environmental and social management ......pra participatory rural appraisal sap strategic action...
TRANSCRIPT
i
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK & INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
FOR
THE KENYA COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document presents the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the
Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) of the Government of Kenya. KCDP is a 4-year
project which is anticipated to start at the end of 2010.
The aim of this project is to achieve greater value and improved livelihoods from sustainable
management of marine and coastal resources while strengthening conservation and sustainable
use of marine and coastal biodiversity. The project will target the following three geographic
areas of the coastal and marine environment. (i) offshore resources of the 200 nm EEZ; (ii)
inshore resources including coral reefs, fish, mariculture, forests and mangroves and (iii) land-
based resources of the coastal districts, particularly use of terrestrial resources that impact on
near and offshore marine resources.
The project has 4 components
• Component 1: Sustainable Management of Fisheries Resources with the objective of
increasing revenue earning potential of GoK through sound monitoring, control and
surveillance and a transparent process of licensing of foreign vessels. Other goals are to
promote research for value addition, market chain analysis, alternatives beyond reef
fishing and overall improvement of fisheries governance;
• Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources which aims to improve the
sound management and regeneration of natural resources and biodiversity in the
coastal and marine environment as well as provide assistance to communities in the
development of eco-tourism ventures;
• Component 3: Support for Alternative Livelihoods which aims to promote sustainable
livelihoods within a sound governance framework that includes spatial planning and
land capability mapping to identify sensitive areas, Integrated Coastal Management
(ICM), and compliance with environmental regulations and safeguards. Within this
institutional framework, the component aims to support community investments and
MSMEs and;
• Component 4: Capacity building, Monitoring & Evaluation System, Project Management
and Communication which aims to promote capacity in the project coordination and
implementation teams, promote dialogue amongst national partners and regional
stakeholders and develop a communication strategy for development outreach.
Although the project sites for the KCDP are yet to be determined, the potential impacts on the
environment and social-cultural aspects of these impacts have been assessed in this
Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). Appropriate mitigation measures
have been proposed in the different sectors that would reduce the significance of the negative
impacts of the project. Important local and international legislation have also been reviewed in
iii
as well as World Bank Safeguard Policies. Several activities of the KCDP are already mitigatory in
nature and have been inbuilt into the project design. The cumulative nature of impacts from
MSME’s has also been recognized and an environmental screening process recommended. The
recommendations for monitoring and evaluation will be reviewed during the lifetime of the
project to improve the implementation of mitigation measures.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... vii
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. x
DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................................................. xi
1.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project development objectives and components ....................................................................... 2
1.3 Basis for the selection of the components ................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 Component 1: Sustainable management of fisheries resources ....................................................... 3
1.3.2 Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources ................................................................ 4
1.3.3 Component 3: Support for alternative livelihoods ............................................................................ 6
1.3.4 Component 4. Capacity Building, Monitoring & Evaluation System, Project Management and
Communication .................................................................................................................................................. 8
1.4 Program implementation plan ...................................................................................................... 9
1.5 Analysis of alternatives ................................................................................................................. 9
2.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 10
2.1 National Legal Instruments ......................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 The Environmental Management Co-ordination Act, 1999 (EMCA) ................................................ 13
2.2 International Legal Instruments .................................................................................................. 14
3.0 WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGURARDS POLICIES ............................................................ 15
3.8 Borrower’s capacity to implement the safeguard policy recommendations ............................. 23
4.0 INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ........................................................... 23
5.0 THE PROJECT AREA ......................................................................................................................... 24
6.0 THE APPROACH OF THE KCDP IMPACTS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 26
7.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ 28
7.1 The Physical Environment ........................................................................................................... 28
v
7.1.1 Coastal Geology and geomorphology .............................................................................................. 28
7.1.2 Drainage and hydrology .................................................................................................................. 29
7.1.3 Oceanography ................................................................................................................................. 30
7.2 The Biological Environment ........................................................................................................ 31
7.2.1 Mangroves ....................................................................................................................................... 31
7.2.2 Seagrass beds ................................................................................................................................... 31
7.2.3 Coral reefs ........................................................................................................................................ 32
7.2.4 Sandy beaches and sand dunes ....................................................................................................... 32
7.2.5 Coastal forests .................................................................................................................................. 33
7.3 Cultural landmarks of the Kenyan coast ..................................................................................... 33
7.3.1 Indigenous people ............................................................................................................................ 34
7.4 Socio-economic activities along the Kenyan coast ..................................................................... 34
7.4.1 Artisanal Fisheries ............................................................................................................................ 36
7.4.2 Commercial Fisheries ....................................................................................................................... 37
7.4.3 EEZ Fisheries ..................................................................................................................................... 37
8.0 IMPACT EVALUATION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS ........................................................................ 37
9.0 ANALYSIS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WITHIN THE
DIFFERENT SECTORS OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................ 38
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (EMF) ................................................................ 45
11.0 SCREENING OF SMALL PROJECTS .................................................................................................... 52
12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 52
13.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 55
14.0 APPENDIXES ........................................................................................................................................ 57
14.1 ANNEX I ....................................................................................................................................... 57
14.1.1 List of specialists for the KCDP ESMF .............................................................................................. 57
14.2 ANNEX II ...................................................................................................................................... 58
14.2.1 Stakeholder consultations ............................................................................................................... 58
vi
14.3 ANNEX III ..................................................................................................................................... 61
14.3.1 Description of National Legal Instruments ...................................................................................... 61
14.4 ANNEX IV ..................................................................................................................................... 67
14.4.1 Description of historical and archaeological sites and cultural sites along the Kenya coast .. 67
14.5 ANNEX V ...................................................................................................................................... 69
14.5.1 Environmental Screening Of Micro-Enterprise And Small Projects ................................................. 69
14.5.2 Simple Environmental Review ........................................................................................................ 81
14.6 ANNEX VI ..................................................................................................................................... 82
14.6.1 Indigenous People’s Framework ...................................................................................................... 82
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Kenyan Legislation that is relevant to the management of the marine and
coastal environment ............................................................................................................... 12
Table 2: International agreements relevant to coastal and marine resource management in .................. 14
Table 3: Summary of the World Bank Safeguard Policies ........................................................................... 19
Table 4: World Bank safeguard policies triggered by the KCDP ................................................................. 20
Table 5: Areas of potential impact by the KCDP ......................................................................................... 27
Table 6: Critical coastal and marine habitats in Kenya .............................................................................. 32
Table 7: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities on Fisheries .............................................. 39
Table 8: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities on coastal and marine habitats ............... 41
Table 9: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities in the MSME sector .................................. 43
Table 10: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities on indigenous people ............................ 45
Table 11: Environmental and Social Framework for the KCDP ................................................................... 46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Western Indian Ocean and the Member Countries participating in SWIOFP, SWIOFC,
ASCLME, and WIO-LaB ................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2: Map of the Kenyan coast showing the coastal districts and terrestrial protected areas ............ 25
viii
ACRONYMS
ALRMP Arid Lands Resource Management Project
ASCLME Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Project
CBO Community Based Organization
CDA Coast Development Authority
CVF Coastal village fund
DWFN Distant Water Fishing Nation
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EA Environmental Audit
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMCA Environmental Management and Coordination Act
EMF Environmental Management Framework
EMP Environmental Management Plan
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan
FAD Fish Aggregating Devices
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GEF Global Environment Fund
GIS Geographical Information System
GoK Government of Kenya
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management
IDA International Development Association
IP Indigenous Peoples
IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan
IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework
KCDP Kenya Coastal Development Project
KEFRI Kenya Forest Research Institute
KMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
LBA Lake Basin Authority
ix
LME Large Marine Ecosystems
MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance
MMA Marine Managed Areas
MPA Marine Protected Area
MSME Medium and Small Micro-enterprises
NDF Nordic Development Fund
NEC National Environmental Council
NEMA National Environment Management Authority
NGOs Non-governmental Organizations
NRM Natural Resource Management
OP Operational Procedures
PAD Project Appraisal Document
PF Peoples Framework
PPP Public Private Partnership
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
SAP Strategic Action Plan
SWIOC South Western Indian Ocean Commission
TDA Transboundary Diagnostic analysis
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea
UNDP United Nation Development Program
UNEP United Nation Environment Program
UNFCC United Nation Framework on Climate Change
WIOLAB West Indian Ocean Land Based Sources of Pollution
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance, advice and input provided by
members of the KCDP Project Management Team (Dr Jacqueline Uku -Project Coordinator and Dr Jared
Bosire – Component Leader). The authors would also like to acknowledge all personnel within the Kenya
Government lead agencies who provided important background information on the project. The authors
also recognize the Ministry of Fisheries Development and Director KMFRI for support. Finally, the
authors would like to acknowledge Dr Bill Lane who provided important guidance throughout the
process of developing this document as part of the World Bank Task Team.
xi
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Cumulative impacts effects: The total effects on the same aspect of the environment resulting
from a number of activities or projects.
Proponent: the entity – person, company, agency proposing to develop/implement/install a
new project or expand an existing project under the KCDP project
Direct impacts: An effect on the environment brought about directly by the KCDP sub-projects.
Disclosure: Information availability to all stakeholders at all stages of the development of
projects.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA): A comprehensive analysis of the project and its
effects (positive and negative) on the environment and a description of the mitigative actions
that will be carried out in order to avoid or minimize these effects.
Environment: physical, biological and social components and processes that define our
surroundings.
Environmental Monitoring: The process of examining a project on a regular basis to ensure
that it is in compliance with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), or the Government of
Kenya (GoK) Environmental Impact Assessment (EM) certification of approval conditions and I
or environmental prescriptions.
Involuntary resettlement: The forceful taking of land resulting in, relocation or loss of shelter,
loss of assets or income sources, restriction of access to legally designated protected areas
resulting in physical displacement or a change of livelihood status.
Impact: A positive or negative effect that a project has on an aspect of the environment.
Indirect impact: A positive or negative effect that a project indirectly has on an aspect of the
environment.
xii
Lead Agency: The agency with primary responsibility for the protection of the environment. For
instance, the lead agency for environment matters in Kenya is the National Environment
Management Authority (NEMA).
Mitigation measures: The actions identified in an EIA to negate or minimize the negative
environmental impact that a project may have on the environment.
Pollution: contamination altering the state of purity (e.g. chemical effluent discharge into a
surface water body).
Project and sub-project: a set of planned activities designed to achieve specific objectives
within a given area and time frame.
Project Brief: The initial submitted document to NEMA to initiate the process that will lead to
the issuance of the EL4 certificate of approval.
Scoping: The initial stage in an environmental assessment that determines the likely major
environmental parameters that will be affected and the aspects of the project that will bring
upon these effects
Screening: An initial step when a project is being considered for environmental assessment. The
screening is the determination of the level of assessment that will be conducted. In the case of
GoK, screening will place project into one of three environmental categories (1, 11 or 111).
Significant effect: An important impact on an aspect of the environment.
Stakeholder: Any person or group that has an interest in the project, and the environmental
effects that the project may cause.
1
1.0 BACKGROUND
The coastal province is one of Kenya’s seven administrative provinces. The province covers an
area of 83,603 km² and has a population of 2,487,264 inhabitants according to the 1999 census.
The people living in the coastal area are amongst the poorest in the country with 62% of the
people living below the poverty line thus making the coast the second poorest of Kenya’s eight
provinces. About 34 percent of the population resides in urban areas along the coastline.
Additionally, immigration from rural to urban areas of the coast is increasing. Refugees fleeing
poverty and instability in Somalia also add to population pressures along the north coast.
Increased human concentrations heavily impact the marine resources and environment. The
resulting deterioration of the natural resource base further aggravates the vicious cycle of
poverty and associated decline in environmental quality.
The coastal area of Kenya is characterized by unique natural resources, which form the
economic basis of various activities, especially those based on tourism, fisheries and maritime
transport. These activities are vital to growth and development in the nation and in the region.
For example, coastal tourism represents 60 percent of total national tourism. However, too
many tourist hotels, over use of fragile coral reefs by local residents and tourists, excessive
fishing pressure in inshore areas, inappropriate land use in coastal districts, and poor
management of development over a long period have severely degraded the value of coastal
resources. The lack of proper management also means that valuable existing resources are
exploited without full benefit accruing to coastal residents or the national economy.
In view of this the Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) has been developed with the aim
of strengthening public sector management in all of the participating sectors within the coast. It
is anticipated that this will promote growth in the key sectors through enhanced productivity
and good governance; reduce poverty through the provision of services, technical assistance,
improved access to markets, promotion of public private partnerships thereby improving
resilience and reducing vulnerability in a changing climate.
The KCDP will be supported by IDA, the GEF and possibly the Nordic Development Fund (NDF).
The IDA funding will be US$35million and GEF will provide co-financing of US$5million. The GEF
funds comprise a grant from the Africa Strategic Partnership for Fisheries, a strategic grant for
the Africa Region. Dialogue is underway with NDF which is likely to support adaptive
management strategies to reduce vulnerability and improve ability for resilience of coastal
communities and biodiversity to climate change. This funding from NDF may be categorized as
co-financing or parallel financing.
2
1.1 Project development objectives and components
The development objective of the KCDP is to achieve greater value and improved livelihoods
from sustainable management of marine and coastal resources while strengthening
conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity.
The project will target the following three geographic areas of the coastal and marine
environment. (I) offshore resources of the 200 nm EEZ; (ii) inshore resources including coral
reefs, fish, mariculture, forests and mangroves and (iii) land-based resources of the coastal
districts, particularly use of terrestrial resources that impact on near and offshore marine
resources.
The project will be implemented through the following components requiring US$47 million
(inclusive of contributions from the Government of Kenya and the NDF) as follows:
• Component 1: Sustainable Management of Fisheries Resources with the objective of
increasing revenue earning potential of GoK through sound monitoring, control and
surveillance and a transparent process of licensing of foreign vessels. Other goals are to
promote research for value addition, market chain analysis, alternatives beyond reef
fishing and overall improvement of fisheries governance. (US$7.96m)
• Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources. This component aims to
improve the sound management and regeneration of natural resources and biodiversity
in the coastal and marine environment. A related goal is to identify biodiversity products
and markets that will assist in promoting eco-tourism and spin-off industry. The value
and future role of natural resources in Kenya’s future development is articulated in
Vision 2030. (US$8.01m)
• Component 3: Support for Alternative Livelihoods. This component aims to promote
sustainable livelihoods within a sound governance framework that includes spatial
planning and land capability mapping to identify sensitive areas, Integrated Coastal
Management (ICM), and compliance with environmental regulations and safeguards.
Within this institutional framework, the component aims to support community
investments and MSMEs. ($18.47m)
• Component 4: Capacity building, Monitoring & Evaluation System, Project
Management and Communication. This component aims to promote capacity in the
project coordination and implementation teams, promote dialogue amongst national
partners and regional stakeholders and develop a communication strategy for
development outreach. (US$2.35m)
3
1.3 Basis for the selection of the components
A large percentage of the targeted beneficiaries within this project are the population living on
the coastal margin, and they are some of the poorest in Kenya. Inshore fish catches are on the
decline due to overfishing, use of destructive fish gears and habitat degradation. Domestic
exploitation of off-shore fisheries is low therefore there was a need to focus activities of this
project on improving management and sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources in
Kenya. Additionally, sound management of the EEZ fishery resources, will benefit all citizens of
Kenya since the revenue will accrue to the National Treasury. Managing natural resources
particularly along the coast and in wildlife areas has received attention in the Vision 2030 as a
critical element for promoting tourism as an engine of growth in Kenya.
Given the lack of employment opportunities, particularly for coastal youth and women, there is
a critical need to identify and invest in micro, small and medium scale enterprises, skills
development, the promotion of public/private partnerships. At the same time there is a
significant need to promote value addition to the products of fishermen and farmers, identify
markets and facilitate access to credit. The different specialized assessments that will be carried
out will identify new biodiversity products, new economic opportunities and tourism circuits.
Improved cooperation with regional neighbors (Tanzania), in line with the East African
Cooperation initiative, will reduce costs of surveillance and promote new and larger tourism
circuits. On the Northern border, a serious threat exists relating to piracy which requires a
coordinated response by a number of several institutions in Kenya, to protect marine resources
and also the security of Kenyans living adjacent to the border. All these aspects were
considered in the development of the project components and project activities.
1.3.1 Component 1: Sustainable management of fisheries resources
The Project will support the reform of the governance of fisheries, particularly in the Kenyan
200 mile EEZ. The support will include legislation and regulatory review, capacity building and
the strengthening of VMS and MCS. The project will support the establishment of regional
linkages with support from SWIOF. The support will also include negotiations support relating
to rights of access for distant water fishing nations (DWFN) to the Kenyan 200 mile EEZ.
This component will also address the need for promoting value addition, access to markets and
credit for more sustainable and profitable fishing practices, mariculture, and for promoting
non-consumptive activities in support of the tourist sector. Activities under this component
would support development of pilot public-private partnerships in mariculture ventures such as
crab fattening, seaweed farming, shrimp/crustacean culture and village owned FAD fishery.
Technical extension services and business service advice will be provided to promote micro and
small enterprises for new uses of marine and coastal resources. The sub-components are briefly
outlined below:
4
Sub-Component 1.1. Sustainable management of offshore and nearshore fisheries resources
The outcomes of this sub-component are (a) Quality Control and Value addition System
designed and effectively operated; and (b) Cost-effective Monitoring Control and Surveillance
(MCS) Program for Kenya Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) flagged vessels and high seas
strengthened and supported. Activities include (i) demand driven research for value addition;
(ii) implementation of the value chain strategy (infrastructure construction); (iii) strengthening
of the Fisheries Competent Authority and its research capacity; (iv) conducting a value and
market chain analysis including eco-labelling benefits and value enhancement strategy; (v)
review and recommend changes to the MCS capability; and (vi) implement the MCS strategy in
coordination with the SWIOFP Program.
Sub-Component 1.2. Fisheries governance and research in Kenya
Three outcomes are expected from this component. They are: (a) Efficient Fisheries
Management System well-designed, developed and functional. (b) Research and Data
development established; and (c) Fisheries Governance improved. Activities include: (i)
establishing a Fisheries Implementation Unit responsible for the administration, logistics,
project support, supervision and monitoring and evaluation; (ii) Increasing awareness, capacity
building for coastal communities; (iii) developing three fishery specific co-management plans;
(iii) research to support stock assessments for 10 priority species (in coordination with
SWIOFP); (iv) promoting FADs; (v) promoting artisanal fishing alternatives beyond reef; (vi) by-
catch mitigation (turtles); (vii) aquaculture technology baseline surveys; (viii) developing
technology for Spatial Mapping of Fisheries; (ix) review and strengthening of the legislative
framework for fisheries; (x) reform of the existing management, licensing and cost structure of
foreign and other high seas vessels.
Sub-Component 1.3. Fish production through sustainable aquaculture development
Expected outcome is the promotion of sustainable aquaculture development. Activities include:
(i) demand driven research for aquaculture; (ii) rehabilitating and constructing hatcheries,
artemia processing and quality assurance laboratories; (iii) establishing shrimp and finfish
culture demonstration/pilot farms in Ngomeni and Gazi and (iv) establishing seaweed farming
1.3.2 Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources
Kenya’s Vision 2030 highlights value addition to products and services. According to the vision,
tourism will be a leading sector in achieving the goals. Specific strategies mentioned for
realizing the goals emphasize an aggressive strategy to develop Kenya’s coast (north and
south), increasing the country’s premium safari parks, creating new high value niche products
(e.g. cultural, eco-sports and water-based tourism) (Vision 2030). In keeping with the
government’s goals, the objective of this component is to improve sustainable management
5
and regeneration of natural resources and biodiversity in the near shore coastal and marine
environment. The vision of this component is to understand and conserve the unique coastal
biodiversity and its natural resources as the basis for sustainable development. Activities under
the component will promote sustainable tourism and new and alternative types of livelihoods.
Technical advice will be provided to coastal communities to improve the sustainability of
current livelihoods.
Optimal use of natural resources requires careful planning based on good information on the
distribution of various resources and their condition. Fundamentally, this requires knowledge of
the underlying land capability, the baseline state of these resources, the rate at which they
change and the associated infrastructure. The existing understanding of the resource base is
limited, posing a challenge to decision-making and sustainable resource exploitation. The
existing information is fragmented, inaccessible or stored in incompatible media. The sub-
component aims to collect and collate the relevant data in a GIS information management
system for decision support and wise use of the coastal and marine resources.
There are four sub-components under this component.
Sub-Component 2.1. Biodiversity & natural resources assessed and an integrated information
system developed
Outcomes include: (a) GIS template developed and populated to establish baseline information
on the status of natural resources at the coast. (b) Improved information on the status of
natural resources, their ecological threats, economic valuation and resource use patterns
collected and interpreted. Activities include: (i) the creation of a coastal biodiversity
information management system; (ii) coastal biodiversity data collation, biodiversity
information gap analysis, specialized surveys of flora and fauna in Arabuko-Sokoke, Boni-Dodori
and Kiunga forests; biodiversity assessments in Kisite-Mpunguti, Shimba Hills and Mombasa
Marine National Park, (iii) biodiversity assessment in all proposed community conservation
areas Shimoni, Marereni, Assakone, (iv) development of a uniform biodiversity monitoring
protocol and implementation of the biodiversity monitoring protocols in all key biodiversity
hotspots, (v) conduct a strategic impact assessment in all protected areas and develop
mitigation strategy for identified threats and (vi) conduct economic valuation for Shimba Hills
and Malindi - Watamu Marine Protected Areas
Sub-Component 2.2. Management plans, guidelines and strategies for sound management of
biodiversity & natural resources developed
Outcomes include: (a) management plans for Coastal Mangrove ecosystems, (b) development
of new conservation areas in Boni Dondori N.R., Witu, Assakone and Marereni which will be
promoted by formulating new management approaches and facilitating their implementation
(c) guidelines for management of critical habitats in Tana Delta implemented; (d) key
transboundary initiatives at Kisite Mpunguti and Shimba Hills, between South Coast in Kenya
6
and Tanga, Pangani, Zanzibar and Pemba in Tanzania promoted and facilitated; (e) conservation
strategies of endangered species and habitats (i.e. sea turtles, coral reefs and Dugong)
supported; and (f) Elephant corridor linking Arabuko-Sokoke to Tsavo East N.P. identified and
secured.
Sub-Component 2.3. Capacity building & institutional Support
Main outcomes include: (a) institutional staff and local community members enhanced, (b) best
practices on resource utilization and management learnt by community & institutional
exchange visits; (c) Enhancement of the capacity of community groups and CBOs across the
coast; (d) capacity of tourism stakeholders in industry governance strengthened; (e) state of the
art aquarium, laboratory and visitors information center in an Mombasa MPA supported
Sub-Component 2.4. Research & Technology for Extension Services & Development of Cottage
Industries
Main outcomes include: (a) the review of existing natural resources and new biodiversity
identified (b) technical and extension services for GoK agencies in place; (c) 10 appropriate
technologies and products packaged and rolled out.
Sub-Component 2.5. Tourism & Cultural Heritage Enhanced
Key outcomes expected include: (a) information on existing tourism infrastructure, assets and
activities collected and tourism opportunities for the coast identified; (b) new biodiversity
products identified; (c) Tourism circuits in Kiunga/Lamu, Mombasa, Malindi/Watamu/Arabuko-
Sokoke and south coast Kenya, Tanga, Pangani and Zanzibar and Pemba developed; (d)
package tourism products to strengthen tourist circuit developed and marketed.
