the Mau forest, and concern for good stewardship of the land means that we must consider the needs of future generations as much as our own immediate needs.

Historical events have formed the way in which land administration and utilization operate today. It is a shame that our land policy is still influenced by our colonial master and that a few individuals still own more land than all the poor combined as indicated by the Ndun'gu land commission. Of course it is right and proper that certain things remain sacrosanct such as protection of existing ownership rights. There can be no change in land ownership without either the due process of the law or a bloody revolution.

Likewise in a market driven economy like ours there must always be room for pragmatic solutions to the resolution of conflicts and the determination of land and property values. It is this that suggests a problem that demands urgent resolution. Narok district forms the highly productive wheat belt of the south-rift and all the landowners are illiterate Maasai tribesmen. Rich Kenyans lease the land for cultivation for as low as two thousand shillings an acre. The same acre of land has the potential of producing twenty four bags of wheat at two thousand eight hundred shillings a bag in a period of three months. I am not an accountant but it does not take one to see that there is a huge disparity between the rent charged and the potential income from the land.

Tell me, is this fair?Â