Transcript Document

Harnessing Ecosystem-based Approaches for Food Security
& Adaptation to Climate Change Conference
August 20-21, 2013
UN Complex, Nairobi, Kenya
Kenya Coastal Marine Ecosystem
Project
Joseph Lwannia
The Problem: What risks have been addressed?
The Kenya Coastal Marine Ecosystem Project ( K C M E P)
addresses threats and disturbances from human and natural
activities that impact negatively on the marine ecosystem.
These broadly occurred as a result of manipulation of the
hydrological cycles – dam construction, building on beaches,
coastal structures, beach protecting structures, jetties, mining
of beach sand and live coral as well as removal of coastal
vegetation.
Coastal erosion was severe at sandy beach areas of north and
south coast of Mombasa and Malindi. It was also prevalent
along the cliff beaches at Kanamai, Shanzu, Nyali, Likoni, Black
Cliff Point and Tiwi. However, the greatest threat to coral reef
was fishing. Relative damage was caused by excess
harvesting, destructive gears and migrant fisherfolk. Beach
seines, gill nets and bomb fishing are typical of destructive
methods.
The Objective
The KCMEP was initiated in July 2005 to:
restore, conserve and manage critical coastal
ecosystems, habitats and species which had
been degraded over the years; to ensure that
ecological values are fully integrated into the
planning, management and use of resources;
to develop the knowledge base on sustainable
coastal zone management; and to develop
and support education and information
programmes to promote coastal zone
conservation, protection and management.
Methodology & Implementation
What ecosystem approaches were adopted to implement project activities?
A range of ecosystem approaches were adopted to implement project activities. First,
scoping was undertaken and knowledge was gathered from various sources in order to
provide a thorough understanding of critical KCMEP components. These sources
included literature, informal sources such as the local Swahili people who are dominant
in this area, resource users and environmental experts. Data was also sought through
statistical analyses and simulation as well as conceptual models. Second, indicators
were defined. Ecological indicators proved useful for tracking and monitoring the status
of KCMEP and it provided feedback on management progress. Third, thresholds were
set for each indicator. Targets were defined that represented a desired level of health of
the KCMEP. Thresholds were useful in guiding management particularly by looking at
the conservation status criteria established by the Government of Kenya. Forth, a
monitoring and evaluation mechanism was established. Evaluating the effectiveness of
the implemented management strategies is very important in determining how
management actions are affecting the ecosystem indicators. As the final step in project
implementation, evaluation involves monitoring and assessing data to see how well the
management strategies chosen are performing relative to the initial objectives stated.
We used simulation models and multi - stakeholders groups to help us assess
management.
Methodology & Implementation
What risk was this approach addressing?
Risk is defined as the sensitivity of an indicator to
an ecological disturbance. Our approach was
meant to address the potential risk of habitat and
species loss at KCMEP through environmental
degradation.
In which time of the year was this approached
applied?
This approach was not in any way bound by time
constraints. Its applicability was meant to be on
an all - year round basis.
Methodology & Implementation
Who were the target groups of the project?
Who were the key stakeholders of the project and what methods were used
to involve them?
The target groups were - Fisherfolks*, Conservation Groups, Baobab Trust*,
Ministry of Forestry*, Kenya Ports Authority*, Trawl operators, Sport fishers,
Aquarium owners, Mangrove dealers and cutters, Ministry of Environment*,
Ministry of Tourism*, Coast Development Authority ( CDA )*, Kenya Marine
and Fisheries Research Institute ( KMFRI )*, Kenya Marine Authority, Kenya
Wildlife Service ( KWS )*, Mombasa City Council*, Lamu Municipal Council*,
Kilifi Municipal Council*, Kwale Municipal Council* Tana River Municipal
Council* Ministry of Lands, Boat and Beach operators, Bamburi Cement
Company, Provincial Administration*,Kenya Police Service, Hoteliers, East
African Wildlife Society*Ministry of Water, National Water Conservation and
Pipeline Company*, Ministry of Public Works, Kenya Power and Lighting
Company*, Ministry of Fisheries*, Kenya Navy, Coral Reef Development
International Organisation ( CORDIO )*, International Union For Conservation
Of Nature ( IUCN )*, World Wildlife Fund ( WWF )*, Mombasa Coast Tourism
Association* and Telkom Kenya*.