1.3.3 Component 3: Support for alternative livelihoods
This component has 5 interlinked sub-components:
Sub-Component 3.1. Spatial Planning
Key outcomes include: (a) Reinforcement of institutional capacity and community awareness on
planning issues developed; and (b) A land use framework developed and implemented to guide
the sustainable use and development of the Kenyan Coast. Activities include: (i) rehabilitation
and refurbishment of provincial and district offices; (ii) Capacity building of the spatial planning
team and sensitization of communities on land use planning; (iii) preparation of land use plans
(coast province land use plan at a scale of 1:100,000; 4 district/regional land use plans at a
scale of 1: 50,000 ; 16 area action land use plans at ward level at a scale of 1:5,000; (iv)
7
preparation of land capability plans (coast province land capability plan at a scale of 1:100, 000;
4 district/regional land capability plans at a scale of 1: 50,000; 16 area action land capability
plans at ward level at a scale of 1:5,000
Sub-Component 3.2. Environmental Governance
Key outcomes include: (a) National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) reinforced to
implement the Coastal Governance Sub-component; (b) Integrated coastal zone management
(ICZM) framework implemented; (c) Legislative and regulatory framework harmonized ; (d)
Compliance and enforcement enhanced. Activities include: (i) development and
implementation of ICZM awareness strategy; (ii) development and implementation of
incentives on environmental awards schemes to recognize good practice in environmental
conservation; (iii) development of resource use conflict resolution mechanisms; (iv) training of
the ICZM Steering Committee on ICZM Policy Formulation, Action Planning, Implementation
and Monitoring; (v) strengthening of EA regulations and guidelines to address environmental
degradation from mining activities along the Coast; (vi) harmonization of relevant legislation
(EMCA, Wildlife, Fisheries, physical planning Act, Survey Act); (vii) sensitization of PEC, DECs &
CBOs on existing environmental legal and regulatory frameworks; (viii) capacity building for
lead agencies on EIA/EA review process; (ix) promotion of best practices identified on effluent
discharge in two hotels; (x) implementation of the Environment Management Framework
(EMF) on community based projects; and (xi) undertaking joint enforcement operations with
relevant lead agencies
Sub-Component 3.3. Microenterprise Development
This component aims to promote MSMEs through research, technological support, extension
services, training for business development and public private partnerships. Most coastal
communities comprise artisanal fishermen and subsistence farmers. Due to inefficient,
rudimentary production techniques and equipment, and inadequate alternative livelihood
opportunities, there is considerable inefficiency and wastage in production systems. The
situation is further exacerbated by the lack of, and access to markets for products and
technologies for value addition and product development. Additionally, the implementing
agencies are also not well facilitated to deliver the needed extension services to promote
technology adoption and best practice promotion. Key outcomes expected from the sub-
component include: (a) Coastal Development Agency's physical operation and personnel
enhanced; (b) Program implementation arrangements and subcontracting in place; (c) BDS
services facilitated; (d) flow of private public equity/financing to viable SME’s in promising
sectors (Mango, Cashew, Jatropha and Fishing) increased. Activities include: (i) purchase of
equipment and physical improvements; (ii) training of staff; (iii) undertaking focused micro-
studies on value chains in selected sub-sectors in the programme areas; (iv) provide Business
Development Services (BDS) for small enterprises; (v) establish Business Resource Centers for
capacity building; (vi) establish viable cottage level value addition activities in 5 subsectors; (vii)
establish a Private Public Partnership (PPP) Fund
8
Sub-Component 3.4. Making finance available to MSMEs at affordable rates.
The Project will work with existing, or help start new, financial self help groups to find
opportunities to increase membership to the point where a group can afford to hire permanent
staff. Once a group reaches this size, the project will provide assistance to establish simple
financial management processes, a simple credit assessment, a governance process and a grant
for an office and basic equipment. The project will also provide oversight and regular
supervision and advice to the self-help group for at least 1 year. The project will also assist
interested individuals to form production cooperatives that may or may not be linked to the
financial self-help groups described above. This support would target small holders, small
mariculturists or fishermen that would not be able to afford the inputs or produce the volume
of products needed to take full advantage of alternative livelihoods in the coastal zone.
Assistance would include establishing a partnership agreement, a simple business plan,
technical extension advice, and hand-holding through the business licensing process.
Sub-Component 3.5. Coastal Village Fund (CVF)
The purpose of the CVF is to leverage construction of village infrastructure and changes from
damaging activities to more sustainable and profitable alternative livelihoods supported under
the KCDP. Although the exact number of sub-projects supported under this subcomponent will
depend on demand estimated during preparation, up to 300 of these small grants, at an
average value of $20,000 each, are likely to be dispensed. Groups receiving grants will be
expected to contribute cash or “in-kind” to the objective of the grant.
Identification of an efficient and transparent delivery mechanism for such a large part of the
KCDP is critical. Management of the CVF will be through the district structures already in place
to service coastal CVF under the Arid Lands project (ARLMP II). The ARLMP II will establish a
“window” within the project for funds from KCDP to ensure easier accountability and greater
transparency. The two projects will agree on the type of projects (a “negative list” will be
established) that are eligible for funding through this window, but selection, disbursement and
sub-project monitoring will follow the process set up by the Arid Lands project. The selection of
the Arid Lands to facilitate service delivery is due to the project’s success. Another lesson
learned is a similar process established within the Tanzania Marine and Environmental
Management Project in partnership with the Tanzania Social Action Fund 2.
1.3.4 Component 4. Capacity Building, Monitoring & Evaluation System, Project
Management and Communication
The outcomes include: (a) Project Management Team strengthened to manage and coordinate
KCDP supported activities; (b) institutional capacity increased; (c) an Information &
Communication Strategy developed and implemented to increase public awareness at local and
regional levels of project goals and activities; (d) an effective Monitoring and Evaluation System
9
(M&E) developed; and (e) skills of project leaders enhanced to handle project implementation.
Activities include: (i) Policy & Technical Steering Committee Consultations; (ii) meetings of the
Project Implementation Committee; (iii) meetings of the Coast Area Committee; (iv)
Parliamentary outreach for policy purposes; (v) strengthening of regional cooperation by visits
to strategic partners in the region; (vi) development of Memorandum of Understanding with all
partners; (vii) development and equipping of office space for the project management staff;
(viii) enhance mobility of the project management staff; (ix) strengthening the procurement
and financial capacity; (x) engagement of communication specialist to develop the Information
& Communication Strategy ; (xi) development of an effective Monitoring & Evaluation System;
(xii) short and long term training for project leaders and other staff.
1.4 Program implementation plan
The Project will focus investment in a phased manner, in all areas in all coastal districts. This
includes both the coastal strip and the interior areas of each coastal district. However, the
implementation will be tranched with a pilot area being implemented first before rolling the
Project out to the other coastal districts.
1.5 Analysis of alternatives
The proposed project design is a result of one year of discussions and negotiations with project
partners drawn from ministries of the Government of Kenya and stakeholders from NGO’s and
CBO’s. Project preparation involved consultations at various levels with discussions focused on
poverty eradication and livelihood options and the foreseen impact of KCDP. Several scenarios
have been considered should there be no project and they are listed below:
If there is no project: The people living in the Kenyan coastal area are amongst the poorest in
the country with 62% of the people living below the poverty line thus making the coast the
second poorest of Kenya’s eight provinces. Implementation of sound projects that deliver clear
and measurable benefits to coastal communities, opportunities for knowledge exchange and
capacity building and natural resource management skills would have a significant impact on
the livelihoods and quality of life to the communities involved in this project. These things are
unlikely to occur without KCDP.
The project was initially conceived as an environmental project with sustainable fisheries as its
core. However, it was redesigned as a development project with a focus on conservation and
development, reducing poverty along the coast through the promotion of MSME’s, training,
access to technology, markets and affordable credit. The alternative of designing a conservation
10
project was considered and rejected in view of the extreme poverty and social issues along the
coast. Other alternatives discussed included (a) having a larger number of components, (b) a
Coastal Village Fund managed by KMFRI or all of its partners. The alternative selected reduced
the complexity of the project. The Arid Lands Resources Management Project (ALRMPII) project
that has been tried and tested as being successful in the delivery of resources to communities
was selected.
Budgetary support: KCDP is in line with the priorities of Vision 2030. On its own the
Government of Kenya would not be able to meet the targets of this vision thereby the input of
development partners like the World Bank would provide a higher probability of achieving the
goals of the vision for the coastal region. Focus on environmental impacts and the mitigation
measures that are inbuilt in KCDP provide strong linkages between environmental integrity and
the reduction of coastal poverty. The budgetary support would provide for greater monitoring,
supervision and evaluation for proposed development activities.
No environmental governance component: The original project was conceived without a focus
on environmental governance issues of the Kenyan coast. Its absence would have meant that
the project activities would overlook compliance to provisions of sustainable use in relevant
legislation and in particular environmental rules and regulations.
Implementation of Community Village Fund by the KCDP management team: Implementation
of the Community Village Fund (CVF) by the KCDP management team was considered and the
alternative of a link between the KCDP and the ALRMP II supported by the World Bank. KCDP
would provide funds to ALRMP II to deliver resources and services to coastal communities using
the same mechanisms and approaches that have been integrated into ALRMP II. As the project
has been in existence for several years, KCDP would benefit from its successes in implementing
CVF within coastal communities.
2.0 POLICY, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
There are a large number of legislation that apply to activities along the coast. The coastal zone
of Kenya is well served with legislation to provide for the protection and management of
coastal and marine resources. However, implementation of the applicable statutes is hampered
by many obstacles including: lack of appropriate regulations in support of the legislation,
inadequate capacity and governance, inadequate information and lack of human resources,
skills and equipment for monitoring, control and surveillance.
In terms of environmental protection and management in Kenya, the main framework and
institutional arrangements are contained in Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act
11
(EMCA) (1999). In addition to this there are numerous sectoral laws and institutions, as well as
central and sectoral policy instruments governing aspects of management within the sectors.
These include National Development Plans and sector and area specific policy papers that guide
development as well as protection, conservation and management of the environment.
Kenya is also a signatory to several international environmental treaties and has ratified some
of them. The obligations derived from these treaties have also to be taken into account along
with the national legislation. Kenya is a part of the international environmental community and
is obliged to abide with international environmental principles. Kenya is also part of three
regional programmes, SWIOPF, ASCLME and WIO-LaB which also function within these
environmental principles.
With respect to the KCDP, applicable policies and issues include conservation and management
of natural resources, coastal development, physical alteration and destruction of habitats,
effect on fisheries and other marine living resources, archeological artifacts, cultural property
etc.
There are up to 77 statutes relevant for the protection of the environment. They relate to land
use, water resources, environmental and occupational health, and pollution. EMCA 1999 and its
subsidiary regulations do have explicit EIA provisions. They include the substantive
requirements for EIA as well as the procedural details for carrying out satisfactory EIA
(Appendix A). Some legislation of direct relevance to this project are further highlighted.
2.1 National Legal Instruments
Table 1 outlines all relevant legislation and Annex III describes these legislations.
12
Table 1: Summary of Kenyan Legislation that is relevant to the management of the marine and coastal environment CAP Year
enacted
Legislation Linkages to KCDP
347 1967 Irrigation Act Although there are no large scale activities proposed under KCDP, the project will promote best use of available water resources in the pilot
areas
312 1977 Continental Shelf Act Some KCDP activities such as fishing will be implemented in the continental shelf
391 1979 Kenya Ports Authority Act Through development of special plans KCDP project will delineate areas for port development in Lamu.
295 1983 Land Acquisition Act KCDP hopes to empower community rights on land. Projects on village land under KCDP will require agreement by local council and village
authorities
409 1983 Lakes and Rivers Act ICZM issues are complex, KCDP will use this Act in promoting good stewardships of rivers and lakes along the coast
376 1985 Wildlife Conservation and
Management Act
Improved conservation of biodiversity through KCDP will directly contribute to the objective of this Act. The Act supports conservation and
protection of the environment, both terrestrial and marine
303 1986 Physical Planning Act An important activity of KCDP will be to develop land use plans for the coastal region as entailed in the Act.
318 1986 Agriculture Act In the agricultural sector KCDP will promote commercial plantation of farm forests and fruit trees as well as establish cottage industries,
including; processing, packaging and marketing
308 1986 Petroleum (Exploration and
Production Act
Although not directly related to the project, the land use plans to be developed under KCDP will provide potential areas for the energy sector
306 1987 Mining Act Mining activities on land affect marine environment. Using spatial plans KCDP will delineate areas of exploitable mineral resources including
building sand
382 1988 Kenya Tourist Development
Corporation Act
The Act policy strategies with respect to tourism development in the country. Further, the Act describes general approaches for achieving
local benefits and community participation. Some KCDP activities will work to empower communities through ecotourism
302 1989 Land Control Act Spatial plans to be developed under KCDP will guide future development of coastal area
371 1989 Maritime Zones Act A large part of KCDP activities in fisheries will be implemented in maritime zone.
381 1990 Tourist Industry Licensing Act KCDP hopes to promote fair play in tourism sector through promotion of ecotourism.
378 1991 Fisheries Act The entire fisheries component of KCDP has been developed in line with the Act. The Act focuses on management and enforcement of fishing,
aquaculture development, and conservation of fish and fish habitat
443 1991 Tana and Athi Rivers
Development Authority Act
Tana basin which is covered by the Act is an important pilot area for KCDP
449 1992 Coast Development Authority Act By bringing development at the coast, KCDP will be contributing directly to the objectives of the Act
265 1998 Local Government Act KCDP will work to empower Local Authority in the pilot areas (of Tana river and Lamu districts) to achieve its development objectives
1999 Environmental Management and
Coordination Act
KCDP will prepare and co-ordinate implementation of Environmental Action Plans, public awareness and education programmes, and
provision of environmental advice and technical support in line with the Act
371 2002 Water Act KCDP will promote wise use of available water resources through integrated watershed management and recycling of wastewater
385 2005 Forests Act KCDP will contribute better management of coastal forests including mangroves through; forest inventory, reforestation of degraded area,
and development of joint management plans. Further, KCDP will promote the development of community-based forest management(CBFM)
in line with the Act
2006 Energy Act KCDP will contribute to sustainable energy utilization by promoting use renewable energy sources like establishment of farm woodlots
(Source: State of the Coast Report, 2008)
13
2.1.1 The Environmental Management Co-ordination Act, 1999 (EMCA)
This is the most important legislation that will govern the implementation of this project along
the Kenyan coast. This Act, which came into force in 2000, is the main law concerning
environmental conservation and management. It is administered by the National Environment
Council (NEC) and implemented by the National Environmental Management Authority
(NEMA). The main EIA authority is NEMA and all formal applications, certificates and processes
are dealt by the said Authority. One of NEMA’s key directorates is concerned with EIA and
Environmental Audits (EA).
To facilitate coordination of environmental matters at a District level, EMCA 1999 has provision
for the creation of District Environmental Committees chaired by District Commissioners, and
the appointment of a District Environmental Officer who oversees environmental coordination
and is also secretary to the DEC.
Section 58 of EMCA requires that an Environmental Impact Assessment is undertaken for all
development activities proposed to be implemented in Kenya. This requirement was
operationalised by NEMA through its publication of the Guidelines for the Conduct of EIAs and
Environmental Audits (Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 56 of 13th June 2003). The framework
for environmental assessment in Kenya and a description of types of development that should
be subjected to environmental impact assessment are outlined in Legal Notice 101 and the
Second Schedule of EMCA respectively.
The Act gives credence to the fact that the environment constitutes the foundation of national
economic, social, cultural and spiritual advancement. It further defines EIA as a systematic
examination conducted to determine whether or not a programme, activity or project will have
adverse impacts on the environment. In the Act, projects that are likely to have a negative
impact on the environment must be subjected to an EIA. Section 55 deals with the protection of
the Coastal Zone as a whole and makes various provisions for the protection and management
of coastal zone resources. Section 68 requires all on-going projects to have an environmental
audit (EA) annually with a view to finding out if the processes and activities have any negative
impacts on the environment and to propose mitigation measures to counter such impacts.
The second schedule of the Act details the type of projects for which an EIA must be carried
out. They include, general projects, urban development, transportation, dams, rivers and water
resources, mining and quarrying, forestry, agriculture etc. The KCDP falls into some of these
categories. Since the advent of EMCA, all sectoral laws require that EIAs be undertaken for all
major projects touching on the sectors. Through the process of public disclosure demanded for
all EIA reports, all proposed developments are subjected to public debate which facilitates
development of a public position.
14
2.2 International Legal Instruments
Table 2 shows the international legal arrangements that Kenya is party to.
Table 2: International agreements relevant to coastal and marine resource management in
Kenya
International agreement Focal area Linkages with KCDP
African Convention on the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, 1968 (as revised in 2003).
Natural Resource
Conservation
KCDP activities (particularly in forestry and
fisheries) will enhance conservation of natural
resources.
Convention On Wetlands of International
Importance (Ramsar Convention), 1971
Wetlands
Members are required to manage wetland
sites in such a way as to avoid changes in their
ecological character.
UNESCO Convention Concerning The Protection
Of The World Cultural And Natural Heritage
(1972)
Culture and Heritage Potential KCDP activity sites (e.g. Kaya forests)
are recognized World Cultural Heritage Sites.
Washington Convention On International Trade In
Endangered Species (CITES, 1973)
Trade
Development of fisheries through KCDP
activities including changes to the
management of the EEZ, must exclude any
trade of endangered species.
Bonn Convention On The Conservation Of
Migratory Species Of Wild Animals (CMS, 1979)
Wildlife
There are migratory marine species that will
be potentially impacted by KCDP – in
particular, Dugong is a listed species under
the convention.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
1982
Oceans Governance
KCDP activities allows management of EEZ
and natural resources within
International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, as amended in 1978
(MARPOL 1973/78)
Ship-based Pollution
Although peripheral to KCDP, the
transportation of oils by ships could impact
the marine environment should a spill occur.
Convention for the Protection, Management and
Development of the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the East African Region with its
Protocols (Nairobi Convention, 1985)
Coastal and Marine
Conservation
KCDP objectives and activities are consistent
with the elements of the Nairobi Convention
Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) Biodiversity
Achievement of KCDP objective to improve
the management of coastal and marine
resources will contribute directly to the
conservation of biological diversity.
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC 1992)
Climate Change
Reduced emissions from avoided forest
degradation along the coast is one of the
objective of KCDP
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of
the Marine Environment from Land Based
Activities (1995)
Marine Environment KCDP will complement activities of GPA
through sustainable forest management,
development of livelihood opportunities, EAI
etc.
International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (1990)
Oil pollution Coastal and marine environment in Kenya are
threatened by oil pollution. Some KCDP
activities may be linked to the National Oil
Contingency Plan
15
3.0 WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGURARDS POLICIES
This project is classified in Category B. Its potential adverse environmental impacts are
expected to be few and site specific. Any negative impacts are mitigated through KCDP’s own
design features. This ESMF has been designed to fully comply with national environmental
codes and legislations in Kenya and with the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard
policies. As part of the ESMF process, proposed micro-projects under KCDP will be designed at
the local level to ensure that they are screened for potential impacts and that they comply with
the requirements set out under World Bank safeguard policies.
The following World Bank safeguards have been considered and the possibility of triggering
them has been considered in this ESMF.
1. Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01)
2. Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
3. Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
4. Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11)
5. Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10)
6. Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
7. Pest Management (OP 4.09)
8. Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
9. Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60)
10. Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50)
This project will have positive environmental impacts. The potential negative impacts are (i)
restriction of access to fisheries through improved management of the marine conservation
areas; (ii) short-term reduction in income to artisanal fisheries engaged in illegal or
unsustainable fishing activities due to strengthened MCS; (iii) development impacts from sub-
project investments from CVF; and iv) potential cumulative impact of many new micro, small,
medium size enterprises near environmentally sensitive areas that are undertaking similar
activities.
An evaluation of the existing legal framework and institutional structure for monitoring and
controlling impacts indicates that the framework is adequate. Principal weaknesses are
associated with implementation at the decentralized level where capacity is very weak. With
regard to impacts associated with marine parks, support to communities within the parks for
sustainable livelihoods, access to markets, technology and credit are expected to mitigate the
issue. For sub-project investments, KCDP investments will follow the same procedures that are
being followed by the Arid Lands project. The environmental screening procedures that will be
applied during the PRA’s will identify impacts and recommend mitigating measures. Support for
environmentally and socially sustainable land and water use under KCDP would come in the
form of a system of transparent and participatory spatial development plans implemented at
the “local government” level. Development of these spatial plans during project
16
implementation will be based on continual refinement (higher level of detail, moving from
1:100,000 to 1:10,000 or better) of the land capability/ESMF produced during project
preparation. The spatial plans will allow for cost efficient and proactive management of any
cumulative impact resulting from KCDP-induced MSME growth.
All KCDP investments will be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ESMF
as well as the environmental regulatory framework of the country. Further, the ESMF and
Indigenous People’s Framework (IPF) are living documents in that the KCDP includes significant
investment in their continual refinement. This would occur through developing capacity at the
local level to prepare and enforce environmentally and socially sustainable spatial plans and
collecting the information and stakeholder by-in to bring their implementation down to the
district and then village level.
Additionally, ICZM plans will be carried out thereby sharing the decision making between the
resource users and resource managers. Other planning tools to be supported by KCDP include
land capability plans and the information gathered by these activities will be useful in refining
the ESMF and PF.
The project is expected to lead to positive environmental benefits including habitat restoration,
protection and sound management through improved environmental governance and capacity
development for resource managers and users. The habitats include coastal forests, coral reefs
and the marine environment as described in the ESMF. With sound management of EEZ
fisheries, it is expected that by-catch including sea-birds and endangered sea turtles as well as
unwanted fishery will be reduced. Monitoring of these benefits will be through MCS and stock
assessments. Environmental benefits associated with marine parks will lead to improved
biodiversity and the quality of the marine environment. This will be monitored through the
M&E strategy which will involve community monitoring and reporting by public/private
partnerships.
The South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP), implemented by the World Bank, is
one of a trio of linked GEF-supported projects assessing transboundary issues in a regional
context. The other two projects being the West Indian Ocean Land Based Sources of Pollution
(WIOLaB) implemented by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Agulhas-
Somali LME study (ASLME) implemented by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).
All these projects are linked to the activities of KCDP. The KCDP and in particular, the
Department of Fisheries and KMFRI will liaise closely with SWIOFP in implementing its
Component 1. Figure 1 depicts the WIO region and the countries participating in SWIOFP,
SWIOFC, ASCLME and WIO-LaB.
17
Figure 1: The Western Indian Ocean and the Member Countries participating in SWIOFP,
SWIOFC, ASCLME, and WIO-LaB
Given that Kenya is a member of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOC),
which promotes the sustainable utilization of the living marine resources of the South West
Indian Ocean region, KCDP will also link with the programs of the SWIOFC for: (a) improving
fisheries governance; (b) increased cooperation with riparians (particularly Tanzania,
Madagascar and Seychelles); (c) promoting sustainable fisheries; (d) to share information on
the state of the fishery resources in the area and the industries based on them; and (d)
promotion of scientific data and information (through SWIOFP); (e) promoting joint MCS.
Linkage with Agulhas and Somali Current LME Project (ASCLME) and KCDP are also strong. The
goal of the ASCLME project is to ensure the long-term sustainability of the living resources of
the ASCLME region through ecosystem–based approach to management. Specifically the
project aims to: (a) acquire sufficient baseline data to support an ecosystem-based approach to
the management of the Agulhas and Somali Current LMEs; (b) produce a transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for both the Agulhas Current and
Somali Current LMEs. The Agulhas and Somali currents have a major influence on the societies
and economies of the Western Indian Ocean region but there are large gaps in the
understanding of their oceanographic processes, biodiversity and other fundamentals. Linking
with the ASCLME is advantageous to KCDP to benefit from the scientific data on key marine and
coastal resources.
18
Linkage to Addressing Land Based Activities in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO-LaB) is also of
advantage to KCDP given that WIO-LaB addresses some of the major environmental problems
and issues related to the degradation of the marine and coastal environment resulting from
land-based activities (LBA) in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO). The WIO-LaB project aims to
improve the knowledge base, and establish regional guidelines for the reduction of stress to the
marine and coastal ecosystem by improving water and sediment quality; strengthen the
regional legal basis for preventing land-based sources of pollution; and develop regional
capacity and strengthen institutions for sustainable, less polluting development. The three
projects represent a strong partnership between the countries of the WIO Region, the
Norwegian government, UNEP, and the GEF.
In the transboundary area between Kenya and Tanzania, it is expected that enhanced
cooperation across many fronts from fisheries to coral reef monitoring, tourism, conservation
of mangroves and sea-grasses will lead to reduced incidence of illegal fishing, increased
tourism, enhanced environmental quality and increased biodiversity quality. Contacts between
the Tanzanian agencies responsible for coastal zone management (which are also involved in
implementation of the Tanzania Marine and Coastal Environmental Management Project-
MACEMP- which is a sister project to the KCDP) and counterpart agencies involved in design
and future implementation of KCDP have already occurred and will be continued through the
rest of preparation and into implementation. Kenya is also a member of the Southwest Indian
Ocean Commission (SWIOFC), as in Tanzania. They therefore meet regularly as part of SWIOFC
dialogue. Program of preparation of KCDP and program of implementation of MACEMP are
subject to this dialogue. Program of preparation of KCDP and program of implementation of
MACEMP are subject to this dialogue. Additionally, Kenya and Tanzania are participants of
SWIOFP, ASCLME and WIO-LaB. The routine dialogue in these fora makes additional notification
unnecessary. Likewise, the Regional Executive Secretary for the regional SWIOFP, who is based
in Mombasa, is also participating in project preparation activities of the Kenyan KCDP
preparation team.
The Environmental Safeguards are listed in Table 3.
19
Table 3: Summary of the World Bank Safeguard Policies Safeguard policy Description of the policy
Environmental
Assessment
(OP/BP 4.01)
EAs should be conducted for all projects that fall into either World Bank Category A or Category B.
Natural Habitats
(OP/BP 4.04)
The conservation of natural habitat is essential for long-term sustainable development. The Bank
supports, and expects borrowers to apply, a precautionary approach to natural resources
management to ensure opportunities for environmentally sustainable development. The Bank does
not support projects that involve the significant conversion or degradation of critical natural
habitats.
Forests
(OP/BP 4.36)
The Bank's lending operations in the forest sector are conditional on government commitment to
undertake sustainable management and conservation-oriented forestry. In forestry areas of high
ecological value, the Bank finances only preservation and light, non-extractive use of forest areas.
Cultural Resources
(OP/BP 4.11)
Bank supports the preservation of cultural properties which includes sites with archaeological,
paleontological, historical, religious or unique natural values. It seeks to avoid impacts on such
sites.
Indigenous Peoples
(OP/BP 4.10)
This policy covers local indigenous people or distinct groups who are marginalized in society and
who could be adversely affected by the project. The Bank does not support projects that negatively
affect these groups.
Involuntary
Resettlement
(OP/BP 4.12)
This refers to people who have to be removed or those who lose their livelihood as a result of the
project. They have to be resettled, compensated for all their losses and they must be provided with
a situation that is at least as good as the one which they came from.
Pest
Management
(OP 4.09)
In Bank financing operations, pest populations are normally controlled through IPM approaches
such as biological control, cultural practices and the development and use of crop varieties that are
resistant or tolerant to the pest. The Bank may Finance the purchase of pesticides when their use is
justified under an under an IPM approach.
Safety of Dams
(OP/BP 4.37)
Bank financed new dams must be designed and built under the supervision of competent
professionals. Dams over 15m in height are of concern particularly if there is a large flood handling
requirement or if the dam is in a zone of high seismicity and/or where foundations and other
design features are complex.
Projects
In Disputed Areas
(OP/BP 7.60)
Projects in disputed areas could affect the relations between the country within which the project
is being developed and the neighboring countries. Disputes would be dealt with at the earliest
opportunity.
International
Waterways
(OP/BP 7.50)
If the project has the potential to negatively affect the quality or quantity of water of a waterway
shared with other nations the Bank will insist that a negotiated agreement be established between
the two or more nations involved. Irrigation, drainage, water and sewage, industrial and similar
projects that involve the use or potential pollution of international lakes or similar bodies of water)
Those safeguard policies that will be triggered by the project are shown in Table 4.
20
Table 4: World Bank safeguard policies triggered by the KCDP Safeguard Policies Triggered Yes No OP/BP 4.00
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01) X
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) X
Forests (OP/BP 4.36) X
Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11) X
Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10). X
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) X
Pest Management (OP 4.09) X
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) X
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP 7.60) X not eligible for piloting under OP 4.00
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50) X not eligible for piloting under OP 4.00
Environmental Category B – Partial Assessment
Following is a description of various project activities that would trigger the World Bank
Safeguard policies.
3.1 Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01). A full EA would not be required as the
Project will be designed to institute a participatory policy and planning framework at the local
government level to develop and oversee local development planning. The KCDP does support
rural economic development through assistance to MSMEs and a coastal village fund (CVF)
program to respond to basic needs of coastal communities. These projects may have site
specific negative environmental impacts as well significant cumulative impact if the process is
not well managed. These potential negative impacts could reduce the overall benefits of the
investment. In view of this risk, a design feature has been built into the KCDP to support spatial
planning at the district level (at 1:10,000 or better) that is participatory and environmentally
and socially-based. Building on sensitivity mapping initiative undertaken a few years ago by
KMFRI, KCDP will support a province-level land capability mapping exercise (to include use and
non-use associated with environmental, social and cultural values). Additionally, under the
leadership of NEMA, Integrated Coastal Management Planning will be carried out as a closely
related endeavor to ensure that potential negative environmental and social impacts are
addressed and mitigated. Larger investments such as coastal infrastructure which may be
supported by the project will be carried out after a full EA.
The CVF activities of the KCDP will be handled through the existing processes as currently
implemented by the ALRMP II district groups implementing CDD operations for that project.
The ALRMP is in its second phase and has an established record of efficiently including
evaluation of social, cultural and environmental issues in selection of proposals submitted for
CDD funding. This minimizes the risk that a new and separate evaluation system might have.
Conditionality in the KCDP legal agreements will include how CDD operations will be
implemented in the unlikely event that the ALRMP II closes before the KCDP. Legal agreements
for the KCDP will also cross reference relevant sections of agreements between the Bank and
the Government of Kenya, and include a Memorandum of Understanding between the two
projects that address transfer of funds to cover any additional costs and responsibilities
incurred by ALRMP.
21
3.2 Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04). About 50% of the marine coastal area is classified with
some form of protection. There are also national parks within coastal districts. Only a few of the
marine protected areas are under any form of active management or monitoring, and many of
these protected areas are severely degraded. The Project will undertake a review of these
gazetted areas to determine whether the current status should be maintained. Where
continued protection is needed, the Project will facilitate a sustainable and participatory
approach to improve their management. The assessment of current status of marine protected
areas will consist of collection of existing data for a data gap analysis under preparation grant
support. The indicated gaps in data (coral reef quality, no fish zones and their justification, etc.)
would then help in the design of studies and management effort in a rationalized protected
area program funded during implementation. The protected areas may be included in a
network that comprises MPA with no-take areas, MPA with partial protection, Co-managed
areas, privately managed areas and transfrontier cooperative areas. Given that tourism is
expected to be the engine of growth in Kenya over the next 20 years, the preservation of
unique natural habitat which is the basis for tourism is a priority. This preservation however,
needs to be balanced with the needs of the coastal communities and how they share in the
growth along the coast.
3.3 Forestry (OP/BP 4.36). The Project is very unlikely to have negative impacts on any
existing primary or mature secondary forest areas. There is however, potential for positive
environmental impact through improved land use planning, and enhanced monitoring and
enforcement including community co-management of forested areas. There is also a likelihood
that degraded or poorly producing agricultural land may be converted to forest crops (along
with intercropping). The integrated forest planning will conform to the participatory spatial
planning process to be instituted under the Project at the local government level (including off-
site environmental and social impact). There is however some potential for negative impacts
through the expansion of agriculture and livestock projects and charcoal making if demanded
and approved by the CVF. Careful monitoring will be needed to ensure that localized and site
specific impacts do not lead to significant cumulative impacts. The District level will need to be
sensitized to the KCDP tools of spatial planning, land capability mapping and ICM planning in
order to manage the type, scope, coverage, land use in component 3.
3.4 Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11). The Kenya coast is rich in historical and
archaeological sites, a reminder of centuries of Swahili culture. The ruins of mosques and other
buildings reflect different ensembles of Islamic architecture using lime, coral stone and timber.
The sites include mosques, groups of tombs located inside or outside city walls, mounds and
house walls representing the old city houses. Annex IV comprises a brief descriptions of the
main archaeological sites of significance along the Kenya Coast based on reports of the National
Museums of Kenya. Since the Project will be implemented within a framework of spatial
planning and land capability, there is only a small likelihood that cultural resources will be
impacted. On the positive side, the land capability study will aim to gather existing and new
knowledge of the cultural sites in order to plan the restoration and rehabilitation of any unique
cultural heritage site of national, regional or international importance within a project site. The
Project will provide the needed support (legal and physical in terms of works and services) to
the department of Museums and other relevant authorities for the protection and restoration
22
of important cultural heritage sites. In undertaking this task, the project needs to ensure
adherence to both the national and international (UNESCO) guidelines for restoration of
valuable cultural sites.
3.5 Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.01). Indigenous peoples OP has been triggered.
KCDP involves promotion of economic growth in the coastal areas through improved
governance of coastal and marine resources; better revenue generation through sound
monitoring, control and surveillance; enhance equity and reduce poverty through the
promotion of alternative income generating activities and MSMEs, and through provision of
access to credit, technology and services. KCDP will generate potential benefits to
vulnerable/marginalized groups and indigenous peoples’ groups and may also lead to some
impact on these groups. In this context, Indigenous People's Policy Framework (IPPF) has been
developed to guide intervention in this area. The purpose of the IPPF is to ensure that the
development process fully respects the dignity, rights, economies, and cultures of these
communities and that the project is able to gain broad community support of affected
indigenous peoples and other vulnerable marginalized groups.
KCDP will involve both positive and negative impacts for the indigenous people. Subprojects to
be financed under KCDP will be screened and if Indigenous Peoples is a factor in the subproject,
and subproject specific Indigenous Peoples Plans (IPP) will be prepared through a free, fair and
culturally appropriate manner. A Social Assessment (SA) is planned prior to all interventions
with IPs. This SA will provide information on practical measures in which the indigenous
peoples can be enabled to benefit from the project activities. Gender considerations will be
factored into the project implementation processes so that men and women among the
indigenous peoples are able to benefit. The SA will also identify best mechanisms that can be
adopted to address any grievances that may arise through project implementation.
3.6 Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12). Involuntary resettlement is not expected to be
an issue in the project. The project does not propose to regulate residency in protected areas
on either land and in marine areas. Rather, it would enlist cooperation by residents to assist in
managing protected areas. No new protected areas are expected to be created as a result of
the KCDP. But if new areas were to be created, they would be identified and developed in
cooperation with local communities along the lines of co-management. A World Bank’s “no
objection” would be required to include new protected areas within the KCDP, which would
trigger relevant Bank safeguard policies and assessments. Communities will become part of
Park management and protection (co-management) and agree to a management plan that they
will help develop.
KCDP is mainly a capacity building, prioritization, and exploratory phase of development that
focuses on co-management and sharing of operation of, and benefits from, protected areas.
Any resettlement proposed in a protected area in the Coast by a KCDP implementing agency
could become grounds for suspension of disbursements under KCDP. As such, there will be no
23
resettlement supported or required under the project. The Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP is
not triggered.
3.7 Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP 7.50). There are some issues related to
management of migratory and transboundary fish stocks between Kenya and Tanzania, which is
mainly related to the migration patterns of large pelagic fish such as tuna, bill-fish and shark.
Also there may be opportunities for transfrontier terrestrial conservation areas between
Tanzania and Kenya. Cooperation and joint monitoring possibilities are already being explored
and facilitated between the two countries with support from MACEMP and KCDP. A formal
Memorandum of Understanding between the two governments is planned to cover the scope
and areas of cooperation regarding assessment, monitoring and management of transboundary
issues. The issues may include offshore, inshore and terrestrial resource use (including "non-
use") and protection. The cooperation issues are being facilitated by SWIOFP which is the
regional partner for both Tanzania and Kenya. SWIOFP oversight at the “government” level is
through the legally constituted SWIOFC, and Kenya, Tanzania and all other countries of the
South West Indian Ocean are members of the Commission. Regular meetings at SWIOFC and
dialogue on transboundary issues in general and migratory fisheries in particular, provide a
forum for sharing information.
3.8 Borrower’s capacity to implement the safeguard policy recommendations
These agencies have a mandate to ensure sound management of natural resources and the
environment. However, very few agencies have Environmental Impact Assessment Units or EIA
officers. This means that their capacities for safeguard policies will need to be enhanced
through training. Environmental assessment will be overseen by the National Environmental
Management Authority (NEMA) which is also an implementing partner in KCDP. Safeguard
policies will be addressed as part of the planning process set out in the ESMF and IPF. The
capacity building and training requirements for the implementation of the recommendations of
the ESMF and IPF and for overall environmental management has been factored into the
capacity building program of the KCDP. With regard to component 3, these investments will be
subject to the environmental and social screening procedures of the Arid Lands project.
4.0 INSTITUTIONAL AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
The KCDP has been developed in close collaboration and partnership with the following
government agencies based at the coast: The Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI), Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), The Fisheries
Department, Coast Development Authority (CDA), The Ministry of State for Planning and
National Development and Vision 2030, the National Environment Management Authority
(NEMA), NGOs, private sector and communities. KMFRI has been the lead agency in the
preparation phase of this project.
24
Other partners include the South-West Indian Ocean fisheries project (SWIOFP), the activities of
which will focus on scientific knowledge management and related policy in deep sea fisheries of
international commercial interest. This information is very valuable to the implementation of
component 1 of KCDP. The Global Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for
Management Project, a global project which focuses on research on coral reef ecosystem
health that can inform policy and management decisions. Capacity building for science-based
management of coral reefs in developing countries is supported. The UNDP/GEF/UNOPS
supported Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Program which focuses
on filling the knowledge gap needed to inform the regional ecosystem-based approach to
sustainable management of resources in the two LMEs including regional ecosystem
monitoring.
The Arid Lands Resources Management Project (ALRMP II). Supported by the World Bank and
other partners, the ALRMP II builds on the successes of ALRMP I and aims to enhance food
security and reduce livelihood vulnerability in drought-prone and marginalized communities in
21 districts. The project supports natural resources and drought management, Community
Villafe Fund (CVF) and fostering an enabling environment for development in the arid lands
through policy, advocacy and research. The KCDP will form an alliance with ALRMP II and
provide funds to ALRMP II to deliver resources and services to coastal communities using the
same mechanisms and approaches that ALRMP II uses.
5.0 THE PROJECT AREA
Kenya’s coastline extends about 600 km along the seafront, from Somalia’s border at Ishakani
in the north (Longitude 1° 41’ S), to Tanzanian’s border at Vanga in the south (Longitude 4° 40’
S) (Figure 2). The coastal region stretches approximately 150 km inland from the seafront,
covering an area of 67,500 km2. This is about 11.5% of the total area of the Republic of Kenya.
With reference to the city of Mombasa, coastal zone of Kenya is often classified as either—
North Coast which extends from Mombasa to Kiunga, or the South Coast extending from
Mombasa to Vanga.
The coastal districts considered in this ESMF are the administrative districts of Kilifi, Kwale,
Lamu, Malindi, Mombasa, Taita Taveta and Tana River. The human population in Kenya’s
coastal region is relatively large compared to other regions in the country, with much of the
population concentrated around urban centers. According to the 1999 population and housing
census, the population of Coast province was 2,491,000, equivalent to about 8% of the national
population. This represented an increase of 54% from the 1989 census, when coastal
population stood at 1,621,918. Approximately 25% of the residents in the region reside in
Mombasa, 7% live in other urban centers, while the remaining 68% reside in the rural areas
(State of the Coast Report, 2008).
25
Figure 2: Map of the Kenyan coast showing the coastal districts and terrestrial protected areas
Population distribution at the coast is influenced by rainfall, altitude and agro-ecological area.
Administrative policy, through which a number of settlement schemes have been created also
influences population patterns. Most of the coastal urban centers are located in the vicinity of
26
estuaries, mangrove swamps and coral lagoons. The rapid growth in urban population thus
places significant pressure on the coastal environment and its resources (SOC). The high
population growth rate in Mombasa district is attributed in to migration of people from other
parts of the country in search of employment or business opportunities (SOC).
The coastal population in Kenya is culturally heterogeneous, with the largest indigenous
ethnicgroup being the Mijikenda, composed of nine sub-tribes: Giriama, Digo, Rabai, Duruma,
Kauma, Chonyi, Kambe, Ribe and Jibana. Other indigenous coastal ethnic groups are the Taita,
Pokomo, Bajuni, Orma, Sagala and Swahili, Watha and Boni. Due to its accessibility and socio-
economic dynamics, which offer ample opportunities for livelihoods and leisure, the Kenyan
coast has over the centuries attracted many different ethnic and racial groups (UNEP, 1998).
The unique characteristics of the coastal province were taken into consideration in the
development of this ESMF.
6.0 THE APPROACH OF THE KCDP IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The scoping process for all the impact assessed in this ESMF involved the following:
1. A review of the project appraisal documents and other preparatory documents
submitted to World Bank for the preparation phase;
2. A review of documents prepared for previous development projects, national policy and
strategy documents and research publications;
3. A review of regional programmes and conventions;
4. A review of international agreements that Kenya is party to;
5. Workshops with key stakeholders, government agency representatives and the World
Bank Task Team;
6. Observations from field stakeholder consultations.
Critical environmental, socio-cultural and institutional aspects were evaluated in light of the
potential impacts of the KCDP activities on them in order to ensure that issues of highest
impact were addressed in the Environmental Management Framework (ESMF). The activities of
the 4 project components were further evaluated for specific environmental and socio-
economic consequences. Thereafter, the ESMF was designed based on the mitigation activities
required for the identified areas of negative impacts of the project.
The areas of potential impact by the activities of KCDP are highlighted in Table 5.
27
Table 5: Areas of potential impact by the KCDP Impacts Priority (high,
moderate or
low)
Critical Marine & Coastal aspects
Coral Reefs Potential direct positive impacts.
Management of coral reefs is a priority investment area for KCDP. To be assessed jointly
under “natural habitats”
High
Seagrass Beds Potential direct positive impacts.
Management of seagrasses is a priority investment area for KCDP. To be assessed jointly
under “natural habitats”
High
Mangrove Forests Potential direct positive impacts.
Management of mangrove forests is a priority investment area for KCDP. To be assessed
jointly under “natural habitats”
High
Sandy beaches Potential direct positive impacts.
Management of sandy beaches is a priority investment area for KCDP. To be assessed
jointly under “natural habitats”
High
Important Bird Areas Potential direct positive impacts.
Management of Important Bird Areas is a priority investment area for KCDP. To be
assessed jointly under “natural habitats”
High
Coastal Forests
Potential direct positive impacts.
Management of Coastal Forests is a priority investment area for KCDP. To be assessed
jointly under “natural habitats”
High
Offshore Areas
Potential direct positive impacts.
Management of offshore habitats is a priority investment area for KCDP. To be assessed
jointly under “natural habitats”
High
Critical Socio-cultural aspects
Social Capital Potential direct positive (long-term) and negative (short-term) impacts.
• Identified for direct investment by KCDP
High
Human Capital Potential direct positive impacts.
• Priority investment area for KCDP – to be evaluated in the ESA within other identified
critical aspects (i.e. Critical Economic Aspects and Critical Institutional Aspects).
High
Vulnerable groups Potential direct positive (long-term) and negative (short-term) impacts.
• Identified for direct investment by KCDP
High
Cultural Property and
Antiquities
Potential direct positive and negative impacts Low
Human Health and Public
Services
Potential indirect positive impacts:
Improved food and economic security leading to improved health through investment in
other critical aspects.
Low
Critical Economic aspects
Artisanal and
Commercial Fisheries
Potential direct positive (long-term) and negative (short-term) impacts.
• Management of fisheries resource a prominent focus for KCDP.
High
Tourism Potential direct positive and negative impacts.
• Management of natural resources, on which tourism is directly dependent, a
prominent focus for KCDP. The over investment in hotels can result in potential negative
impacts through reduced acreage for other users
High
Mangroves and Coastal
Forest Resource Use
Potential direct positive (long-term) impacts and (short-term) negative impacts
• Management of mangroves and coastal forest resources is a prominent focus for KCDP
High
Mariculture/Aquaculture Potential direct positive and negative impacts.
• Management of coastal and marine environment is a prominent focus for KCDP
HIgh
Small-scale
microenterprise
investments
Potential direct positive and negative impacts depending on the enterprise
Improvement of livelihood through diversification of microenterprise opportunities
High
Valued Institutional Aspects
National and Local
Government
Potential direct positive and negative
Improved capacity to deliver on institutional functions; restricted capacity to participate
effectively in KCDP due to limited human resources
High
NGOs, CBOs, and Private
Sector
Potential direct positive impacts (increased engagement with government institutions) High
28
These critical aspects have been described in the baseline information of the Kenyan coast and
they were taken into consideration in the analysis of the potential impacts of the various
component activities.
7.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
7.1 The Physical Environment
A combination of winds large-scale pressure systems of the Western Indian Ocean and
monsoon winds interact to shape the climate of Kenya coast. The Monsoons blow from the
northeast between December and March and the southeast from May to October, with a 1 to 2
month transition periods characterized by variable and weaker winds. Mean annual rainfall
along the Kenyan Coast ranges from 500 – 900 mm on the North Coast to 1000 – 1600 mm in
the wetter areas south of Mombasa (UNEP, 1998).
Kenya’s coastline, characterized by a fringing coral reef running parallel to the coastline, from
Vanga to Malindi Bay (UNEP, 1998) has a continental shelf that is relatively narrow (about 5 to
10 km wide) with depths dropping to below 200m in under 4 km of the shoreline. The shelf is
sedimentary, dominated by fine sands, silt and mud derived from terrigenous sources (Obura,
2001). It has an area of about 19,120 km2, of which 10,994 km2 is considered trawlable (UNEP,
1998).The continental shelf serves as fishing grounds for thousands of local artisanal fishermen.
There are two rainfall seasons; the long rains (kusi) between March and May and the short rains
(kaskazi) usually between October and December. Mean minimum and maximum
temperatures at the Kenyan coast range between 24 °C and 30 °C. Mean monthly evaporation
ranges from 1650 to 2300 mm/year in the north to 1300 to 2200 mm/year in the south.
Relative humidity is consistently high throughout the year, peaking at 90% during the wet
months between April and July. There is a marked diurnal change in humidity, particularly in
Mombasa, where the moisture content of the air increases from around 60 – 70% in the
afternoon to 92 – 94% during the night and early morning (UNEP, 1998).
7.1.1 Coastal Geology and geomorphology
The coastal environment of Kenya is set in a passive continental margin, whose evolution was
initiated by the breakup of mega continent Gondwanaland in the Lower Mesozoic era. The
initial opening of the Indian Ocean was preceded by extensive faulting and down warping,
similar to that observed in the Modern Great Rift Valley of East Africa. These tectonic
movements formed a North–South trending depositional basin. During the Mesozoic era, this
marine basin was exposed to numerous marine incursions and by the Jurassic period, purely
marine conditions are thought to have existed. The coastal ranges such as Shimba and Taita
29
hills that run parallel to the coastal zone appear to have been uplifted through faulting during
this period (UNEP, 1998).
Throughout the Tertiary era, the coastal area experienced further faulting and extensive
continental erosion. In many areas the older Cretaceous deposits were totally removed. The
present coastal configuration, however, evolved during the Pleistocene era to Recent times, a
period marked by numerous fluctuations in sea level.