(Key stakeholders marked by a star*)
Methodology & Implementation
Who were the key stakeholders of the project and what methods were used to involve them?
As part of the implementation process, the various coastal wetlands were put under different management systems
which included: Six marine protected areas (Parks) under KWS exclusively for conservation. Only ecotourism is
allowed and other forms of resource exploitation are restricted; Seven Marine National Reserves are managed by KWS
whereas traditional fishing by local communities within the reserves is regulated; no other resource use is allowed;
Several community based local sanctuaries and conservancies managed by the local communities along the coastal
zone especially at Kiunga, Mida Creek, Kipini, Tana River Delta, Takaungu, Gazi, and Wasini. Several sanctuaries and
conservancies are managed by private developers and conservation agencies e.g. Bamburi Sanctuary on the north
coast. As for the coral reef conservation, the work plan involved: ecological assessment and monitoring of the reef;
socio – economic assessment and monitoring of communities and stakeholders tasks that were to be managed by
IUCN as well as WWF; WWF were also mandated to monitor the biodiversity within the marine protected areas;
KMFRI would be involved in the research and monitoring of coastal and marine resources management, particularly
through application of integrated coastal management and marine and coastal protected areas in coral reef
environments to be supervised by KWS; identification and implementation of additional and alternative measures for
securing livelihoods of people who directly depend on coral reef services; stakeholders partnership, community
participation programmes and pubic education campaigns; provision of training and career opportunities for marine
taxonomist and ecologists; development of early warning system for coral bleaching; development of a rapid response
capability to document coral bleaching and morality, tasks that were delegated to CORDIO; the Ministry Of Fisheries
was to control and provide surveillance of fishing activities and reviving credit facilities for fisherfolk to purchase
appropriate fishing gear.
This project involved the communities at all levels of implementation - both vertically and horizontally. All
collaborated in order to develop and sustain the future of this project. An adaptive management approach came in
handy and this allowed flexibility and inclusiveness to deal with constant environmental, societal and political
changes.
What is the replication potential of the project?
Replication of an ecosystem-based management approach is difficult but not impossible. This is because it is applied
to large, diverse areas encompassing an array of interactions between species, ecosystem components and humans
and it is often perceived as a complex process that is difficult to replicate. However, benchmarking, although difficult
and time - consuming can be achieved and the overall framework made to fit in any other ecosystem.
The Solution: Where did the action take place
and what was done?
In order to build momentum towards a national KCMEP, a coastal zone management initiative was
started on the Kenyan coastline that extends from Somali’s border at Ishakani in Kiunga area in
the north to Vanga at the Tanzania border in the south. It lies between latitudes 1 degree and 5
degrees and is approximately 608 kilometres long.
Thereafter, initial strategies were developed to address critical management issues. These were degraded marine habitat ( sea grasses, coral reefs, beaches, groundwater and mangrove forests ),
Coastal erosion, On - water and land - use conflicts, decline in reef fisheries ( Demersile – rabbit
fish, parrot fish, rock cod, scavenger and snapper; Pelagies – cavilla jacks, king fish and tuna;
Crustaceans – lobsters, prawns and crabs and Molluses – oysters, octopus, squids and sea
cucumbers ), and inadequate infrastructure and public services.
Workshops and seminars were held to demonstrate the need for KMCEP, share experiences
gained, receive feedback from stakeholders and define the framework for implementation. An
agenda for implementation was agreed upon and several working groups were formed.
All these activities resulted to the following; – harmonization of all regulations and licensing and
putting more legislation for proper management of the ecosystem; control of forest and
mangrove harvesting to ensure sustainability and maintenance of essential ecological functions;
relations were formalized with all stakeholders through consultative meetings and integrated
management forums in marine and land based activities; zoning plans and regulations were
developed e. g . Skiing zone, fishing zone etc.; clear policies on research and monitorings were
developed for envisioning conditions including water quality; local communities were involved
and local environmental groups in the enforcement of regulations and improvement of the flow
of information to research users; community waste recycling was encouraged and proper use of
land was promoted.