Sedimentary rocks dominate the coastal area and range in age from Triassic to Recent (UNEP,
1998). The Duruma sandstone series, the oldest formation, is represented by the Mariakani and
the Mazeras sandstones, which were deposited under sub-aqueous, deltaic, lacustrine or
possibly neritic conditions that prevailed before the opening of the Indian Ocean. The upper
Mesozoic is represented by marine limestone and shales, with occasional horizons of
sandstones and early limestone. Recent rocks comprise mostly marls and limestone, and are
represented by sandstones, clays, conglomerates and gravels, such as those found in the
Marafa beds. This well developed reef complex, consisting of coral reefs, coral rubble and
sandstone, is extensively exploited by the building industry (GoK 2008)
7.1.2 Drainage and hydrology
Two major rivers drain into the Indian Ocean in Kenya: River Tana and River Sabaki. River Tana
is longer, originating from Mt Kenya, a distance of about 850 km. It has a catchment area of
127,000 km2 and discharges an average of 4,000 million cubic meters of freshwater and 6.8
million tonnes of sediment annually, with peak flows occurring between April and June and
during November/December (GoK, 2008). The river enters the ocean at Kipini in Ungwana Bay.
About 30 km from its mouth, River Tana branches with its tributaries forming the Tana Delta.
The Athi-Sabaki River has its origin in the central highlands around Nairobi. When joined by
River Tsavo in its lower basin it is known as Galana River. The river enters the ocean north of
Malindi Town. The Athi-Galana-Sabaki system extends 390 km and drains a catchment area of
70,000 km2. The sediment load of the Athi-Sabaki has increased tremendously from 50,000
tonnes/year in the 1950s to the current rates, which range from 5 to 13 million tonnes/year.
This increase has been attributed to catchment degradation as well as an increase in the
capacity of the river to transport sediments to the coast (Kitheka et al., 2003). Current data
indicate that the of the annual freshwater discharge of the Athi-Sabaki River is 6 million
m3/year (Kitheka et al. 2003)
Other semi-permanent rivers at the coast include Mwachi, Kombeni, Tsalu, Nzovuni,
Mwachema and Voi, which drain into the coastal region from arid and semi-arid catchments. In
the South Coast the major rivers are Ramisi and Umba, discharging about 6.3 million m3 and 16
million m3 of fresh water into Funzi and Shirazi Bays respectively (UNEP, 1998). The Umba is
30
a transboundary river emanating from Usambara Mountains in Tanzania. Smaller rivers at the
South Coast include Mkurumuji and Kidogoweni, both entering the sea at Gazi Bay.
There are several lakes at the coast, especially in the Tana Delta. Most are oxbow lakes that are
recharged either through ground water seepage or by periodic flooding of the Tana River.
Examples are Lakes Shakabobo and Bilisa. Apart from providing water for humans and livestock,
the lakes are also important for freshwater fisheries.
Due to its geological structure which enhances infiltration, percolation and subsequent
recharge, Kenya’s coastal region has immense potential for groundwater resources. Most of the
rock formations have a shallow water table (between 20 and 30 m), with erratic yields of
varying salinity. The highest water quality is found in areas covered with Kibiongoni beds and
Magarini and Kilindini sands, e.g. the Tiwi area of the South Coast. Areas covered with Jurassic
shales and Pleistocene limestones tend to have low volumes of poor-quality water (Munga et
al., 2006).
7.1.3 Oceanography
There are four oceanic currents influencing Kenya’s coastal waters, namely the East African
Coastal Current (EACC), the Somali Current (SC), the Southern Equatorial Current (SEC) and the
Equatorial Counter Current (ECC) (UNEP, 1998). When it reaches the African coast at Cape
Delgado, the SEC diverges into two currents—the Mozambique Current, which flows
southwards, and EACC, which flows northward (UNEP, 1998; Obura, 2001).
The Somali Current and Monsoon winds both influence the distance the EACC travels up the
East African coast. During the South-East Monsoon, the EACC joins the Somali Current beyond
Malindi and flows northwards to the Horn of Africa. However, during the North-East Monsoon,
the EACC reaches only as far north as Malindi or Lamu, where it meets the opposing Somali
Current, the only current off the coast of Kenya that seasonally reverses its flow. The meeting
of the two currents causes upwelling, which is thought to be responsible for the high
productivity in the northern Kenyan coast (UNEP, 1998).
Sea surface temperatures are highest during the North-East Monsoon, averaging 28.4 °C
(maximum 29 °C) and lowest during the South-East Monsoon, averaging 26 °C (minimum 24
°C) (UNEP, 1998; Obura, 2001). Seasonal temperature variations decrease with increasing water
depth, with temperatures stabilizing at 6–7 °C and 2.5 °C at 1,000 and 2,000 m depth
respectively (Duineveld et al., 1997).
Salinity variation of the EACC waters is low, ranging between 34.5 and 35.4 ppt (UNEP, 1998).
31
This variation is primarily due to heavy rainfall between March and May and the associated
terrestrial freshwater runoff, as well as input from rivers. In estuaries and tidal creek systems
such as Gazi Bay, Mtwapa, Mwache/Port Reitz and Tudor, there are significant seasonal salinity
variations, particularly in the inshore waters. During the dry season, salinity can rise to 38 ppt
while in the rainy season, it can be as low as 19 ppt (Kitheka, 1996 a & b).
The Kenya coast experiences mixed semi-diurnal tides, with approximately two tidal cycles
every 24 hours. The reference port for tidal observations in Kenya is Kilindini (Port of
Mombasa), where the maximum tidal range generally does not exceed 3.8 m.
7.2 The Biological Environment
The Kenya coast is endowed with biodiverse coastal and marine ecosystems including
mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds, sandy beaches, sand dunes and terrestrial coastal
forests. These ecosystems are of immense economic and cultural value to coastal communities
and the nation at large (UNEP (1998). Table 6 shows the expanse of these critical habitats along
the Kenyan coast.
7.2.1 Mangroves
Mangroves are trees or shrubs growing in the intertidal areas of tropical and subtropical coasts
between high water and low water mark at spring tides. The area of mangroves in Kenya has
been estimated at between 50,000 and 60,000 ha (Doute et al., 1981, FAO, 2005); with 70% of
these forests occurring north of Tana river in Lamu and surrounding islands. All the nine
mangrove species reported in the region occur in Kenya with Rhizophora mucronata and
Ceriops tagal constituting 70% of the formation. The rare mangrove species are Heritiera
littoralis and Xylocarpus moluccensis.
Mangroves in Kenya have been heavily impacted by human activities particularly removal of
wood products, conversion pressure, and pollution (Abuodha and Kairo, 2001). Recent
estimate indicate a 20% decline in mangrove area over the last two decades (FAO, 2005).
Climate change impacts such as increased aridity, flooding and sea level rise is expected to
exacerbate loss of mangroves particularly in the low lying coastal areas (GoK, 2008).
7.2.2 Seagrass beds
Seagrasses are marine angiosperms with a worldwide distribution. In Kenya seagrass beds cover
a surface area of about 3,400ha, with the most important sites being Kiunga, Malindi,
Mombasa, and Diani-Chale. There are 12 species of seagrasses in Kenya, the dominant one
being Thallasondendron ciliatum which forms monospecific stands.
32
Seagrass beds provides habitats for commercial fisheries; as well as serving important foraging
grounds for endangered marine species such as dugongs and turtles. Factors leading to
seagrass degradation in Kenya include; physical dragging of fishing nets, pollution, and
herbivory. Climate change impacts seagrasses through increased discharge of sediment laden
low salinity water derived from flooded river systems (Uku and Björk, 2005). Degradation and
loss of seagrasses has negative impacts on the system’s productivity, biodiversity and food
security, leading to loss of livelihood and increased poverty among the coastal populations
(Ochiewo, 2004).
Table 6: Critical coastal and marine habitats in Kenya Ecosystem Area (ha) Recorded number of
species
Important locations
Mangroves 54,000 9 Lamu, Tana River, Mida, Funzi
Coral reefs 63,000 237 Diani-Chale, Kisite-Mpunguti
Seagrass beds 3,400 12 Diani-Chale, Kiunga, Malindi, Mombasa
Coastal forests 139,000 - Arabuko Sokoke, Shimba hills
Source: UNEP, 2008
7.2.3 Coral reefs
There are about 63,000ha of coral reefs in Kenya; containing altogether 220 species. Dominant
coral species in Kenya include Porites lutea, Galaxea astreata, and a broad diversity of species
in the genera Acropora, Pocillopora, Favia, Favites among others. The south coast at Diani-
Chale and Kisite-Mpunguti Marine Protected Areas contain the best reef development in Kenya.
Reduced reef development in the northern part of the Kenya coast is attributed to the large
areas of loose sediment and significant fresh water inputs via Tana and Athi-Sabaki rivers
(Obura, 2001; Spalding et al., 2001). Fringing reefs are also found off the Lamu Island and along
many of the barrier islands to the north.
Coral reefs provide habits for endangered species such as, such as turtles, dugong, whale sharks
and others. Their high biodiversity, high productivity and protection of the coastline from ocean
waves make them highly valuable ecosystems, as well as subject to many uses and threats.
Coral reefs support a nation-wide artisanal fishery dominated by local and migrant fishers using
simple fishing vessels and gears. Currently it is estimated that over 10,000 fishermen are
directly engaged in artisanal fishing in the Kenyan coast (Ochiewo, 2004). The landing from
artisanal fisheries ranges from 5,000 - 8,000t/yr, which is about 95% of the total marine catch
(Ochiewo, 2004).
7.2.4 Sandy beaches and sand dunes
Sandy beaches are found throughout Kenya’s coast, most notably along parts of the coastline
dominated by terrigenous sediment and without fringing reefs, between the Tana and Sabaki
rivers. The areas have high dunes generated by wind-blown sand from the beach. The largest
dunes occur along the Tana River Delta, reaching 50 m above sea level, with an area of 1300
km2. Sand dunes support a rich diversity of wildlife and other natural resources (Kairu and
Nyandwi, 2001).
33
Beaches are important habitats for species such as sea turtles, which lay their eggs in upper
beach environments, as well as shorebirds and migratory birds. However, because they are at
the fringe of land and sea and offer easy access to the sea, beaches have become areas of
intense economic activity, habitat modification and user conflicts. This has negative impacts on
vulnerable species like sea turtles, which spend parts of their life cycle on beaches.
7.2.5 Coastal forests
Kenya’s coastal forests are estimated to cover a surface area of 139,000ha, however, majority
of them are now degraded (Burgess and Clarke, 2000). These forests fall within the northern
range of the Zanzibar-Inhambane regional mosaic (White, 1983), an extensive biogeographical
unit stretching from the southern tip of Somalia to the southern coast of Mozambique.
The best protected coastal forests in Kenya (and the WIO region) are the Arabuko Sokoke (area:
41,000ha) and Shimba Hills system (area: 19 260ha). Other coastal forests exist as small patches
of forests or sacred grooves (e.g. Kaya’s) ranging from 10 ha to 2000 ha. The coastal forests
exhibit high levels of diversity and endemism; Arabuko for example is home to six rare and
endemic birds.
7.3 Cultural landmarks of the Kenyan coast
There are several historical and archaeological sites along the Coast province including old
mosques, tombs, mounds and walls of ancient city houses, many of them linked with the
development of the Swahili culture in East Africa. Historical sites include the Mombasa Old
Town, Lamu Old Town, Fort Jesus in Mombasa, Gede, Jumba la Mtwana among others (See
Annex IV).
Spread out along around 200km of the coast province of Kenya are ten separate forested sites,
mostly on low hills, ranging in size from 30 to around 300 ha, in which are the remains of
fortified villages, Kayas, of the Mijikenda people. They represent more than thirty surviving
Kayas. The Kayas began to fall out of use in the early 20th century and are now sacred sites that
serve as the repositories of spiritual beliefs of the Mijikenda.
34
7.3.1 Indigenous people
Some of the proposed activities of the KCDP will operate in areas where there could be impacts
on indigenous peoples (IPs) who are found in the coast of Kenya. Taking into consideration the
existence of the Watha, the Boni and others, who are present in some parts of Malindi, Tana
River, Lamu and possibly other districts, the project team has prepared an Indigenous People
Planning Framework (IPPF) that will guide the implementation of the projects specifically in
respect to the IPs localities (See Annex VI).
Two groups of indigenous peoples were considered in this assessment, the Watha and Boni
people. The population of Watha community in the districts is estimated at approximately
30,000 persons and they have experienced a change in livelihood from hunting of game and
wild animals to mixed farming. The Boni people are found in Ijara and Lamu district. Their
population is about 4,000 and they are a group of nomadic hunter-gatherers.
During project preparation, it became clear that KCDP will generate potential benefits to
vulnerable/marginalized groups and indigenous peoples’ groups and may also lead to some
impact on these groups. In this context, the Indigenous People's Operational Policy (OP 4.10)
will be triggered and in response the Borrower has prepared an indigenous people's process
framework (IPPF) to guide intervention in this area. The purpose of the IPPF is to ensure that
the development process fully respects the dignity, rights, economies, and cultures of these
communities and that the project is able to gain broad community support of affected
indigenous peoples and other vulnerable marginalized groups.
7.4 Socio-economic activities along the Kenyan coast
At the coastal region, the main livelihood activities are fishing, mangrove harvesting, and
tourism along the coast, while in the hinterland subsistence farming and livestock rearing
(pastoralism) are the major occupations. The economy in the urban centers derives mainly from
maritime and harbour activities, tourism and commerce.
The principal economic activities at the coast are: tourism (45%), ports and shipping (15%),
agricultural industry (8%), fisheries (6%), agriculture (5%), forestry (4%), and mining (2%)
(UNEP/FAO/PAP/CDA, 2000; McClanahan et al., 2005). The formal economy of the Coast
province is based on the service and industrial sectors. The informal sector, with vehicle repair
shops, second-hand clothing stalls, fruit and vegetable vending, shoe-shine and repair, hair and
beauty palours etc., also provides livelihood to a significant proportion of the coastal
population.
35
Industrial development, which was for many years confined to Mombasa district and its
environs, is now expanding towards the rural coastline and hinterland in other coastal districts
(GOK, 2002 a & b). It is hoped that this trend, together with the development of eco-tourism,
improvements to coastal and upcountry agricultural practices, intensified mining activities, and
enhanced access to social services in rural areas will work in concert to curb the high rate of
migration from rural to urban areas. Slower migration would serve to ease the pressure on
service delivery in the few developed urban centres, and make coastal environmental
management easier.
Agroforestry, involving the intercropping of coconut and cashew nut trees with maize, beans,
simsim and cassava, is also practiced, especially during the early stages of tree establishment
(UNEP, 1998). During the dry season when the inter-crops have been harvested, cattle are
brought in to graze among the trees. With this system, the income from cashew nuts and dairy
is higher than that from cashew nut trees alone.
The relatively higher-agricultural-potential areas, which constitute only 30% of the total coastal
area, are intensively farmed. High rates of population growth have driven farmers to encroach
into more marginal lands. Traditional shifting cultivation and slash-and-burn farming are
widespread, causing adverse impacts on some fragile ecosystems and biodiversity. The
challenges posed by these farming practices have not been adequately countered with better
soil conservation and water-use methods, among other mitigation measures. Land tenure is
also a serious issue for the farmers at the coast, since most of the land has not been
adjudicated. Most farmers lack title deeds that they could use as collateral to obtain credit to
develop their farms. Poor infrastructure also makes it difficult for farmers to take their produce
to the market at the right time. In general, producer prices for agricultural produce are also
very low, which serves as a disincentive for farmers who would modernize or expand their scale
of operation if prices were better (GoK, 2008).
Kenya’s marine capture fisheries play a crucial role in advancing food security, accounting for a
source of animal protein intake for the coastal communities as well as providing a direct and
indirect source of employment. Fishing activities are practiced by four distinct sectors: (i)
artisanal or small scale fishers concentrated inshore; (ii) industrial and semi-industrial fishers
who operate exclusively within the 12nm territorial waters, largely prawn trawlers; (iii)
recreational sport fishers and (iv) EEZ fisheries beyond the 12 nm mainly by foreign vessels.
Production has fluctuated from an annual average of 6,000 metric tonnes in the 70’s and 80’s;
peaking in 1990 at approximately 10,000mt and levelling off to an average of 7000mt currently
and is valued at KSh. 450 million by the department of Fisheries. The catch had been estimated
to represent about 8% of total fish production in the country (Sanders et al 1990), but has
rapidly declined to approximately 4% in recent years. Accurate estimates of the value of the
artisanal fishery are not available due to poor fishery statistics.
36
7.4.1 Artisanal Fisheries
The artisanal fishery is basically a subsistence fishery. Most of the fish caught is for direct
consumption and the surplus is sold to supplement the fishermen income. Ninety-five percent
of Kenya’s marine capture production is landed by artisanal fishers using simple gears and
vessels and a variety of fishing gears including gillnets, cast nets, handlines, traps, scoopnets,
reef seines, and longlines. Accurate estimates of the value of the artisanal fishery are however
not available due to poor fishery statistics. The number of fishers has been progressively
increasing and was estimated at 12,077 in 2008, thereby putting pressure on the fisheries
stocks. Only 10% of the fishing vessels used are motorized. The mode of propulsion is mainly
sails (43%) and paddles (38%) in dugout and outrigger canoes, planked sailboats, and dhows
(FiD 2008).
Fishing activities are also seasonal as they are affected by weather conditions. Higher catches
are generally experienced during the northeast monsoons (November to March) characterized
by warm temperatures, short rains, calm seas and high winds, when access to fishing grounds
becomes easier and fishing activity is highest. The SE monsoons (April to October) are
characterized by cool temperatures, long heavy rains and strong winds, when access becomes
restricted to a limited number of accessible fishing grounds (Obura, 2001). Consequently, the
fishermen are constrained to fish their activities in nearshore areas within coral reefs and
seagrasses. Spatial distribution of fishing activities along the coast is reflected in the distribution
of landing sites with 31% of all the landing sites in Kwale District in the South Coast, followed by
Mombasa (21%), Lamu (20%), Kilifi (13%), Malindi (11%) and Tana River (4%) (FiD, 2008).
Overexploitation of the inshore fisheries stocks has been indicated in a number of site specific
studies based on a variety of indicators including catch per unit effort, reduction in fish sizes,
loss of species diversity, alteration of species composition, disruption of food webs and
degradation of habitats (McClanahan et al 2008; McClanahan & Obura 1995; Mangi & Roberts
2007; Kaunda-Arara et al 2003). Destructive fishing practices such as the use of illegal gears
such as beachseines, spearguns and ringnets has become prevalent as the fishermen seek more
efficient but destructive methods due compensate for low catches. This is compounded by a
number of challenges in management of fisheries resources: a) open access in many fisheries;
(b) lack of control of fishing effort, combined with illegal fishing and light penalties; (c) limited
institutional frameworks to implement management regulations; (d) weak institutional
structures to promote sustainable fisheries; (e) unresolved resource use conflicts (i.e artisanal
versus commercial fishers); lack of a monitoring framework for assessment and management
that integrates social, bio-ecological and economic indicators; and inadequate enforcement of
policy and management measures to prevent negative impacts of fisheries activities;
The fishermen experience other economic constraints due to poor infrastructure in landing
facilities (electricity, cold storage, and road networks) resulting in high post harvest losses.
Underdeveloped market structures have also led to a domination of middlemen, limiting the
direct economic benefits to fishers. Lack of access to credit facilities enhances fishermen to use
destructive gears. Consequently, alleviating poverty among artisanal fishers at the coast is a
37
major issue of concern. Furthermore the challenges faced in the artisanal fisheries are likely to
be exacerbated by the effects of climate change; hence, the need to improve management of
inshore fisheries and to seek alternatives to alleviate fishing pressure on the declining inshore
fisheries through promotion of aquaculture/mariculture and diversification of fishing gear
technologies that are ecologically friendly. Improved data collection to support stock
assessments will enable development of appropriate and adaptive management plans that will
contribute to a sustained and well managed inshore fishery.
7.4.2 Commercial Fisheries
Inshore semi-industrial prawn trawling has been in existence since the mid-1970s and is carried
out in Ungwana Bay. This is the only area along the Kenyan coastline with suitable trawling
grounds and high biomass of shallow water prawns. The fishery mainly targets shallow water
prawns but they also catch other types of fish as a by catch. The average total annual tonnage
of prawns landed by the semi industrial prawn trawlers has been estimated to average at about
350 to 400 tonnes. The fishery has experienced a number of constraints due to ineffective
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) and a general deficiency in fundamental
data/information to monitor the stock dynamics, biomass estimates and fluctuations. As a
result there have been intense conflicts and concerns from environmentalists on the impacts of
the fishery. The main issues include: Flouting of spatial restrictions set by the Fisheries Act
resulting an overlap of fishing grounds with artisanal fishers and destruction or artisanal gears
by the trawlers; concerns over dwindling fish stocks from high rates of bycatch and ecosystem
disturbance. Further research and monitoring has been recommended to test the efficacy of
any changes in trawling regulations, to encourage the use of BRD’s and to investigate the
economic implications of existing management strategies critical to improving the sustainable
exploitation of the resources.
7.4.3 EEZ Fisheries
The Kenyan fishery waters of 200 nautical miles (Exclusive Economic Zone) has vast fishery
resources that are under-exploited by Kenyan nationals. The fishery potential has been
estimated to be between 100,000 and 140,000 with much of the potential being contained
within the highly migratory species (Habib 2002). The EEZ however highly unregulated due to
lack of monitoring, control, surveillance (MCS) capacity and resources. A number of foreign
tuna purse seiners and longliners are fishing either on access licenses with no obligations to
land, tranship or declare catches in the country or as IUU fishing vessels. This arrangement
limits the country’s benefits from its EEZ fishery especially from value-added activities
associated with transhipment and landings for processing. Improved management of EEZ
resources through enhanced MCS capacity will enable increased revenue generation to the
country.
8.0 IMPACT EVALUATION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS
The impact evaluation was based on an analysis of the impacts of the Project on the existing
environment as described in the baseline information. The existing conditions focused on
38
characteristics relevant to the potential project impacts within the temporal and spatial
boundaries defined for the project. The 4 year time frame of the KCDP was considered as well
as the potential areas in which the project activities would be undertaken. Not all project sites
have been defined and consideration was also given to overall coastal communities that would
be impacted directly or indirectly by the KCDP activities.
Under each project component activities with a likelihood of causing environmental and social
impacts have been summarized in the following tables. However for most project activities
these impacts would not be significant. Mitigation measures against most of these impacts are
possible, both at the project development stages as well as implementation stages, and these
will be implemented by the Project Management Team from the measures recommended in
the ESMF.
9.0 ANALYSIS OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES WITHIN
THE DIFFERENT SECTORS OF THE PROJECT
The proposed project activities within the 4 components cut across several sectors and the
nature of the impacts identified within the components was further investigated and mitigation
measures proposed. The broad sectors identified were the marine and coastal habitats, the
fisheries sector and indigenous people/vulnerable groups. This included both environmental
and socio-economic impacts.
The review of the positive and negative impacts of the proposed activities of the management
of fisheries resources are shown in Table 7.
39
Table 7: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities on Fisheries
Positive Environmental Impacts:
• Reduced negative impacts from fishing due to a
reduction in IUU fishing, enhanced compliance of
regulations in EEZ waters and improved
institutional capacity in implementing MCS
• Improved management of EEZ fisheries resources
• Sustained nearshore fisheries and associated
habitats as a result of improved efficacy of
fisheries resource management strategies and
diversification of livelihoods
• Improved understanding of resource status
through increased scientific baseline information
on selected fisheries stocks to feed into fisheries
management plans
Negative Environmental Impacts:
• Short-term impacts from mariculture activities on fish habitats
including solid waste production, sedimentation, stress on water
resources, sewerage/waste water production, depletion of wood to
process fish, changes in biodiversity, loss of vegetation and water
quality
• Upgrading of infrastructure at landing beaches will increase pressure
on fisheries resources
Positive Socio-economic Impacts:
• Improved revenue generation to the government
from fishing activities in EEZ through access
agreements and reduced IUU fishing
• Improved income generation and wealth creation
of fishery-dependent communities through
increased diversity of alternative income sources
• Economic empowerment of artisanal fishers
through added value to fish landings,
infrastructure development (cold storage,
electricity, access roads) improved access to fish
markets and improved health standards at landing
facilities
• Improved access to financial and extension service
for fisher folk will enable adoption of new fishing
technologies and other alternative livelihoods
facilitated by CVF. The benefits will vary
depending on activities
Negative Socio-economic impacts:
• Added costs incurred from implementing effective MCS in EEZ waters
• Short-term reduction in income as fishers transit to new less
destructive fishing methods and comply with management measures
(MPAs, MMAs, gear bans etc) as a result of improved enforcement
capacity
• Short-term localized resource use conflicts. This will vary depending
on the activities
• Short-term localized land use conflicts from aquaculture ventures
• Short-term distrust and unwillingness of local communities to
participate in proposes activities
• Theft of fish from ponds and general insecurity issues
Uncertainties, information gaps and data quality:
• Some baseline historical catch and effort information collected by various institutions is available. This information needs to
be collated and assessed to determine the quality for measuring the degree of change in stock status as a result of improved
management.
• Baseline quantitative information on IUU fishing incidences in Kenya’s EEZ is not available to measure projected increase in
compliance due to strengthening of MCS capacity and strategies.
• Use of new fishing technologies will depend on the willingness of fishers to adopt the methods
• Baseline information on existing alternative livelihood activities, their geographic locations and the income generated will be
needed to measure increased diversification and improvement in the livelihood benefits from the project activities.
• Historical baseline data on water quality and habitat status
Mitigation:
• Revise existing licensing fees and associated MCS frameworks to improve income generated from high seas fisheries in EEZ to
support added costs of MCS implementation
• Enhance effective monitoring and compliance of fisheries management measures (gear, fish size, mesh size, spatial and
temporal restrictions)
• Develop alternative non-destructive fishing methods to target fishery beyond the reef
• Develop standardized data collection and habitat monitoring protocols for collecting relevant ecological and socioeconomic
information to feed into development of adaptive fisheries management plans
• Build institutional capacity in fisheries research and monitoring through short and long term trainings
• Build co-management capacity to enhance commitment to good fishing practices and environmental management through
jointly developed co-management frameworks and strategies (including BMUs and MMAs)
• Develop resource centres to increase overall awareness of KCDP associated activities; and to strengthen interaction and
information sharing between stakeholders (managers, scientists, local communities, NGOs and government). This will build a
sense of ownership and understanding on the project objectives and activities and the anticipated potential impacts that may
require behavioural change
40
The review of the positive and negative impacts on the marine and coastal habitats is shown in
Table 8.
• Site aquaculture/mariculture demonstration projects away from vulnerable habitats and ensure efficient water treatment as
per NEMA standards
• Increase overall stakeholder awareness on all KCDP associated activities that will impact on fisheries and their habitats and
promote feedback among stakeholders through BMUs and MMAs to ensure adequate community participation in planning
and operation of the projects
• In areas where theft is an issue, security and awareness’ of benefits would be improved
• Where necessary, conduct EIA studies for projects that may have potentially adverse environmental or social implications
Monitoring and Evaluation:
The following data will be collected and monitored:
• Changes in CPUE, size structure and species composition of artisanal catches aggregated by gear type and target fishery
collected by KMFRI and various NGOs
• Frame Surveys
• Changes in income to fishers
• Changes in number, diversity and value of alternative livelihood investments among fisher communities developed through
the Community Driven Development Fund.
• Changes in revenue generated from EEZ fisheries
• Changes in water quality and benthic habitats
• Data from onboard observers
41
Table 8: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities on coastal and marine habitats
Positive Environmental Impacts:
• Delineation of CMAs and MMAs will lead to enhanced
ecosystem productivity through Improved conservation of
coastal and marine habitats (e.g. shoreline protection,
control of fishing effort, carbon sequestration, and control
of water quality) for effective delivery of ecosystem goods
and services
• Improved service delivery resulting from construction of
institutional offices
Negative Environmental Impacts:
• Habitat degradation from establishment of commercial
plots and woodlots
• General stress on water resources specific to construction
activities
• Air quality changes due to construction activities (aquarium
and offices)
• Solid waste pollution from construction activities (aquarium
and offices)
Positive Socio-economic Impacts:
• Development of existing and alternative livelihoods will
relieve pressure on exploitation of coastal and marine
resources.
• Development of alternative livelihoods improving income
levels
• Support for existing CMAs, MMAs and MPAs at Boni-Kiunga,
Marereni and Kuruwitu is likely to impact improve livelihood
benefits
• Pressure on natural resources will be alleviated from
established eco-tourism related activities.
Negative Socio-economic impacts:
• Changes in behavior due to delineation will result in social
impact through loss of the original livelihood and loss of
income during the transition period.
• Displacement of artisanal fishermen and subsistence
farmers will occur as a result of delineation of CMA, MMA,
MPAs
• Resource use conflicts may be prevalent after delineation
and enforcement of set boundaries
• General changes in land use leading to resource use
conflicts depending on the subproject activities
• Spread of HIV/AIDS and drugs abuse
Information gaps and data quality:
There are several risks and uncertainties related to the analysis presented in this section. These are
most importantly:
• Habitat destruction, biodiversity change and impacts on coastal and marine habitats - The lack of good baseline data makes it
difficult to assess real changes in biodiversity and impacts on marine life due to coastal forest degradation.
• Tourism value – The degradation of the coastal and marine habitats in general reduces their tourism, an aspect that has not
been studied.
• Threshold value - Marine ecosystem threshold values are currently unknown. Phase shifts in coral reefs, in particular, are
well-documented in other regions. It is probable that dugong populations are currently nearing or have fallen below the
minimum viable population size.
Mitigation:
• Conduct environmental screening and for all alternative livelihood projects under KCDP/ALRMPII prior to approval to help
ensure activities operate within acceptable environmental limits. Should the findings reveal some potential for significant
negative environmental impact the EIAs should be done.
• Facilitate effective assistance should be ensured at the village level during the preparation of mitigation plans and the
development of proposals for funding under the Coastal Village Fund to encourage appropriate community choices
• Construct structures on land that is marginal and not of high biodiversity away from areas of traditional water use
• Locate constructions on sites that do not require resettlement to reduce potential conflicts with other land uses
• Provide protective clothing should be provided for those undertaking constructions
• Construction waste should be properly disposed in landfill areas
• Provide waste management facilities at the construction sites
• Campaigns on HIV/AIDS behavior change and drug use
42
Monitoring and Evaluation
The following indicators should be measured and monitored:
• Livelihood activities at the village level, focusing on the collection of information on the spatial intensity of coastal and
marine resource use by ecosystem type as an indicator of the pressure on the resource.
• Health of coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangrove forests within CMAs, MMAs and MPAs (specific measures to be
determined).
• Assess and monitor any health and safety risks to workers as a result of dust, fumes, odours, or pollutants.
• Water, sediment quality analyses
• Monitor handling and storage of effluents and waste materials
• Assess changes in income to local communities
• Assess changes in number, diversity and value of alternative livelihood investments among local communities
developed through the CVF.
• Assess and monitor human development indices and tourist revenue
The review of negative and positive impacts of project activities on is shown in MSMEs sector in
Table 9.
43
Table 9: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities in the MSME sector
Positive Environmental Impacts:
• Strengthening mango, cashewnut, coconut, honey,
aloe and jatropha cottage industries through the use
of appropriate technologies and incentives will lead to
improve land use of marginal areas and reduce habitat
degradation
• Improved Food security through value addition
Negative Environmental Impacts:
• Depending on the type of cottage industry, activities may have
impacts on environment including solid waste production,
sedimentation, soil erosion, stress on water resources,
sewage/waste water production, noise, changes in biodiversity,
loss of vegetation and water quality degradation. Too many
cottage industries in one locality would have a high cumulative
impact.
• Displacement of indigenous subsistence crops
• Construction of resource centers may lead to habitat
degradation, stress on water resources, air quality and solid
waste pollution
Positive Socio-economic Impacts:
• Cottage industry based activities will result in
improved revenue generation to local communities
and the government from sales and taxes
• Improved access to credit will help small scale
entrepreneurs and lead to economic empowerment
resulting in increased revenue, reduced poverty levels,
employment opportunities including self employment
• Public awareness campaigns on environmental issues
will lead to enlightened public on environment
management issues
Negative Socio-economic Impacts:
• Short-term localized land use conflicts may occur as a result of
siting of the industries
• Possibilities of the enterprises creating congestion, displacement
of people, obstruction of sidewalks or other pathways, or road
traffic.
• Usually men are able to provide counterpart funds needed to
access CVF grants thereby hindering access by women and youth
• Localization of industries in urban areas, close to access roads
would meant that hinterland communities remain marginalized
• Spread of HIV/AIDS
Information gaps and data quality:
• Some baseline data and information is available from various institutions. This information needs to be updated, collated and
assessed to determine the current status
• Use of new fishing technologies will depend on the willingness of fishers to adopt the methods
• Baseline information on existing alternative livelihood activities, their geographic locations and the income generated will be
needed to measure increased diversification and improvement in the livelihood benefits from the project activities
• Historical baseline data on water quality and habitat status
Mitigation:
• Promote community involvement and training on environmental management skills to provide micro-entrepreneurs
with useful information and general guidance on how to improve the environmental performance of their enterprises
• Ensure that microenterprise activities are not contributing to any unacceptable environmental impacts from activities
such as the clearing of primary forests, wetlands or critical wildlife habitat, or the unsustainable intensification of
agriculture
• Wherever possible, locate the micro-enterprise as close as possible to waste treatment facilities and use preventive
measures such as the reuse of wastewater. In cases where wastewater cannot be eliminated, ensure that water
sources are able to absorb effluent discharges
• Explore the possibility of using more green energy sources such as wind and solar energy to generate electricity
• Put in place management plans for raw materials (e.g., wood, potable water, and fuel) and adequate storage facilities
• Although a use for most waste residue in food processing activity is usually found at the micro-enterprise level, there
may be exceptions. Avoid burning waste as this contributes to air pollution. Ensure that any waste residue that is
generated is used in some other productive activity such as making compost or providing feed to poultry or other
animals
• Ensure that location of cottage operations do not threaten wildlife, green space or sensitive ecosystems.
• Ensure that stagnant waters do not build up around the food processing operations through provision of appropriate
drainage structures
• Site the operations in such a way that minimizes the impacts of noise, odours, and pollutants
• Provide easy access to local health facilities
• Ensure that micro-entrepreneurs and workers are aware of health and safety risks and establish a workplace safety
strategy with micro-entrepreneurs and workers. Promote the use of appropriate gear (masks, gloves, and ear plugs
and ensure proper ventilation)
• Incorporate environmental management systems in the enterprises and increase overall awareness on all KCDP
associated activities that will impact on environment and promote feedback among stakeholders through BMUs and
MMAs to ensure adequate community participation in planning and operation of the projects
• Ensure that the enterprise is not contributing to congestion, displacement of people, obstruction of sidewalks or other
44
The review of positive and negative impacts of project activities on indigenous people is shown
in Table 10. Indigenous Peoples who reside in the Malindi, Tana River and Lamu districts in
Kenya are the focus of this analysis.
pathways, or road traffic
• Ensure that there is gender equality in the distribution of CVF funds and new technologies
• Ensure that there is outreach to hinterland communities
• Ensure that there is outreach to all levels of the community through the media and religious centers
• Ensure that HIV campaigns are integrated into the training of communities in new technologies
• Where necessary, conduct EIA studies for projects that may have potentially adverse environmental or social
implications
Monitoring and Evaluation:
The following data will be collected and monitored:
• Assess and monitor any health and safety risks to workers as a result of dust, fumes, odours, or pollutants.
• Water, sediment quality analyses
• Monitor handling and storage of effluents and waste materials
• Assess changes in income to local communities
• Assess changes in number, diversity and value of alternative livelihood investments among local communities
developed through the CVF.
• Assess and monitor human development indices
45
Table 10: Assessment of potential impacts of project activities on indigenous people
Positive Environmental Impacts:
• Better appreciation of the value of indigenous
ecosystems, thus providing a stronger case for their
conservation
• Improved understanding of status natural resources
through increased scientific baseline information that
can feed into management plans
Negative Environmental Impacts:
• Areas identified as ESAs and proposed for conservation may cover
areas currently utilized by IPs. This may affect their livelihood.
• Conservation goals may conflict with current livelihood activities
practiced by the IPs
• Short-term impacts from construction of buildings and upgrading
of infrastructure
Positive Socio-economic Impacts:
• Livelihood enhancement and diversification by giving
support to increased adoption of livelihood
diversification opportunities
• Efficiency in delivery of services
• Improved employment and income generation
through alternative income sources, improved value
chains and fish quality.
Negative Socio-economic Impacts:
• Likely loss of cultural values if and when IPs adopt new livelihood
opportunities
• As the IP are marginalized, there is a risk that they are not invited
to participate in the spatial planning process which may further
aggravate their economic marginalization
• IPs may be influenced to change from their customary livelihood
sources and this may dilute cohesion among them and may result
in loss of cultural values
• New livelihood opportunities may conflict with current options
for IPs
• As the IP are marginalized in the decision making process and
their specific needs unknown to decision makers, there is a risk,
that CVF-projects proposed by them do not receive funding
• Short-term localized resource use conflicts as a result of improved
enforcement of management measures
• Spread of HIV/AIDS
Information gaps and data quality:
• Baseline information on existing alternative livelihood activities, their geographic locations and the income generated will be
needed to measure increased diversification and improvement in the livelihood benefits from the project activities.
Mitigation:
• IPs to be involved in the spatial planning process comprehensively and areas of conflict consultatively identified and options
explored and agreed on
• Capacity building of IPs to take advantage of new livelihood opportunities that are promoted by this project
• Construction of cultural centers to preserve culture of IPs
• Consultatively recommending use limits/carrying capacities of fragile eco-tourism/ indigenous sites
• Campaigns on HIV/AIDS behavior change
Monitoring and Evaluation:
The following data will be collected and monitored:
• Data social and economic characteristics of the Indigenous Peoples of the coast of Kenya
• Data on changes in income generated to the Indigenous Peoples from the various interventions and strategies proposed
• Number, diversity and value of alternative livelihood investments among Indigenous Peoples
• Value added (national level) of the commercial harvesting and processing sector.
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (EMF)
The EMF for this project is presented for the different components in Table 11. This covers
negative impacts of project activities, provides mitigation measures and recommendations for
monitoring.
46
Table 11: Environmental and Social Framework for the KCDP Project
components
Project Activities Negative Environmental
and Social Impacts
Indicators Mitigation measures Recommended
Monitoring methods
Comments
Management
of Fisheries
Resources
MCS capacity and
monitoring in EEZ
Review of MCS
Framework
Building of MCS
capacity
Access rights
• None • Revenue generated
from licensing
• Number of vessels
licensed
• Feedback from VMS
• Remote sensed data
• None • Changes in revenue
generated from
licensing
• Changes in number of
vessels licensed
• Quality of remote
feedback from VMS
• Data from on-board
observers
None
Fish storage,
processing, and
marketing in landing
beaches
• Increased loss of local
forests to fuel fish
processing activities
• Stress on water resources
• Biodiversity loss
• Air quality (Odours during
fish processing)
• Solid waste generation
• Sewerage/waste water
generation
• Deforestation
• Change in fish species
diversity
• Changes in income
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Reforestation to curb loss
of vegetation cover
• Enhance monitoring to
ensure compliance of
banned fishing gear
• Development of
environmentally friendly
alternative fishing gears
• Planting fast growing trees
for fuel wood to support
aquaculture/mariculture
ventures
• Introduction use of solar
fish driers to reduce
dependence on wood
• Ensure proper siting and
design of waste disposal
facilities
• Develop standard hygiene
protocols
• Treat waste water
efficiently to meet
standards set by NEMA
• Assessment of changes
in gear use
• Monitoring fuel sources
used during fish
processing
• Assessment of water
quality
• Prevalence of
waterborne diseases
from unmanaged wastes
Full EIA study is required
for the construction of fish
storage and processing
facilities
Aquaculture/Maricult
ure research and
demonstration
• Habitat degradation
• Stress on water resources
• Biodiversity loss
• Increased salinity
• Soil and ground water
contamination
• Changes in biodiversity
richness
• Changes in ecosystem
composition
• Water quality
degradation
• Site demonstration projects
away from vulnerable
habitats such as mangroves
• Ensure good pond design
and construction to avoid
abandonment due to
• Water quality analysis
• Monitoring of disease
carriers and occurrences
and taking corrective
measures where
necessary
Full EIA study is necessary
to identify all the negative
impacts of the
aquaculture/mariculture
activities
47
• Solid waste pollution
• Sewerage/waste water
generation
• Stress on water resources
• Land use conflicts
• Theft of products
• Dumpsites of waste
material
• Waste/water related
disease vectors
• Increased effluents
• Social conflicts due to
unclear resource/land
ownership and lack of
trust
• Theft of stock from
ponds
salinity
• Ensure adequate
community participation in
planning and operation of
the projects
• Ensure good
communication & feedback
from communities through
establishing resource
centers
• Establish ponds away from
areas of traditional water
use
• Treat waste water
efficiently to meet
standards set by NEMA
Avoid project sites that are
controversial requiring
resettlement or increasing
conflicts with other land
uses
• Establish land /resource
ownership before start of
projects
• Ensure community
participation and
recognition of rights of all
participants
• Ensure sufficient security in
demonstration and pilot
sites
• Feedback meetings with
communities
• Socio-economic
assessment reports
Land suitability mapping
of the coastal region is
inbuilt in the project
design and it would be
used to identify sites for
aquaculture/mariculture
Hatchery
constructions
• Habitat degradation
• Stress on water resources
• Increased salinity
• Sewerage/waste water
generation
• Change in biodiversity
richness
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Water use/supply
conflicts
• Increased effluents
• Waste water related
disease vectors
• Establish demonstration
projects away from
vulnerable habitats such as
mangroves
• Ensure adequate
community participation in
planning and operation of
the projects
• Establish fish ponds away
from areas of traditional
water use
• Water quality analysis
• Monitoring of disease
carriers and occurrences
and taking corrective
measures where
necessary
• Feedback meetings with
communities
Full EIA study is necessary
to identify all the impacts
of the hatcheries
48
• Treat waste water
efficiently to meet
standards set by NEMA
Artemia processing • Habitat degradation
• Stress on water resources
• Biodiversity loss
• Increased salinity
• Soil and ground water
contamination
• Change in biodiversity
richness due to
increased salinity
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Increased effluents
• Increased nutrient
loads
• Establish demonstration
projects away from
vulnerable habitats such as
mangroves
• Treat waste water
efficiently to meet
standards set by NEMA
• Water quality analysis
• Monitoring of disease
carriers and occurrences
and taking corrective
measures where
necessary
• Feedback meetings with
communities
Artemia processing should
be done in already
existing salt ponds
therefore Environmental
Audits should be
conducted
Stock assessments • None • Changes in CPUE,
• Change in size structure
and species
composition of catches
aggregated by gear type
and target fishery
• Data from frame
surveys
None • Ecological assessments
reports
• Stock status reports
• Field Repots
• Technical Reports
None
Gear technology
adoption (including
FADs)
• Potential conflicts
between resource users
(artisanal vs sport fishers
etc)
• Changes in gear use
• Changes in species
composition
• Collect baseline data to
monitor changes
• Engage relevant
stakeholders in awareness
campaigns and feedback
• Ecological and social
assessment reports
• Technical Reports
None
Spatial mapping of
fishing grounds and
landing beaches
• None • None • None • Maps produced and
integrated into spatial
plans and general
fisheries management
None
Management
of Natural
Resources
Delineation of CMA
and MMA in
Kuruwitu, Marereni,
Witu
• None • None • None • None None
Construction of
offices and
information centers
• Habitat degradation
• Stress on water resources
• Air quality
• Solid waste pollution
• Land use conflicts
• Change in biodiversity
richness
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Water use/supply
conflicts
• Air quality degradation
• Dumpsites of waste
material
• Waste related disease
• Construction should be
done on land that is
marginal and not of high
biodiversity
• Site offices away from areas
of traditional water use
• Avoid office locations in
sites that require
resettlement, conflict with
other land uses
• Feedback meetings with
communities
• Sample analysis and
assessment reports
Full EIA study is necessary
to identify all the impacts
of the construction
49
vectors • Provide protective clothes
for those undertaking
constructions
• Ensure that construction
waste is properly disposed
in landfill areas
• Provision of waste
management facilities
Construction of Boni-
Dondori internal
reserve road
• Habitat degradation
• Soil erosion
• Biodiversity loss
• Air quality
• Sewage/waste water
generation
• Change in biodiversity
richness
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Changes in air quality
• Increased effluents
• Water related disease
vectors
• Construction not to be sited
on land that is marginal or
low in biodiversity
• Reforestation and re-
vegetation to curb soil
erosion
• Provision of waste
management facilities
• Vegetation cover
determination
• Sample analysis and
assessment reports
Full EIA study is necessary
to identify all the impacts
of the roads
Establishment of
commercial crops &
woodlots
• Soil and ground water
contamination
• Increase in crop/plant
vulnerability
• Loss of productive
agricultural land
• Socioeconomic impacts
such as land and water
user rights
• Ecosystem alteration due
to large scale
monocultures
• Spread of pests and
diseases
• Change in biodiversity
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Change in soil nutrient
loads
• Identify appropriate tree
species that are adapted to
the ecological conditions
• Strike a balance between
crop farming and
cultivation of trees
• Prepare land capability
maps to show productive
agricultural areas that
would be avoided
• Use standard agro-forestry
techniques
• Use marginal land for
woodlots
• Water and soil sample
analysis and assessment
reports
Full EIA study is necessary
to identify all the impacts
of the woodlots and
commercial crops
Land suitability mapping
of the coastal region is
inbuilt in the project
design and it would be
used to identify sites for
the establishment of
woodlots and commercial
crops
Aquarium
construction
• Habitat degradation
• Stress on water resources
• Biodiversity loss
• Air quality
• Solid waste pollution
• Sewerage/waste water
generation
• Introduction Invasive
species
• Change in biodiversity
richness
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Air quality degradation
• Increased effluents
• Waste water related
disease vectors
• Site the aquarium away
from vulnerable habitats
such as mangroves
• Develop a policy to stock
the aquarium with local
species
• Provision of protective
clothes for those
undertaking constructions
• Provision of waste
management facilities
• Develop waste
• Vegetation cover
determination
• Water sample analysis
and assessment reports
• Solid waste
management
Full EIA study is necessary
50
management systems to
ensure efficient effluent
and waste water treatment
to meet standards set by
NEMA
Support for
Alternative
Livelihoods
Development of
terrestrial value
chains (e.g. cottage
industries)
• Stress on water resources
• Air quality
• Solid waste pollution
• Sewage/waste water
generation
• Short-term localized
landuse conflicts
depending of siting of
industries
• Possibilities of the
enterprises creating
congestion and
displacement of people,
obstruction of sidewalks
or other pathways, or
road traffic
• Gender inequality
• Lack of access of
hinterland communities to
CVF and new technologies
and benefit sharing
• HIV impacts on
community health and
productivity
• Water use/supply
conflicts
• Air quality degradation
• Dumpsites of waste
material
• Increased effluents
• Waste related disease
vectors
• Concentrations of
cottage industries in
specific areas
• Biased gender
representation in
established industries
• Change in HIV statistics
in the areas targeted
for cottage industries
•
• Site the operations to
minimise the impacts of
noise, odours, and
pollutants.
• Do not site operations in
areas that threaten wildlife,
green space or sensitive
eco-systems.
• Make provision for access to
health facilities
• Use gas scrubbers and
highly raised chimneys in
factories established
• Develop waste
management systems to
ensure efficient effluent
and waste water treatment
to meet standards set by
NEMA
• Ensure that any waste
residue is used in some
other productive activity
such as making compost or
providing feed to poultry or
other animals.