How does this ecosystem approach address & enhance food security, climate
adaptation and ecosystem productivity?
-
Food security
- Climate Change adaptation
- Contributed to the ecosystems productivity
Food insecurity contributes to degradation and depletion of natural resources. To reduce the effect of climate change
on food supplies, livelihoods and economies, we must greatly increase adaptive capacity in agriculture – both short to
long – term climatic trends and to increasing variability as an urgent priority. This coastal EA shifted former food
systems to better meet human needs. It transformed the former food production patterns; food distribution and
consumption was realigned to meet population needs; deliberate efforts were made to invest in innovation to provide
food security to the most vulnerable of these communities; efforts were also made to construct a food system that
adapt to climate change and ensured food security while minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and sustaining the
natural resource base of this ecosystem.
Adaptive capacity refers to both actual and potential features encompassing both current and future coping ability. The
economic wealth of this ecosystem as represented by the contribution of different activities to the coastal economy –
Tourism 46%, Port Activities 15%, Agricultural Industries 8%, Fishing 5%, Agriculture 5% Other Services 15%, Forestry
4% and Mining 2% - in this area combined with technology, information skills infrastructure, institutions and equity are
the main factors influencing community adaptive capacity. The flood – prone Tana River area, for example, had its
productivity harnessed and sustain through enhancement of early warning systems for flood monitoring and seasonal
forecast with respect to food security.
The most important aspect of climate change on the oceans and coastal areas is the impact of sea level rise on coastal
areas and on marine ecosystem. Most records of mean sea level show evidence of a gradual rise in global mean level
over the last century. Global warming along the coast of Kenya is envisaged to increase the rate at which sea level rises
through - warming and therefore thermal expansion of ocean water surface, melting mountain glaciers and polar ice,
intensification of rainfall activities in current rainy areas resulting in bigger run - offs through rivers into oceans. This EA
approach encouraged reafforestation and afforestation campaigns and promoted agroforestry. It also encouraged the
use of alternative renewable energy to protect the mangrove forests, advocated for environmental – friendly fishing
methods that ensured strict adherence to the environmental impact assessment ( EIA ) as stipulated by the National
Environmental Management Authority (NEMA). All these efforts boosted the productivity of this ecosystem.
The Big Picture
- Number of people who benefited, (used a baseline and compared to the number at the end of the action
who became food secured and benefit from emerging opportunities)
According to the 2009 statistics of food poverty, 50.4% of the population of approximately one million people of the coastal zone were food
insecure. Before the EA in 2005, the marine fish production, for example, barely rose above 1600 tons per annum with a total earning of
around 490 million shillings. After the EA, production started to increase steadily - 2007 ( 5476 tons earning 610 million shillings; 2008 –
8736 tons at 737 million shillings; 2009 – 7926 tons at 728 million shillings and 2010 – 8721 tons earning 837 million shillings for the coastal
economy ). Fishing boomed in the area. Rare species were protected and this led to tourism promotion; marine ecosystem was conserved
and this enhanced the marine catch that led to an increase in the number of small and medium fisherfolks; an alternative livelihood was
provided as the production of fish increased and pressure on overfishing reduced. Estimates now indicate that over 10,000 fisherfolk are
engaged in fishing as opposed to less than 5,000 before the EA. Mariculture i.e. the culture of marine organisms has increasingly been taken
up by the residents as an income generating activity. Aquaculture was enhanced and appropriate fish gears procured; sport fishing was also
promoted and the locals were empowered to venture into sport fishing; ornamental fish projects were established to enable fisherfolk trade
in ornamental fish; the capacity of the fisherfolk was built and loans advanced to them through their cooperatives; fish bandas were
constructed at fish landing beaches to enhances small – scale fish trading and ice – block making was promoted to enhance fish preservation;
beach management units ( BMUs ) were established and fisherfolks organized in groups. All these created wage and urban self employment
and approximately 35,500 people benefitted and about Kshs.900 million annually was generated . All these moved the 50.4% of the