• Promote community
participation and train on
environmental
management skills
• Ensure there is
dissemination of project
information widely across
all community groups using
religious institutions
• HIV awareness campaigns
• Apply screening (see
check list in this ESMF) to
ensure that activities
comply with EIA
guidelines and best
practices
• Monitor of disease
carriers and occurrences
and taking corrective
measures where
necessary
• Monitor gender
participation in the
cottage industries
• Monitor HIV cases
reported
The check list applies to
small community projects
and EIA’s will only be
required where there are
sufficient affirmative
responses in the check list
to cause concern about
the proposed
development
Business
development services
• None • None • None • None None
51
Financial services to
MSME
• None • None • None • None None
Private public
partnership
• None • None • None • None None
Construction of
resource centers
• Habitat degradation
• Stress on water resources
• Air quality
• Solid waste pollution
• Land use conflicts
• Change in biodiversity
richness
• Change in ecosystem
composition
• Water use/supply
conflicts
• Air quality degradation
• Dumpsites of waste
material
• Construct structures on
land that is marginal and
not of high biodiversity
• Avoid building the
structures in sites that
require resettlement or
conflict with other land
uses
• Site the structures away
from areas of traditional
water use
• Provide protective clothes
for those undertaking
constructions
• Ensure that construction
waste is properly disposed
in landfill areas
• Ecological assessment
reports
• Socioeconomic
assessment reports
• Visual observation
Full EIA study is necessary
Renovation &
equipping provincial
& district offices
• Air quality
• Solid waste pollution
• Air quality degradation
• Dumpsites of waste
material
• Provide protective clothing
for those undertaking
constructions
• Ensure that construction
waste is properly disposed
in landfill areas
• Visual observation
None
Project
Management
Team
Construction of office
block
• Air quality
• Solid waste pollution
• Water use/supply
conflicts
• Air quality degradation
• Dumpsites of waste
material
• Provide protective clothing
for those undertaking
constructions
• Avoid building the
structures in sites that
require resettlement or
conflict with other land
uses
• Ensure that construction
waste is properly disposed
in landfill areas
• Visual observation
• Assessment of solid
waste management
Full EIA study is necessary
52
11.0 SCREENING OF SMALL PROJECTS
This section of the ESMF describes the screening process for small projects. These are projects
that are community driven and replication of such small project would have a cumulative
negative impact. Such small projects would be required to fill in the screening checklist during
the application process for the implementation of their project. The screening checklists
recommended for KCDP have been adopted from the MACEMP project (Annex V).
The goals of monitoring are to measure the success rate of the project, determine whether
interventions have resulted in dealing with negative impacts, whether further interventions are
needed or monitoring is to be extended in some areas. The implementation of mitigations will
be by the Lead Agencies while NEMA, which a project partner, is expected to play an oversight
role by ensuring that the environmental management plans are adhered to. This is expected to
be done by regular site visits for inspection of activities being undertaken by the project.
All the implementing agencies identified under this project, will monitor the specific
components of the KCDP project that they are targeted to execute. They will be required to
prepare periodic monitoring reports for submission to the project office. Consultations will be
done with local communities to ensure that they are part of the monitoring process. Local
communities in the project intervention areas will receive training in compliance and
governance to enable them effectively manage their resources.
12.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As noted in Tables 7 – 10 of this report, there are several types of environmental impacts: (a)
clearly positive environmental impacts; (b) environmental impacts of a transboundary nature;
(c) localized minor environmental impacts from micro-projects; (d) cumulative environmental
impacts from large numbers of those projects concentrated in an area; and (e) clearly negative
environmental impacts or social impacts that need to be mitigated. Tables 7 - 10 provide a
detailed evaluation of positive and negative impacts of project activities and possible mitigation
measures. The following table (Table 12) provides a brief analysis of the type of environmental
impact, examples of potential impacts and the Safeguard Policies that may be triggered.
53
Table 12: Environmental and Social Framework for the KCDP Type of
environmental
Impact
Examples of potential impacts Safeguard
policies that
may be
triggered
Positive
• Reduction of the threat of collapse of valuable migratory fisheries from improved vessel
monitoring systems (VMS) and monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) and more efficient
licensing system for the commercial fisheries in Kenya’s EEZ
• improved legislative and institutional framework for marine and coastal and terrestrial areas
and biodiversity resources management;
• reduction of post harvest loss through training and technology for value addition and waste
minimization
• restoration of degraded ecosystems
• improved environmental governance including capacity building for enforcement, compliance
and monitoring
• spatial planning, identification of sensitive areas, land capability mapping and integrated
coastal management all aimed at promoting an integrated institutional approach in the
identification and design of activities and influencing the type, scope and area of operations
to avoid sensitive areas
Transboundary
Besides the positive environmental impacts mentioned above from improved MCS,
transboundary impacts include:
• Illegal fishers from neighboring nations fishing in Kenya’s territorial waters without a license
(illegal fishing by artisanal fishers from Tanzania; and Somali pirates exploiting the rich fishing
grounds near the northern border with Somalia)
• Distant water fishing nations exploiting the migratory fisheries in the sub-region illegally
negatively impact the provisions of the un convention of the law of the sea, the un
convention on biodiversity and the FAO code of conduct
Projects on
international
waterways
(OP/BP 7.50)
Localized
and
Cumulative
• Support for artisanal fishing, small scale quarrying, charcoal production, agriculture where
land or forest is cleared, small scale irrigation, borehole construction, small scale roads
• These activities may have negative environmental impacts of a localized nature. However,
depending of the scope of the support, the cumulative impact could be quite significant.
• Each micro-project will need to be screened and the type of mitigation measure evaluated.
Resources will need to be committed to implement the mitigation action
Environmental
assessment
(OP/BP 4.01)
Natural habitats
(OP/BP 4.04)
Forests
(OP/BP 4.36)
Cultural
resources
(OP/BP 4.11)
Indigenous
peoples
(OP/BP 4.10)
Potentially
Negative
Environmental
and
Social
Impacts
• Restriction of access to fisheries through improved management of the marine conservation
areas
• Short-term reduction in income to artisanal fisheries engaged in illegal or unsustainable
fishing activities due to strengthened MCS
• Development impacts from sub-project investments from CVF (covered above
• cumulative impact of many new MSME near environmentally sensitive areas that are
undertaking similar activities
• Restriction of access to livelihoods of indigenous people through project activities. [The
Involuntary Resettlement safeguard is not likely to be triggered because no new MPAs will be
created; and any new conservation areas will be community conservancies or co-managed
conservancies where access to resources will be agreed upon by the communities.]
Environmental
Assessment
(OP/BP 4.01)
Natural Habitats
(OP/BP 4.04)
Forests (OP/BP
4.36)
Cultural
Resources
(OP/BP 4.11)
Indigenous
Peoples (OP/BP
4.10)
Involuntary
Resettlement
(OP/BP 4.12)
54
Recommendations
• During the preparation of the ESMF and IPPF, an evaluation was made of the existing
legal framework and institutional structure for monitoring and identifying mitigation
measures to minimize environmental and social impacts. The framework is deemed to
be adequate. However, the capacity of almost all participating agencies to monitor the
safeguard policies is inadequate and requires strengthening during the first year of the
project. Additionally, while at the present moment the monitoring capacity may be
adequate, when the KCDP is initiated, the work load for the participating agencies will
increase considerably. In that situation, the monitoring capability is likely to be strained.
In the sister project to the KCDP, the Tanzania Marine and Coastal Environmental
Management Project (MACEMP), Safeguards Specialists were engaged by both sides of
the Union, Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. Their responsibility is to routinely monitor
project activities for their impact on safeguard policies and the identification of
mitigation measures and report to the Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist who would
enter these inputs into the main monitoring data base. An arrangement similar to the
one in the MACEMP is recommended to ensure that the benefits from the project do
not lead to long term negative environmental or social impacts.
• Sound mitigation measures that respond to the Safeguard Policies of the World Bank
and the provisions of the environmental and other sector regulations are integrated into
the design of the KCDP. Examples include (i) the environmental screening procedures
that will be applied during the PRA’s to identify impacts and recommend mitigating
measures;(ii) Participatory spatial development plans implemented at the “local
government” level. The spatial plans will allow for cost efficient and proactive
management of any cumulative impact resulting from KCDP-induced MSME growth; (iii)
Land Capability mapping to identify vulnerable areas to influence the types and scope of
the project interventions; and (iv) Integrated Coastal Management planning to ensure
that environmental and social impacts are minimized.
• It is recommended that the Information and Communication Strategy should integrate
the findings of the spatial planning, land capability mapping and the ICM process to
inform beneficiaries early on, about these planning frameworks and how they relate to
minimizing potential environmental and social impact. It is recommended that the
project budget for Environmental Audits to be carried out once an year to identify how
the spatial plans and land capability assessments are being utilized by project activities,
assess the potential for environmental and social impacts and recommend course
corrections. The findings should be incorporated into the Annual reports to the Policy
Steering Committee, Technical committee and the World Bank.
• The recommendations in the IPPF should be integrated into the design of components 2
and 3 to provide guidance on mitigating potential for involuntary resettlement;
55
• If any unique cultural heritage site of national, regional or international importance is
within a project site, and is in need of protection or urgent rehabilitation, the Project
will provide the needed support (legal and physical in terms of works and services). In
undertaking this task, the project needs to ensure adherence to both the national
guidelines for restoration of valuable cultural sites and the UNESCO guidelines for the
same.
13.0 REFERENCES
Abuodha, P. and J. G. Kairo (2001) Human-induced stresses on mangrove swamps along the
Kenyan coast. Hydrobiologia 458: 255-265.
Burgess, N, D. and Clarke, G, P. (eds) (2000) The Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. IUCN,
Cambridge.
Doute, R. N., Ochanda N. and Epp, H. (1981). A Forest Inventory Using Remote Sensing
Techniques. Kenya Rangelands Ecological Monitoring Unit and Department of
Resource Survey and Remote Sensing Technical Report. Nairobi. Series No. 30. pp
72.
Duineveld, G. C. A., P. A. W. J. de Wilde, E. M. Berghuis, A. Kok, T. Tahey, and J. Kromkamp.
1997. Benthic respiration and standing stock on two contrasting continental margins
in the western Indian Ocean: the Yemen-Somali upwelling region and the margin off
Kenya. Deep-Sea Research II 44:1293-1317.
Fisheries Department (2008) Marine Waters Fisheries Frame Survey Report. 62pp
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2007. The world's mangroves 1980-2005. A thematic study
prepared in the framework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO
Forestry Paper -153-.
GoK, (2008). Kenya State of the Coast Report: towards theintegrated management of Kenya’s
coastal and marine resources. UNEP and NEMA, Nairobi. 90 pp
Habib, G. (2002) Fisheries Resources and Fisheries Development in the Kenya EEZ. Internal
Report to the Fisheries Departement, Nairobi Kenya 15pp.
Kairu, K. and Nyandwi, N. (Eds) (2000) Guidelines for the Study of Shoreline Change in the
Western Indian Ocean Region. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 40. UNESCO 2000
(English). vii + 55 pp.
Kaunda-Arara B., Rose G. A., Muchiri M. S. , and Kaka R. (2003) Long-term Trends in Coral Reef
Fish Yields and Exploitation Rates of Commercial Species from Coastal Kenya.
Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 105–116.
56
Kitheka, J.U (1996b): Coastal tidally driven circulation and the role of water exchange in the linkage
between tropical coastal ecosystems Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 45.
p.177-187
Kitheka, J.U., M. Obiero and Nthenge, P (2005): River discharge, sediment transport and exchange
in the Tana Estuary, Kenya. Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Science, Vol. 63, p.455-468.
Kitheka, J.U., Ongwenyi, G.S and Mavuti, K.M (2003d): Fluxes and exchange of suspended
sediments in tidal inlets draining a degraded mangrove forest in Kenya. Estuarine,
Coastal Shelf Science, Vol. 56, p.655-667.
Mangi S. C and Roberts C (2007) Factors influencing fish catch levels on Kenya’s coral reefs
Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 245–253
McClanahan T. R., Hicks C. and Darling E. S. (2008) Malthusian Overfishing and Efforts to
Overcome It on Kenyan Coral Reefs. Ecological Applications
McClanahan, T. R. & Obura, D. (1995) The status of Kenyan coral reefs. Coast Manage. 23: 57–
76.
Munga, D., Mwangi, S., Ong’anda, H., Kitheka, J. U., Mwaguni, S. M., Mdoe, F., Barongo, J.,
Masai, H. S., and Opello, G. (2006) Vulnerability and pollution of groundwater at
Kisauni, Mombasa, Kenya. In: Xu, Y. and Usher, B (eds) Groundwater pollution in
Africa. UNEP, pp 213-228.
Obura D. (2001). Kenya. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 42:1264-1278
Ochiewo, J. (2004a) Changing fisheries practices and their socioeconomic implications in South
Coast Kenya. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47: 389-408.
Ochiewo, J. (2004a) Changing fisheries practices and their socioeconomic implications in South
Coast Kenya. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47: 389-408.
Ruwa, R. K., G. Habib, M. Mukira, G. Okoth and G. Mwatha. (2003). Profile of Kenya Marine and
Fisheries – Country Working Resource Document. GEF-South-West Indian Ocean
Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) in Kenya. Publication No. 1 (2003), 71p.
Sanders M. J., Gichere S.G., and Nzioka R.M. (1990) Report on the Kenya Marine Fisheries
subsector. SWIOP-FAO.
Spalding, M., Blasco, F. and Field, C. 1997. World Mangrove Atlas. - International Society for
Mangrove Ecosystems, p. 178.
Uku, J. & Björk, M. (2005). Productivity aspects of three tropical seagrass species in areas of
different nutrient levels in Kenya. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 63: 407–420.
UNEP (1998) Eastern Africa Atlas of coastal resources: UNEP Regional Reports and Studies, No.
1 Nairobi, Kenya.
White, F. (1983) The Vegetation of Africa: A Descriptive Memoir to accompany the
UNESCO/AETFAT/UNSO Vegetation Map of Africa. UNESCO Natural Resources
Research 20:1–356.
57
14.0 APPENDIXES
14.1 ANNEX I
14.1.1 List of specialists for the KCDP ESMF
Name Contact Field of expertise
Patrick Gwada P.O. Box 95579 - 80106
Mombasa, Kenya.
Marine Ecology and Lead Expert (EIA/EA)
Stephen Mwangi Kenya Marine And Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI),
P.O. Box 81651-80100, Mombasa
Email: [email protected]
Microbiology and Water quality assessments
Jacob Ochiewo Kenya Marine And Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI),
P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa.
Email: [email protected]
Socio-Economics
Gladys Okemwa Kenya Marine And Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI),
P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa.
Email: [email protected]
Fisheries
Harrison Onganda Kenya Marine And Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI),
P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa.
Email: [email protected]
Information and Data Management and GIS
Dr. James Kairo Kenya Marine And Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI),
P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa.
Email: [email protected]
Mangrove Specialist
Dr. Bernard Kirui Kenya Marine And Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI),
P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa.
Email: [email protected]
Environment/GIS Specialist
58
14.2 ANNEX II
14.2.1 Stakeholder consultations
Summary of Stakeholder Consultative workshops/meetings for KCDP
Workshop /consultative meetings– Natural Resources (Biodiversity, Forestry, Agriculture &
Tourism) - KEFRI �o
Type of workshop Venue Date Attendance Institutions
Stakeholders consultative
workshop
Malindi County
C. Hall
29.07.2009 15 KEFRI & KFS
Stakeholders consultative
workshop
Malindi County
C. Hall
30.07.2009 89 KEFRI(Gede & HQts), KFS Coast,
Fisheries Msa, KMFRI, CBOs, NMK,
WWF Kwale & Msa, KWS Msa &
Mld, Ufanisi herbal group,
Kipepeo, Watha community,
Ujamaa Centre Msa,
Stakeholders workshop Malindi County
C. Hall
31.07.2009 10 KEFRI, KFS, KARI, MOA
Office on site meeting KARI MTWAPA 22.12.2009 3 Asst. Centre Director, KARI
Mtwapa
Office on site meeting Kwale 23.12.2009 3 Ag. DFO Kwale, KFS
Office on site meeting Kwale 23.12.2009 3 Forester Kwale, KFS
Office on site meeting WWF Ukunda 23.12.2009 3 Project Executant
Office on site meeting Forester Buda 23.12.2009 3 Forester Buda, KFS
Office on site meeting Asst. DFO Kilifi 24.12.2009 3 Asst. DFO Kilifi, KFS
Office on site meeting CD KEFRI-COAST 30.12.2009 3 HOC Coast and Asst. DFO Malindi
59
Workshop/consultative meeting summaries –Fisheries
1 No Type of workshop Venue Date Attendance Institutions
2 1 Stakeholders
consultative workshop
Malindi Eden
Rock Hotel
5.06.2009 119 CBOs (BMUs from Lamu, Tana
river,Malindi, Kilifi,Mombasa
Kwale), KMFRI & KFS, NGOs (
Kwetu Training Centre and
AFMEN-Tana Friends of Marine
Env’t)
Workshop/Consultative meetings summaries – Natural Resources (Biodiversity, Forestry,
Agriculture & Tourism) - KWS No Type of workshop Venue Date Attendance Institutions
3 1 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
KWS Boardroom
Lamu
11.09. 2009 8 KWS, FiD, Kiunga MNR KFS
4 2 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
Malindi County
C. Hall
12.09.2009 18 KFS, KWS, BMUs, CBOs, Provincial
Administration,
5 3 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
Kisite MNP & R 14.09.2009 46 BMU, Self help groups,
CBOKWSKMFRI, KFS, JICA, Provincial
Administration, FiD,NGO, Private
Sector
6 4 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
Shimba Hills 15.09.2009 25 KWS, CBOs, NGO
7 5 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
KWS Boardroom,
Mombasa
16.09.2009 9 KWS, Min. of Tourism, FiD, KFS,NEMA
8 6 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
KEFRI Gede 17.09.2009 59 KFS, KWS,Private Sector, CBOs, NGOs,
KEFRI
7 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
Mombasa Marine
Park
18.09.2009 14 KWS, CBOs, NGOs
8 KCDP KWS External
Stakeholders
Consultative Meeting
Mariakani 24.09.2009 44 KWS, KFS, CBOs
60
Workshop Summaries – Micro Enterprise Component No. Type of workshop/
consultative
meeting
Venue Date Attendance Institutions
1. Public-Private
Partnership
Meeting
CDA 29.01.2009 22 World Bank, KEFRI, Private Investors, CDA,
FiD, Provincial Planning
2. CDA Technical Staff
Meeting On KCDP
CDA 07.09.2009 26 CDA Staff, CDA Board, KMFRI
3. Stakeholders
Workshop
Mpeketoni 10.09.2009 29 Lamu entrepreneurs, Ministry of Youth,
FiD, MOA, CBOs, NGOs, Cotton Dev
Authority, Ministry of Planning, Provincial
Administration, CDA
4. Stakeholders
Workshop
Kilifi 14.10.2009 30 Kilifi CBOs, Kilifi Entrepreneurs, Ministry
of Gender, Ministry of Livestock, FiD,
MOA, Media, CDA
5. Stakeholders
Workshop
Kwale 15.10.2009 26 Kwale CBOs, Kwale Entrepreneurs, KWS,
KMFRI, Ministry of Livestock, MYWO,
MOA, Arid Lands, Ministry of
Cooperatives, World Vision, CDA,
6. Mfi Stakeholders
Workshop
CDA 21.10.2009 11 MFIs, CDA, ABD,
7. Focal Area 3
(Sustainable
Livelihoods)
Meeting
CDA 30.11.2009 7 Ministry of Planning, Physical Planning,
Provincial Administration, CDA
61
14.3 ANNEX III
14.3.1 Description of National Legal Instruments
The Forests Act 2005
Gazetted forest land is reserved using the Forest Act 2005. Under the Forest Act, a piece of
forest land can be degazetted and converted to other uses. However, the Forest Act requires all
de-gazettement of forest land to be discussed and approved by Parliament following
preparation of a comprehensive EIA Report. All degazetted land then reverts to the
Commissioner of Lands who then proceeds to allocate the land in accordance with the Land
Control Act. Under the Forest Act 2005, forest land can also be leased for use for other
purposes provided that such use does not contradict conservation goals. The same act also
allows for Participatory Management of Forests and thus guarantees communities rights to
access and utilize certain forest goods and services including citing of water supply intake works
in forest areas.
The Wildlife Conservation & Management Act (Cap. 376)
This Act provides for the protection, conservation and management of wildlife in Kenya. Nature
Reserves and National Parks are controlled by the Kenya Wildlife Service under the Wildlife
(Management and Co-ordination) Act of 1976. The common feature with all land reserved for
use by wildlife is that its conversion to any other form must be approved by Parliament.
The regulatory regime adopted by the Act is for the minister responsible for wildlife to declare
that a given area is a national park; national reserve or a local sanctuary. Conversely, the
Minister may declare that a specific area has ceased to be so or simply that a boundary has
been varied. A notice of intention to designate an area is usually issued through gazettement
and interested parties may submit objections within sixty days. Every declaration is subject to
the approval of the National Assembly.
In Kenya there are some 60 protected areas, including a number of marine protected areas
(MPAs). The regulatory body is the Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS), which is a parastatal body
currently within the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife. It is headquartered in Nairobi, though
with a Regional Office for the coast headquartered in Mombasa.
The Fisheries Act (Act No. 5 1989)
It is to provide for the development, exploitation, utilization and conservation of fisheries. The
Fisheries Act covers the near shore and offshore fisheries, all marine species, migratory and
62
straddling stocks. Access to these stocks is by issuance of a licience but capacity constraints
pose a problem to good governance and sustainable utilization of these stocks.
Our present concern is with those provisions relating to fisheries conservation and
sustainability. The Act empowers the Minister to make regulations governing other technical
issues including conservation measures. The entire maritime zone is declared a pollution
prevention zone, implying that the area is subject to strict regulatory discharge standards.
Movement of boats or gear from one body of water to another is only allowed subject to
express permission by an authorized fishery officer.
Land Control Act CAP 406
Government land is land owned by the government of Kenya under the Government Lands Act
(Cap. 280). This includes, for example, forests, gazette national parks and reserves. The
Government Lands Act allows the President, through the Commissioner of Lands, to allocate
any unalienated government land to any individual. In practice, such allocations have often
been made without proper regard to social and environmental factors.
Trust land is land held and administered by various local government authorities as trustees
under the constitution of Kenya and the Trust Land Act (Cap. 288). National reserves and local
sanctuaries as well as county council forest reserves, are in this category. Individuals may
acquire leasehold interest for a specific number of years in trust land and can (in theory) be
repossessed by the local authorities should the need arise. Local authorities should retain
regulatory powers over trust land.
Private land is land owned by private individuals under the Registered Land Act (Cap. 300). On
registration as the landowner, an individual acquires absolute ownership on a freehold basis.
The use of private land may, however, be limited by provisions made in other legislation, such
an Agriculture Act (Cap. 3 18). For instance, to protect soils the clearing of vegetation may be
prohibited or the planting of trees required. Land preservation orders issued by the director of
agriculture can cover a whole range of other measures.
The Land Planning Act (Cap 303)
It makes provisions for the overall planning for the use and development of land. The Planning
Authority, particularly the Director of Physical Planning, has the powers to cover planning and
zoning for the whole country’s towns & agricultural areas. The present project area falls under
Mombasa City. The Planning Authority is responsible for the delineation of the agricultural
lands, urban centers as well as the location or sitting of such physical infrastructure as roads,
buildings, industries and power lines.
63
The Agriculture Act
The Agriculture Act Cap 3 18 of the Laws of Kenya seeks to promote and maintain a stable
agriculture, to provide for the conservation of the soil and its fertility and to stimulate the
development of agricultural land in accordance with the accepted practices of good land
management and good husbandry. This act provides legislative control over soil conservation
and land management. Many of the activities of this project will trigger the implementation of
the legislation as they are concerned with promoting agricultural development through
irrigation and use of chemicals.
The Water Act 2002
Sessional Paper no. of 1999 on the National Water Policy on Water Resources Management and
Development provides policy direction for the water sector. The policy directions include the
preservation, conservation and protection of available water resource; sustainable, rational and
economical allocation of water resources; supplying adequate amounts of water meeting
acceptable standards for the various needs; ensuring safe wastewater disposal for
environmental protection; developing a sound and sustainable financial system for effective
water resources management, water supply and water borne sewage collection, treatment and
disposal.
Irrigation Act (CAP 347)
The existing Irrigation Act Cap. 347 of 1966, which established the National Irrigation Board,
does not give clear provisions for the management and coordination of irrigation activities nor
provide for beneficiary participation in the planning and implementation of irrigation projects.
In addition, it does not create a conducive environment for sustainable irrigation and drainage
development. The Act is of limited scope as it was formulated specifically for tenant-based
irrigation settlement schemes, which are no longer tenable in their current form in a liberalized
environment. To address this, a National Irrigation Policy and Master Plan is under preparation.
The Lakes and Rivers Act Cap 409
This act makes provision for the protection of bird and other wildlife in or on lakes and rivers.
This act also regulates dredging and the use of steam vessels on certain lakes and the rivers
(including Tana and Athi) that drain into the Indian Ocean along Kenya’s coast.
The Maritime Zones Act (1989)
It sets out provisions for the conservation and management of Kenya’s marine resources by
prescribing the limits of national jurisdiction. It brings Kenyan claims in line with the 1982
64
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The law empowers the Minister to
make regulations for the control of, inter alia, protection of the marine environment and
regulation of exploration and exploitation of resources.
The Continental Shelf Act Cap 312
The Act vests rights in the Government in respect of the natural resources of the continental
shelf, and to provide for matters incidental thereto and connected therewith. It is very relevant
to this project to the extent that some of the proposed works will directly impact the
continental shelf.
The National Museums and Heritage Act, 2006
This is an Act of Parliament to consolidate the law relating to national museums and heritage;
to provide for the establishment, control, management and development of national museums
and the identification, protection, conservation and transmission of the cultural and natural
heritage of Kenya; to repeal the Antiquities and Monuments Act (Cap 215) and the National
Museums Act (Cap 216). It essentially consolidates the main provisions in the repealed Acts. It
came into force on 8th September 2006. The Act establishes the National Museums as its main
institutional arrangements for the conservation of heritage.
The Local Government Act
The Local Government Act, CAP 265, gives the Local authorities powers over sanitation within
their respective urban centres. This Act empowers the Municipal Authority to provide and
maintain sanitation and sewerage services and to take measures to control or prohibit factories
and industries from emitting smoke, fumes, chemicals, gases, dust, smell, noise, vibrations or
any danger, discomfort or annoyance to the neighbourhood and to control disinfections
particularly using cyanide. They are empowered to punish those disrupting sanitation sewerage
lines and can compel owners to construct sewage line into the systems and drainages.
The Kenya Ports Authority Act (Cap. 391)
This act provides for the operation and management of Kenya’s ports in the Kenya Ports
Authority (KPA), a statutory corporation. The Authority can (a) construct any wharf, pier,
landing areas or any other work deemed necessary; (b) control the erection and use of wharves
in any port or approaches to such ports; and (c) construct new ports.
The Coast Development Authority Act, Cap 449
This act provides for the establishment of the Coast Planning Authority to plan and coordinate
the implementation of development projects in the whole of Coast Province and the EEZ. The
Act gives powers to the Authority to plan, coordinate, gather and disseminate information, and
65
to generally manage and develop coastal resources in a sustainable manner. In an effort to
avoid duplication of effort and to ensure the best use of available technical resources, the
Authority maintains close links with other Government institutions and the private sector.
The Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority Act (Cap 443)
This act covers river and river-basin management and it led to the formation of Tana and Athi
Rivers Development Authority (TARDA) to advise on the institution and coordination of
development projects in the Tana and Athi River basins and related matters. This includes the
planning and development of the two rivers’ basins and resources.
Tourism Acts
The Tourism Industry Act (Cap 385), Tourism Industry Licensing Act (Cap 381) and the Tourist
Development Cooperation Act (Cap 382) regulate tourism-related activities in Kenya, with a
view to mitigating tourism-related pressure on ecosystems, preserving community structure,
sustaining productivity and conserving biodiversity.
The Energy Act
Enacted in 2006, the Energy Act regulates petroleum and renewable energy sectors in addition
to electricity. The Act give credence to formation of Energy Regulation Commission (ERC) and
states the objects and functions of ERC to include regulating the importation, exportation,
transportation, refining, storage and sale of petroleum and petroleum products. Therefore one
of the functions of the ERC is licensing of petroleum import, export, transport, storage, refining
and sale. Construction Permits are also to be issued by ERC for all petroleum related facilities in
order to check proliferation of substandard sites. All petroleum operators are required to
comply with provisions for Environment Health and Safety petroleum products should also
meet the relevant Kenya Standards.
The Mining Act
This Act provides rules for the prospecting for and mining of minerals, except mineral oil, in
Kenya. The Act states that all unextracted minerals (other than common minerals) under or
upon any land are vested in the Government. Certain classes of land are excluded from
prospecting and mining. Trust land is excluded, except that mining may take place with the
consent in writing of the county council within whose area of jurisdiction the land is situated.
There shall be a Commissioner of Mines and Geology, a mining engineer, inspectors and
assistant inspectors of mines. Prospecting rights and an exclusive prospecting license are
granted by the Commissioner. Discovery of minerals shall be reported to the Commissioner.
66
The Commissioner may grant a location right upon discovery and a mining lease. A mining lease
shall give various rights to the holder of the right including the right to water, to lay water pipes
and to make watercourses and pounds, dams and reservoirs and to divert, under certain
conditions, from a natural watercourse any water on or flowing entirely through the land
subject to the mining lease. Holders of a right of location or mining lease may take timber on
the relevant land in accordance with provisions of this Act. The Commissioner shall decide on
disputes regarding matters covered by this Act.
67
14.4 ANNEX IV
14.4.1 Description of historical and archaeological sites and cultural sites along the Kenya
coast
Historical and archaeological sites
The Kenya coast is rich in historical and archaeological sites, a testament to its long and full
history depicting centuries of Swahili culture. Various remnants of mosques and other buildings
reflect different Islamic architecture using lime, coral stone and timber. These historical
remains mainly comprise of mosques, groups of tombs located inside or outside city walls,
mounds and house walls representing the old city houses. Among the main archaeological sites
of significance along the Kenya Coast (based on various reports of the National Museums of
Kenya) include: Fort Lamu, Mkomani and Hidabu, many tombs, ruined houses, as well as good
collections in the Lamu Museum. There are also many buildings with old traditional carved
wooden doors and a lot of moulded plaster work, some dating back to the 18th Century. Pate,
one of the largest sites on the coast has eight ruined mosques, numerous house ruins and
tombs. This is one of the earliest sites on the Coast, along with Manda and Shanga. Gedi, in
Mida area, is a 15th Century Arab town that has been declared a national monument. A great
mosque, six minor mosques, numerous large houses, pillar tombs, stone tombs and the town
walls are some of the most distinctive attributes of this magnificent site.
In Malindi the ruins include the Jemadari Mosque in the north, the pillar tombs, an old
Portuguese chapel, the Da Gama Cross (at the southern end of Malindi Harbour given to the
Shirazi Sheikh of Malindi in gratitude for the warm reception received) and the South Mosque.
In Mombasa area, the sites include a large part of Mombasa Old Town, Fort Jesus (built by the
Portuguese in the 15th Century), Fort St Joseph, the Mbaraki pillar, the Mazrui Cemetery, the
redoubts at the present-day golf course, the ruins at Allidina Visram school.
Other interesting sites include Ishakani with two mosques and various tombs of outstanding
architecture at the main site, as well as two outlying tomb groups with some of the finest
funerary architecture on the East African coast. Mtwapa has a large Friday Mosque, tombs, and
the remains of over sixty houses, often well-preserved with fine architectural details. Mwana
Brief Description of Kaya forests and their outstanding universal value
The Mijikenda Kaya Forests consist of 11 separate forest sites spread over some 200 km along
the coast containing the remains of numerous fortified villages, known as kayas, of the
Mijikenda people. The kayas, created as of the 16th century but abandoned by the 1940s, are
now regarded as the abodes of ancestors and are revered as sacred sites and, as such, are
maintained as by councils of elders. The site is inscribed as bearing unique testimony to a
68
cultural tradition and for its direct link to a living tradition. The kayas are mostly on low hills,
ranging in size from 30 to around 300 ha, in which are the remains of fortified villages, Kayas, of
the Mijikenda people. They represent more than thirty surviving Kayas.
The Kayas began to fall out of use in the early 20th century and are now revered as the
repositories of spiritual beliefs of the Mijikenda people and are seen as the sacred abode of
their ancestors. The forests around the Kayas have been nurtured by the Mijikenda community
to protect the sacred graves and groves and are now almost the only remains of the once
extensive coastal lowland forest.
The Kayas provide focal points for Mijikenda religious beliefs and practices, are regarded as the
ancestral homes of the different Mijikenda peoples, and are held to be sacred places. As such
they have metonymic significance to Mijikenda and are a fundamental source of Mijikenda’s
sense of ‘being-in-the-world’ and of place within the cultural landscape of contemporary Kenya.
They are seen as a defining characteristic of Mijikenda identity. The Kayas are now the
repositories of spiritual beliefs of the Mijikenda and are seen as the sacred abode of their
ancestors. As a collection of sites spread over a large area, they are associated with beliefs of
local and national significance, and possibly regional significance as the sites extend beyond the
boundaries of Kenya. Important Kayas along the coast include Kaya Giriama, Kaya Jibana, Kaya
Kambe, Kaya Kauma, Kaya Ribe, Kaya Kinondo, Rabai kayas and Duruma kayas.
69
14.5 ANNEX V
14.5.1 Environmental Screening Of Micro-Enterprise And Small Projects
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of project:_______________________________
2. Sector:______________________________
3. Name of the Community:__________________________
4. Name of Ward:_________________________________
5. Name of District:___________________________________
6. Name of Executing Agent:____________________________
7. Name of the Approving Authority:_________________________
8. Individual Responsible for Completion of Form A:_______________________
a) Name: _____________________________
b) Job title: ______________________________
c) Telephone Number:_____________________________
d) Fax Number:______________________________
e) E-mail Address:_____________________________
f) Date:__________________________________
g) Signature:________________________________
70
PART B: DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SITUATION AND
IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS
Describe the sub-project location, siting and surroundings (include a map, even a sketch map)
Describe the marine and coastal environment in/adjacent to the sub-project (e.g., types of habitats
mangrove forest, coral reef, tidal mudflat, etc.; animal life and vegetation; topography).
Estimate and indicate where vegetation might be cleared, or structures placed in the water.
1. Environmentally Sensitive Areas or Threatened Species
Description Yes No Not
Known
Are there any environmentally sensitive areas or threatened species
that could be adversely affected by the project (specify below)?
1 Intact natural forests
2 Riverine forests
3 Surface water courses or natural springs
4 Wetlands (lakes, swamps, seasonally inundated areas)
5 Coral reefs
6 Seagrass beds
7 Area of high biodiversity
8 Habitats of endangered/threatened species for which
protection is required under Kenyan law.
71
2. Contamination and Pollution Hazards
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Is there any possibility that the project will be at risks of
contamination and pollution hazards from latrines, dump
sites, Industrial discharge, water discharge, etc.?
3. Geology and Soils
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Is there any possibility of soil instability in the project area
(e.g., black cotton soil, landslide, subsidence)
2 Is there any possibility of the area having risks of large scale
increase in soil salinity?
3 Based on inspection, is there any possibility of the area being
prone to floods, poorly drained, low-lying, depression or block
run-off water?
4. Lands
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there farm lands in the project area?
2 Will the project result in more or improved farm lands?
3 Will the project result in less or damaged farm land?
4 Will the project result in loss of crops, fruit trees or household
infrastructures (e.g., livestock shed, toilets, granaries)?
5 Will the project interfere or block land access or routes (e.g.,
for people, livestock)?
72
5. Soil Erosion
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project help to prevent soil loss or erosion?
2 Will the project directly cause or worsen soil loss or erosion?
3 Could the project indirectly lead to practices that could cause
soil loss or erosion?
4 It is necessary to consult a solid scientist?
6. Slope Erosion
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Does project involve modification of slopes?
2 Will project affect stability of slopes directly or indirectly?
3 Should project cause people or property to be located where
existing unstable slopes could be a hazard?
4 It is necessary to consult a geotechnical engineer?
7. Surface Water Quantity
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Do surface water resources exist in project area?
2 Will the project increase demand or cause loss of available
surface water?
3 Is it necessary to consult a hydrologist?
73
8. Surface Water Quality
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project lead to additional natural or manmade
discharges into surface water courses or water bodies?
2 Could the project cause deterioration of surface water
quality?
3 It is necessary to consult a water quality expert?
9. Ground Water Quantity
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Do ground water resources exist in project area?
2 Will the project increase demand or cause loss of available
ground water?
3 Is it necessary to consult a hydrologist?
10. Ground Water Quality
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project cause any natural or man-made discharge
into ground aquifer?
2 Could the project cause deterioration of ground water
quality?
3 Is it necessary to consult a hydrologist?
74
11. Marine Water Quality
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project lead to additional natural or manmade
discharges into marine water bodies?
2 Could the project cause deterioration of marine water
quality?
3 It is necessary to consult a marine water quality expert?
12. Freshwater Ecosystems
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there any freshwater ecosystems in the project area such
as rivers, streams, lakes or ponds, which might be considered
significant?
2 Will project affect the use or condition and use of such
freshwater ecosystems?
13. Wetland Ecosystems
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there any wetlands ecosystems in the project area such as
marsh, swamp, flood plains, or estuary, which might be
considered significant?
2 Will the project affect the use or condition of such wetlands?
14. Marine Ecosystems
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there any marine ecosystems in the project area such as
coral reefs or seagrass beds, which might be considered
significant?
2 Will the project affect the use or condition of such marine
ecosystems?
75
15. Terrestrial Ecosystems
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there any terrestrial ecosystems in the project area such as
forest, savannan grassland or desert which might be
considered significant?
2 Will project affect the use or condition of such terrestrial
ecosystems?
16. Endangered/Threatened/Rare/Endemic Species
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Is the existence of endangered, threatened, rare or endemic
species in the project area known?
2 Will project affect the habitat of any such species?
17. Migratory Species
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Do migratory fish, birds or mammals use the project area?
2 Will project affect the habitat and numbers of such species?
18. Beneficial Plants
S/No Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Do non-domesticated plants occur in the project area which
are used or sold by local people?
2 Will the project affect these species by reducing their habitat
or number in any way?
76
19. Beneficial Animals and Insects
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Do non-domesticated animals occur in the project area which
are used or sold by local people?
2 Will the project affect these species by reducing their habitat
or number in any way?
20. Disease Vectors
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there known disease problems in the project area
transmitted through vector species?
2 Will the project increase habitat for vector species?
3 Is it necessary to consult a public health officer?
21. Resource/Land Use
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are lands in the project area intensively developed?
2 Will the project increase pressure on land resources?
3 Will the project result in decreased holdings by small land
owners?
4 Will the project result in involuntary land take?
5 Should a land use planner be consulted?
22. Energy Source
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project increase the local demand for conventional
77
energy sources?
2 Will the project create demand for other energy sources?
3 Will the project decrease the local supply of conventional
energy sources?
23. Degradation of Resources during Construction
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project involve considerable use of natural resources
(construction materials, water spillage, land or energy that
may lead to depletion or degradation at point source)?
24. Distribution Systems
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project enhance inequities in the distribution of
agricultural and/or manufactured products?
2 Will the project increase demand for certain commodities
within or outside the project area?
3 Will the project result in decrease in production or supply of
certain commodities within the project area?
4 Will the project enhance inequities in the distribution of
benefits?
78
25. Employment and Income
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project increase the rate of employment?
2 Will the project remove job opportunities from the area?
3 Will the project increase/decrease income sources or means of
livelihood?
26. At-Risk Population
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are the adverse impacts of the project unequally distributed in
the target population?
27. Land Acquisition and Livelihoods
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will land be acquired?
2 Will people’s assets or livelihoods be impacted?
3 Will people loose access to natural resources?
28. Existing Population
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there currently any people living in or near the project
area?
2 Will the project affect people in or near the project area?
3 Will community participation in project design and
implementation be necessary?
4 It is necessary to consult a sociologist?
79
29. Migrant Population
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Are there currently any mobile groups in the target
population?
2 Will the project result in the movement of people in or out of
the area?
3 Is it necessary to consult a sociologist?
30. Cultural and Religious Values
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project adversely affect religious and/or cultural
attitudes of area residents?
2 Are there special beliefs, superstitions or taboos that will affect
acceptance of the project?
31. Tourism and Recreation
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Is there at present a significant degree of tourism in the area?
2 Is there unexploited tourism or recreation potential in the
area?
3 Will the project adversely affect existing or potential tourist or
recreation attractions?
32. Maintenance and Repairs
Description Yes No Not
Known
1 Will the project require frequent maintenance and repair?
80
PART C: CONCLUSION
Summary Safeguard Requirements
All the above answers are “No” If the above answers are “No”, there is no
need for further action.
There is at least one “Yes” If there is at least one “Yes”, then a Simple
Environmental Review of impacts and
proposed mitigation measures should be
undertaken
Which courses(s) of action do you recommend?
No further action if sub-project has no impacts.
Simple Environmental Review (ER) if sub-project may create a few minor and readily mitigatable
impacts – to be conducted by District Environmental Officer.
Full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) if the sub-project may result into potentially
significant direct or indirect adverse impacts
Any other recommendation (explain).
This form has been completed by:
Name: __________________________________________
Title: _________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________
Signature: __________________________________________
81
14.5.2 Simple Environmental Review
TYPE OF EXPECTED IMPACT DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT:
Increased soil erosion?
Increased sediment load into receiving water?
Likely contamination of marine or freshwater
(surface or sub-surface)?
Excessive dust or noise during construction?
BIOLOGICAL
ENVIRONMENT:
Removal or disturbance of natural vegetation?
Sub-project in core area, buffer area or
protection area?
Disturbance of animal or any locally important
habitat?
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT:
Aesthetic degradation of a landscape?
Degradation or disturbance of a cultural site?
Transport or use of toxic substance that pose
a risk to human health?
Involuntary displacement of individuals or
households?
Economic losses to individuals or households?
Report prepared by:
Name: _______________________________________________
Position: ___________________________________________
Signature: ____________________________________________
Date: _____________________________________________________
Report approved by: __________________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________________________
Position: _______________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________
Date: _________________________________________________
82
14.6 ANNEX VI
14.6.1 Indigenous People’s Framework
1
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
KENYA COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KCDP)
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK (IPPF)
JANUARY, 2010
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 4
1.1 Project description ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Project Development Objectives and Key Indicators ................................................................................ 4
1.3 Project Components and activities ............................................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 Component 1: Sustainable management of offshore fisheries resources .......................................... 5
1.3.2 Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal and Nearshore Marine
Environment ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.3.3 Component 3: Support for alternative livelihoods in the Coastal Zone ............................................. 6
1.3.4 Component 4: Capacity Building, monitoring & Evaluation System, Project Management and
Communication .................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.0 RATIONALE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S POLICY FRAMEWORK (IPPF) ........................................ 8
2.1 Social Management Requirements ................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 The Indigenous Peoples in the KCDP Area .............................................................................................. 9
2.2.1 The Watha Community ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 The Boni Community......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 The Legal and Policy Framework Regarding Indigenous Peoples in Kenya ........................................... 10
2.4 Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.0 PARTICIPATORY SOCIAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 12
3.1 Institutional Arrangements ....................................................................................................................... 13
4.0 PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION ....................................................................... 13
4.1 Grievances ................................................................................................................................................ 14
5.0 DISCLOSURE ............................................................................................................................................. 14
3
Abbreviations
CCAF Coastal Community Action Fund EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ESSD Environmentally Socially Sustainable Development FIMACEDP Fishery Management and Sustainable Coastal Environment Development
Project in Kenya GIS Geographic Information System GoK Government of Kenya ICM Integrated Coastal Management IP Indigenous Peoples IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework IUU Illegal, Unlicensed and Unregulated KCDP Kenya Coastal Development Project KEFRI Kenya Forest Research Institute KMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute KWS Kenya Wildlife Service KShs Kenya Shillings MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MDGs Millennium Development Goals M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MET Mobile Extension Teams MSME Medium and Small Microenterprise NGO Non-Governmental Organizations PMT Project Management Team PSC Project Steering Committee PICD Participatory Integrated Community Development PIM Participatory Impact Monitoring PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal SWIOFP South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project USD United States Dollar VMS Vessel Monitoring System
4
1.0 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Project description
The Government of Kenya (GoK) has requested financial assistance from the World Bank to implement the Fishery Management and Sustainable Coastal Environment Development Project in Kenya (FIMACEDP) also known as Kenya Coastal Development Project. In general, the project will promote environmentally and socially sustainable redevelopment of the coastal area. The approach in the project preparation and implementation also builds on the new internal links between ESSD and Infrastructure in the World Bank. The project will focus on identifying marine resources, sustainable levels of resource extraction, and undertaking pilot investment in promoting ecosystem-based utilization of these resources; identifying land-based impacts of rural development on the near and offshore marine environment and undertaking direct investment in promoting ecosystem-friendly pilot investments that are more lucrative to the local stakeholders, promote maintenance and improvement of soil fertility, and that minimize offsite, land-based resource utilization impacts on the coastal and marine environment; address pollution from urban areas as part of a program for urban development and investment prioritization in the coastal zone.
1.2 Project Development Objectives and Key Indicators
The development objective of this project is to achieve greater value and improved livelihood from sustainable management of marine and coastal resources through: (i) increasing fisheries revenue earning potential of the government of Kenya (GoK) through licensing of foreign vessels; (ii) to improve sustainable management/regeneration of the fisheries resources and near-shore ecosystem with the participation of communities; and (iii) support for alternative livelihoods that make more sustainable and profitable use of coastal natural resources. The Global Environment Objective is to strengthen conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity.
The Project would target the following three geographic areas of the coastal and marine environment: • Offshore resources of the 200 nautical Miles EEZ • Inshore resources including coral reefs, fish, mangroves, mariculture • Land-based resources of the coastal districts, particularly use of terrestrial resources that impact on near and offshore marine resources.
1.3 Project Components and activities
The project has four components namely: (1) Sustainable management of offshore fisheries resources (2) Sound Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal and Nearshore Marine Environment (3) Support for alternative livelihoods in the Coastal Zone
5
(4) Capacity Building, monitoring & Evaluation System, Project Management and Communication
1.3.1 Component 1: Sustainable management of offshore fisheries resources
The objective of this component is to increase fisheries revenue earning potential of the Government of Kenya through licensing of foreign vessels. Emphasis would also be placed on building capacity of the government to monitor and carry out surveillance of these resources. The component will link with the regional Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) which will provide basic research information on demersal, crustacean and small pelagic fisheries in the 200 mile EEZ. This Component will also establish a stakeholder participation and resource co-management plan centered on fisheries management. This component will have 4 subcomponents. Subcomponent 1 involves capacity building for the Fisheries Department to effectively manage the fishery of the 200 mile EEZ. The Project will support on the job, short-course and university training in Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) equipment setup, operation and maintenance and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS). It will also support development and training of an observer program that will be “ship-based” on foreign fishing vessels licensed to operate in the Kenyan 200 mile EEZ. Subcomponent 2 will involve purchase, setup and operation of a VMS and MCS program, including regional linkages with Tanzania, Seychelles and other neighboring VMS/MCS programs. Subcomponent 3 will involve establishment of a legal basis for fisheries management over the 200 mile EEZ, and harmonizing this with similar legislations in neighboring countries. This will include any needed modifications to the Fisheries Act, implementing regulations, search, seizure and confiscation of vessels, catch and gear related to IUU fishing, protection and operation of the fisheries inspection and observer corp. during performance of their duties, etc. Subcomponent 4 will involve identification and support for development of mariculture and more sustainable fishing techniques that directly benefit fishing communities. The project will support assessment of more sustainable and profitable fishing practices, mariculture opportunities and opportunities to link coastal fishermen to non-consumptive activities in support of the tourist sector (taking advantage of the Government’s investment in its Vision 2030). Activities under this component would support development of pilot public-private partnerships in mariculture ventures. This would include technical extension services, business service advice to micro and small enterprises, marketing and sales support to these micro and small enterprises and to pilot public-private partnerships, village grants that support sustainable development of critical infrastructure needed to support the new uses of the near shore resources.