population who were food insecure to more than 75% food secure. Thus, after the EA, 75.5% of the population of 2.9 million in this
ecosystem consumed more or better food than before the EA; 60.4% retained food production for consumption; 87.3% avoided to sell assets
to buy food and 92,0% avoided to use savings to buy food Some emerging economic opportunities have arisen in the form of titanium mining
in Msambweni in Kwale County and these are expected to cause profound reduction in faunal diversity, habitat degradation and
transformation in this ecosystem. Money earned from the flourishing tourism industry was used to supplement the food budgets of a
majority of households in the area since, apart from fish, most food consumed came from outside the area. Mombasa, Kilifi and Diani
became tourist resort destinations and the number of tourists visiting the area increased. Investment in the hotel industry was promoted and
the establishment of private villas encouraged. Existing hotels were expanded and new ones constructed; tour/ travel companies were
opened, new restaurants constructed as well as middle level hotels and lodges; the Tourist Police was strengthened and plans are at an
advanced stage to build the Ronald Ngala Utalii College in Kilifi to train tourism and hotel personnel. A coastal ethnographic museum will be
opened to improve the conservation and preservation of heritage of the coastal communities. This will go a long way in improving research,
create more jobs and sustain the conservation of the coastal heritage.
Overall, the number of people who benefitted, both directly and indirectly was approximately 250,000.
The Big Picture (cont’d)
- Emerging opportunities
This project created jobs in the tourism and other allied sectors like
hotels, restaurants and lodges. The population of people working in
agriculture went up due to food demand. From approximately 750,000
people who got their livelihood from agriculture, the number went up
to over 1.9 million after the EA was implemented. The prime aim of
this project was to promote food security and alleviate poverty in this
area. Efforts were made to mainstream cross - cutting issues such as
gender, HIV / AIDS and youth issues. For example, Kiunga Marine
National Reserve Conservation and Development Project in Lamu
combines gender, health programmes and livelihood efforts. They
create and sell handicrafts from slippers washed ashore. This eco –
friendly project is both a source of income and ensures better survival
rates for the endangered Green Sea turtles as slippers hamper the
emergent turtle hatchlings movement to Indian Ocean waters.
The Big Picture (cont’d)
- Replication and up-scaling potential
- How did the project addressed sustainability and crosscutting issues?
- What should be considered in up scaling ecosystem based
approaches?
Sustainability implies financial, institutional and political
sustainability all of which could be embodied in the single
term social sustainability. This project explored more than one
source of funding to meet its needs as well as mobilizing local
sources of funding. Most of the conservation projects within
this larger project will generate revenue from the conservation
activities themselves. However, while it has the potential to
provide local people with jobs that would lift them out of
poverty, it is important that these welfare improvements are
not achieved at the expense of ecological integrity.
What are the current limitations in the use of ecosystem
approaches?
What are the current limitations in the use of ecosystem approaches ?
- What do we know of the scientific basis of this ecosystem based approach?
- What are the scientific limitations?
Because ecosystem- based management is applied to large, diverse areas encompassing an array of
interactions between species, ecosystems components and humans, it is often perceived as a complex
process that is difficult to implement. In addition, uncertainty is common and predictions are difficult.
Since ecosystems differ greatly and express varying degrees of vulnerability, it is difficult to apply a functional
framework that can be universally applied. The first commonly defined challenge is the need for
meaningful and appropriate management units. Another issue is in the creation of administrative bodies,
Gaps in administration or research, competing objectives or priorities between stakeholders due to
overlaps or obscure goals such as sustainability, ecosystem integrity or biodiversity can often result in
fragmented or weak management. The most challenging is that there exists little knowledge about the
system and its effectiveness. Criticism of ecosystem - based management includes its reliance on analogy
and comparisons, too broadly applied frameworks, its overlaps with or duplication of other methods, its
vagueness in concepts and application, and its tendency to ignore historical, evolutionary or individual
factors that may heavily influence ecosystem functioning.