1.3.2 Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal and Nearshore
Marine Environment
This component aims at improving sustainable management and regeneration of natural resources and biodiversity in the nearshore coastal and marine environment. It has particular focus on conservation of the unique coastal biodiversity and its natural resources as the basis for sustainable development and thereby improves the livelihoods of coastal communities through wise management and support for development opportunities. This is in line with Kenya’s development agenda as articulated in the Vision 2030. The values of natural resources and
6
biodiversity underpin socio-economic development of the coastal populations. Moreover, the component will improve Kenya’s ability to meet some of its obligations in terms of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This component will embrace an integrated approach that pulls together the sub-sectors in assessment, planning and management since biodiversity, agriculture, land resources, catchments, creeks, coral reefs, forests, aquatic resources and tourism are all interdependent. There are five sub-components under this component. Sub-component 1 involves the establishment of a natural resources information management system for assessment and reporting. It aims at collecting and collating the relevant data in a GIS information management system for decision support and wise use of the coastal and marine resources. Sub-component 2 involves enhancing management interventions to improve the status and delivery of ecosystem services from coastal natural resources. It aims at enhancing resource management interventions in order to improve resource conditions for ecosystems. Based on the information collected in sub-component 1, there will be an active engagement of stakeholders to improve management and ensure there is continuous stream of benefits, the goal being to provide benefits to the local level while maintaining ecological integrity. The sub-component will result in: i) Strengthening of the relevant departments within KWS, KMFRI and KEFRI towards improved management of nearshore areas, (ii) promoting community managed or co-managed marine conservation areas; (iii) improved protection of threatened habitats and species through proactive management and co-management; (iv) strengthening of local and national laws and regulations; (iv) improved financial sustainability through reform of the fees, levies, penalties system and exploration of payment for ecosystem services and biodiversity offsets; and (v) regeneration and rehabilitation of habitats and reduced pressure and threat on critical species. Subcomponent 3 involves promotion of a Marine Cooperative Area with Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. The cooperation will cover habitat and species conservation, tourism, trade, regional security and the promotion of adaptive management strategies to reduce the vulnerability and improve resilience of coastal people and habitats upon which they depend. It will result in improved protection of migratory species; improved conservation of habitats including mangroves and sea grasses; improved monitoring, control and surveillance through the sharing of costs and joint patrols; improved tourism where tour packages can incorporate the islands of south coast in Kenya, Pemba and Unguja in Zanzibar and Tanga and Pangani in mainland Tanzania. Sub-component 4 covers enhancement of Coastal Tourism and Cultural Heritage. This sub-component will support the establishment of a forum for improved coastal tourism where the large number of actors will be able to coordinate activities towards improved, cost efficient and sustainable tourism. Attention will also be given to ensuring an ecosystem approach to tourism development. Sub-component 5 covers capacity building and institutional support. It aims at strengthening the capacities and institutions in the management and utilization of the natural resource base. The sub-component will support training and skills development at different levels to improve efficiency in service delivery. Staff and community training in business development, marketing, forestry and marine biodiversity management and knowledge sharing through study tours will be supported.
1.3.3 Component 3: Support for alternative livelihoods in the Coastal Zone
This component will support improved and more sustainable resource use to alleviate poverty and address land-based impacts on the near and offshore marine environment. It has 4
7
subcomponents that support development of alternative livelihoods that reduce impact on the aquatic environment and have a compounding benefit. Subcomponent 1 involves development of a locally based, participatory, spatial planning process. Spatial planning will be based on land capability assessment at region and district levels. The Project will also support input into the operational guidelines for the district spatial plans and will help develop capacity in district and city governments to implement the plans. This subcomponent will also support village-level use/conservation planning. The development of these ICM plans would be undertaken by local users of the near-shore resources, and supported by the Project. Subcomponent 2 involves Research and Technological Support for Extension services for the development of MSME’s and to help MSME’s to take advantage of alternative livelihood opportunities. Most coastal communities comprise artisanal fishermen and subsistence farmers. Due to inefficient, rudimentary production techniques and equipment, and inadequate alternative livelihood opportunities, there is considerable inefficiency and wastage in production systems. This component will emphasize the development and adoption of appropriate technologies to boost production, reduce post harvest wastage and promote value-addition of products. This will be done through the design of pilot enterprises revolving around agricultural, forestry, tourism and biodiversity based products, improved marketing and product development. Dedicated research will provide new knowledge and information to improve existing MSMEs and inform the communities of new livelihood alternatives. This component will focus on the development of concepts, the piloting of appropriate projects and the preparation of proposals to the CDF for implementation support. Training at group and enterprise levels in how to develop a simple business plan and manage money will also be available to MSME’s. Subcomponent 3 involves establishment of a Coastal Community Action Fund (CCAF) to leverage construction of village infrastructure and changes from damaging to more sustainable and profitable alternative livelihoods supported by the project. Up to 300 of these small grants at an average value of $20,000 each are likely to be required. Groups receiving grants will be expected to contribute cash or “in-kind” to the objective of the grant. Identification of an efficient and transparent delivery mechanism for such a large part of the KCDP is critical. Subcomponent 4 involves making available to MSMEs Finance at Affordable rates. The Project will work with existing, or help start new, financial self help groups to find opportunities to increase membership to the point where a group can afford to hire permanent staff. Once a group reaches this size, the project will provide assistance to establish simple financial management processes, a simple credit assessment, a governance process and a grant for an office and basic equipment. The project will also assist interested individuals to form production cooperatives that may or may not be linked to the financial self-help groups described above. This support would target small holders, small mariculturists or fishermen that would not be able to afford the inputs or produce the volume of products needed to take full advantage of alternative livelihoods in the coastal zone.
1.3.4 Component 4: Capacity Building, monitoring & Evaluation System, Project
Management and Communication
This component involves Strengthening of project coordination unit to manage and coordinate KCDP supported activities; increasing institutional capacity; developing and implementing an
8
Information & Communication Strategy to increase public awareness of project goals and activities at local and regional levels; developing an effective Monitoring and Evaluation System (M&E); and enhancing skills of project leaders to handle project implementation.
2.0 RATIONALE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S POLICY FRAMEWORK
(IPPF)
Indigenous identity remains an important factor in national and local organization in Kenya’s development. As the country undergoes social and demographic transformation, investing in coastal development programs is particularly important since a large proportion of potential beneficiaries of KCDP sub-projects may belong to indigenous households and communities. KCDP involves promotion of economic growth in the coastal areas through improved governance of coastal and marine resources; better revenue generation through sound monitoring, control and surveillance; enhance equity and reduce poverty through the promotion of alternative income generating activities and MSMEs, and through provision of access to credit, technology and services. During project preparation, it became clear that KCDP will generate potential benefits to vulnerable/marginalized groups and indigenous peoples’ groups and may also lead to some impact on these groups. In this context, the Indigenous People's Operational Policy (OP 4.10) will be triggered and in response the Borrower has prepared this Indigenous People's Policy Framework (IPPF) to guide intervention in this area. The purpose of the IPPF is to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, rights, economies, and cultures of these communities and that the project is able to gain broad community support of affected indigenous peoples and other vulnerable marginalized groups. Subprojects to be financed under KCDP will be screened and if Indigenous Peoples is a factor in the subproject, a subproject specific Indigenous Peoples Plans (IPP) will be prepared. These subprojects will not be implemented until the associated IPP has been developed in agreement with the affected Indigenous People’s communities, cleared and disclosed.
2.1 Social Management Requirements
World Bank Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy OP 4.10 contributes to the World Bank’s mission to reduce poverty and promote sustainable development by ensuring that Indigenous Peoples’ human rights, dignity, cultures and economies are fully respected. Through this policy, the Bank recognizes that identities and cultures are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live, and the natural resources they are dependent on. These distinct characteristics and circumstances make indigenous peoples vulnerable to different types of risks and levels of impacts from development projects. Such risks include loss of identity, culture and customary livelihoods as well as exposure to negative health impacts. The World Bank recognizes the vital role that hunter-gatherers play in sustainable development and the fact that their rights receive increasing attention and action under domestic and international law. In the context of this policy and acknowledging that the vulnerable/marginalized groups are likely to be more than just hunter-gatherer groups, the IPPF for the KCDP has been developed, highlighting the positive effects of promoting economic growth in the coastal areas through improved governance of coastal and marine resources; better revenue generation through sound monitoring, control and
9
surveillance; enhance equity and reduce poverty through the promotion of alternative income generating activities, and to guarantee social cohesion, non-discrimination, and sustainable development.
2.2 The Indigenous Peoples in the KCDP Area
During the preparation of the KCDP, it became known that the project could impact on indigenous peoples who are found in the coast of Kenya. Taking into consideration the existence of the Watha (Wasanya), the Boni and others, who are present in some parts of Malindi, Tana River, Lamu and possibly other districts, the project team opted to prepare an Indigenous People Planning Framework (IPPF) that will guide the implementation of the projects specifically in respect to the IPs localities.
2.2.1 The Watha Community
The Watha people are mostly found in the rural arid and semi arid lands of the country. A minority of them live in thick forests scattered all over the country. In Malindi district a Watha community is found in four divisions (i.e. Malindi, Langobaya, Marafa and Magarini). In Tana River district the Watha are found in Sombo and Laza divisions while in Mandera the Watha are found in Central division. The population of Watha community in the districts is estimated at approximately 30,000 persons. This is only 2.7% of the entire Malindi, Mandera and Tana River district population. However since the government abolished unlicensed hunting of game and wild animals, the Watha people now live in permanent settlements, some of them along the river and where there are forests, mainly in the mixed farming and livestock farming zones. The forests afford them an opportunity to practice bee keeping while those along the river practice crop production. The land tenure system in the district is communal ownership. Most of the land in the three districts of Malindi, Mandera and Tana River are currently under trust land by the county councils. Few influential people in the district have however managed to acquire title deeds from the land offices in Nairobi. However, most of this trust lands are controlled by the majority tribes and becomes a point of conflict if the smaller tribes and outsiders get involved. This is what has pushed the small and marginalized tribes like Watha deep into the forests.
2.2.2 The Boni Community
The Boni people are known for their unique tradition of whistling to birds that guide them to honey. They are found in Northeastern Kenya's district of Ijara and Lamu district. Their population is about 4,000, compared to 25,000 half a century ago (Source: Organization for the
Development of Lamu Communities (ODLC). They are nomadic hunter-gatherer tribe of mainly Cushitic origin with a unique characteristic. The community sources their subsistence from forest products such as honey, wild plants/fruits for consumption and medicinal purposes. The Boni are found in the North-Eastern part of Lamu district and Ijara District. They’re concentrated mainly in Witu, Hindi and Kiunga divisions. The community is located in villages of Bargoni
10
(Hindi Division), Milimani, Bodhei, Basuba, Mangai, Mararani, Kiangwe and Kiunga (Kiunga division), Pandanguo and Jima (Witu Division). The Boni live in forested areas of the district i.e. within the Witu and Boni forests. They live deep into the forest and only come out to the periphery when there is hardship or hunger. They perceive the forest in the Boni inhabited areas as communally theirs. However, with the gazettement of all the forest by the government this has become a source of conflict.
2.3 The Legal and Policy Framework Regarding Indigenous Peoples in
Kenya
There is no specific legislation regarding indigenous peoples of Kenya but, there are legislations and policies that address land, forest, education and fisheries issues among others. For example, the Government of Kenya has made clear its intention that “land issues requiring special intervention, such as historical injustices, land rights of minority communities (such as hunter-gatherers, forest-dwellers and pastoralists) and vulnerable groups will be addressed. The rights of these groups will be recognized and protected” (Draft Land Policy: p.6). In addition, the revised Forest Act promotes community participation in forest management by empowering the Community Forest Associations to manage their forests in a sustainable manner. Regarding education, the sector’s policy framework, the Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2005, provides for consideration of the groups that suffered marginalization. Such groups that have suffered past marginalization will receive targeted financial support in form of grants for education. Also, the MoST Sessional Paper No. I of 2005 entitled A Policy Framework for Education, Training and Research: Meeting the Challenges of Education, Training and Research in Kenya in the 21st Century” governs education policy in the country. In particular, the language of instruction is in the mother tongue in lower primary school (classes 1-3) in the rural areas, and there is a culturally sensitive approach used to address the learning needs of different communities. On fisheries, the Fisheries Act Cap 378 has created the Beach Management Units as instruments to promote community participation in Fisheries Management.
2.4 Impacts
This IPPF is expected to provide the framework in which negative impacts to the indigenous peoples are mitigated and positive impacts are enhanced based on the free, prior and informed consultations with the affected indigenous peoples. At this preparation phase of the project, no negative impacts are foreseen. Positive impacts for the indigenous people will be there. An action plan will be developed within the scope of the proposed Social Assessment that will provide the project team with practical measures in which the indigenous peoples are enabled to benefit from the project activities. Gender considerations will be factored into the project implementation processes so that men and women among the indigenous peoples are able to benefit in the most appropriate manner. It is also important to incorporate grievance mechanisms so that the voice of these vulnerable people is heard. Therefore, the Social Assessment will provide pointer to the best mechanisms that can be adopted to address these grievances. An analysis of project activities, their possible impacts and mitigation measures is presented in table 1.
11
Table 1: Potential impacts of KCDP on indigenous peoples
Component Project Activity as outlined
in the PAD
Possible impacts on the indigenous
peoples
Mitigation measures
1. Sustainable management of offshore fisheries resources
Policy and Institution reforms needed for instituting sustainable coastal and EEZ fisheries management Promotion of sustainable and profitable fishing practices and mariculture Promotion of value addition
(+) Empowerment of IPs depending on fisheries for greater economic opportunities from the sector IPs posess indigenous, practices and innovations that can be harnessed and improved
Capacity Building for knowledge on sustainable use and active participation Patenting innovations and protecting culturally sensitive knowledge and innovations
2.Sound Management of Natural Resources in the Coastal and Nearshore Marine Environment
Assessment of biodiversity & natural resources & development of an integrated information system Conservation of the unique coastal biodiversity and its natural resources Development of management plans, guidelines and strategies for sound management of biodiversity & natural resources Capacity building & institutional Support Conduct Research & Technology for Extension Services & Development of cottage industries
(-) Areas identified as ESAs and proposed for conservation may cover areas currently utilized/inhabited by IPs. This may affect their livelihood (-) Conservation goals may conflict with current livelihood activities practiced by the IPs (-) Likely loss of cultural values if and when IPs adopt new livelihood opportunities (+) Livelihood enhancement and diversification by giving support to increased adoption of livelihood diversification opportunities (+) Better appreciation of the value of indigenous ecosystems, thus providing a stronger case for their conservation
IPs to be involved in the spatial planning process comprehensively and areas of conflict consultatively identified and options explored and agreed on Capacity building of IPs to take advantage of new livelihood opportunities that are promoted by this project Construction of cultural centers to preserve culture of IPs Consultatively recommending use limits/carrying capacities of fragile eco-tourism/ indigenous sites
3. Support for alternative livelihoods in the Coastal Zone
Development of a locally based, participatory, spatial planning process Research and Technological Support for Extension services for the development of MSME Development and adoption of appropriate technologies to boost production, reduce
(-) As the IP are marginalized, there is a risk that they are not invited to participate in the spatial planning process which may further aggravate their economic marginalization (-) IPs may be influenced to change from their customary livelihood sources and this may dilute cohesion among them and may result in loss of cultural values (-) New livelihood opportunities may
Involvement of IPs in all stages of the spatial planning process should be enhanced in free, prior and informed consultations with the affected indigenous peoples Deliberate efforts should be placed to ensure that IP’s customary livelihood sources are strengthened The affected indigenous peoples
12
post harvest wastage and promote value-addition of products Developing better and more financially sound local micro, small and medium enterprises (MSEME) through provision of business service advice and support
conflict with current options for IPS (-) As the IP are marginalized in the decision making process and their specific needs unknown to decision makers, there is a risk, that CDD-projects proposed by them do not receive funding
should be consulted in free, prior and informed consultations when developing appropriate technologies so that these technologies take the interests of IPs into consideration
4. Capacity Building, monitoring & Evaluation System, Project Management and Communication
Construction of offices to house the project management team and staff training
(+) Efficiency in delivery of services Indicators to monitor benefits to IPs’ as as result of project interventions to be included in the M&E Framework
3.0 PARTICIPATORY SOCIAL ASSESSMENT
The project plans to undertake a detailed social assessment which will use a consultative approach and give voice to the vulnerable groups and indigenous people in the Kenyan coast. This social assessment will be undertaken in two stages – (1) initial screening; (2) detailed assessment. The objective of the initial screening is to identify all existing Indigenous Peoples in the proposed KCDP project operational area. This identification process will be informed by the following criteria: (i) self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; (ii) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories; (iii) customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (iv) an indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region. The objective of the detailed social assessment is to help the project support the aspirations and the needs of the vulnerable groups and indigenous people in the project area. As such, in addition to providing the social, economic and other relevant information, the project will come up with an action plan that will be developed in consultation with the beneficiaries on how the KCDP project will extend the benefits of the project to these groups and also mitigate any negative impacts. This action plan will be adopted by all the stakeholders and will pave the way for a standardized approach in all project areas where vulnerable and indigenous people live. This action plan will include arrangements for the free, prior, and informed consultations with the affected indigenous peoples’ communities, as well as arrangements for a participatory impact monitoring (PIM) at district level. This will be an important element to assist the various structures to fine-tune their interventions and aim at maximizing culturally appropriate benefits and provide space for the indigenous peoples’ communities to voice their concerns. The IPP will be prepared in a flexible and pragmatic manner, and its level of detail varies depending on the specific sub-projects, and the nature of effects to be addressed. The IPP will include the following elements:
13
(a) A summary of the social assessment. (b) A summary of results of the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected
vulnerable/marginalized communities that was carried out during subprogram preparation and that led to broad community support for the subprogram.
(c) A framework for free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected vulnerable/marginalized communities during subprogram implementation.
(d) An action plan of measures to ensure that the vulnerable/marginalized groups receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity of the subprogram implementing agencies.
(e) When potential adverse effects on vulnerable/marginalized groups including hunter-gatherers are identified, an appropriate action plan which includes measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for these adverse affects.
(f) The cost estimates and financing plan for the IPP. (g) Accessible procedures appropriate to the subprogram to address sector grievances by the
affected vulnerable/marginalized communities arising from subprogram implementation. When designing the grievance procedures, the borrower takes into account the availability of judicial recourse and customary dispute settlement mechanisms among the affected groups.
(h) Mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the subprogram for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the implementation of the IPP. The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should include arrangements for the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected communities.
(i) IPPs prepared through the Participatory Social Assessment process, will include consideration of gender-related concerns,
(j) The IPP will identify grievance mechanisms that will be appropriate and acceptable to the indigenous communities.
3.1 Institutional Arrangements
The planned Social Assessment will outline the existing and relevant institutions and how these can be strengthened. The indigenous peoples in the project will have their own representatives (both men and women) in the development committees whose capacities will be enhanced through the appropriate empowerment tools that will be recommended by the Social Assessment Report.
4.0 PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Following the Social Assessment and the collection of information on indigenous people, information will be included in the overall Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the project. The implementation of the participatory impact monitoring (PIM) at district and provincial level will be an important element to assist the various structures to fine-tune their intervention with a view to maximize culturally appropriate benefits and provide space for the indigenous peoples’ communities to voice their concerns. Benefits and impact on the indigenous people will be outlined in the final project impact evaluation.
14
4.1 Grievances
Where IPs have grievances, these will be brought to the attention of the PMT through the representatives of the IPs in the Project development committees where they will be fully represented.
5.0 DISCLOSURE
The PMT will submit the final draft of this IPPF to the World Bank for review and clearance. Once cleared, the PMT will disclose in Kenya in language and in a form that will be appropriate to the IPs. It will also be disclosed at the World Bank. The identified indigenous people will be consulted.
Budget: Implementation and supervision budget for this IPP will be built in the project budget. Approximately US$ 50,000 (Screening, Social Assessment and Action Plan) will be required for the initial preparation activities. Project interventions will be built in the sub-component budgets and work-plans.
1
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
KENYA COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KCDP)
JANUARY, 2010
2
The Kenya Coastal Development Project
The Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) supports the Government of Kenya’s priority public policy focus on promoting sustainable development and poverty reduction in the coastal area and building their human capital in line with the 2030 vision which strives to reduce the number of people living in poverty and guarantee equality of opportunities; increase the opportunities for youth, women and disadvantaged groups; and improve delivery of social services (including water, education etc) among others. The project aims at strengthening public sector management in all of the participating sectors within the coast in order to promote growth in the key sectors through enhanced productivity and good governance; reduce poverty through the provision of services, technical assistance, improved access to markets, promotion of public private partnerships thereby improving resilience and reducing vulnerability in a changing climate. The development objective of the KCDP is to achieve greater value and improved livelihood from sustainable management of marine and coastal resources while strengthening conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity. The project has four components as follows:
• Component 1: Sustainable Management of Fisheries Resources: The objective of this component is to increase revenue earning potential of Government of Kenya through sound monitoring, control and surveillance and a transparent process of licensing of foreign vessels. Other goals are to promote research for value addition, market chain analysis, alternatives beyond reef fishing and overall improvement of fisheries governance.
• Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources: This component aims to improve the sound management and regeneration of natural resources and biodiversity in the coastal and marine environment. A related goal is to identify biodiversity products and markets that will assist in promoting eco-tourism and spin-off industry. The value and future role of natural resources in Kenya’s future development is articulated in Vision 2030.
• Component 3: Support for Alternative Livelihoods: This component aims to promote sustainable livelihoods within a sound governance framework that includes spatial planning and land capability mapping to identify sensitive areas, Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), and compliance with environmental regulations and safeguards. Within this institutional framework, the component aims to support community investments and MSMEs.
• Component 4: Capacity building, Monitoring & Evaluation System, Project Management and Communication: This component aims to promote capacity in the project coordination and implementation teams, promote dialogue amongst national partners and regional stakeholders and develop a communication strategy for development outreach.
Purpose
During project preparation, it became clear that the project might impact on indigenous peoples’
rights, lands, livelihoods, and culture. To comply with international standards, including the
World Bank’s Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10), the Government of Kenya
commissioned the elaboration of an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF). The
3
purpose of the IPPF is to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, human
rights, economies, and culture of indigenous peoples, and that the project is able to gain the
broad community support of affected indigenous populations through free, prior, and informed
consultations.
As part of the IPPF process the Government of Kenya has decided to undertake a Social Assessment (SA) to understand the situation of indigenous people in the project area and to evaluate the projects’ potential positive and adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples, and to examine project alternatives where adverse effects may be significant. The breadth, depth, and type of analysis in the SA will be proportional to the nature and scale of the proposed projects potential effects on the Indigenous Peoples, whether such effects are positive or adverse. In view of the above, KCDP seeks the services of a consultancy firm or an individual to undertake a Social Assessment of communities identified in an initial screening. The Social Assessment of the indigenous peoples will reflect the following objectives:
• To assist the KCDP project to support the aspirations and needs of the indigenous peoples of Malindi, Tana River and Lamu districts.
• To identify and prepare a comprehensive plan that will avert any potentially adverse effects from project interventions on indigenous people and where not possible or feasible, mitigate or compensate such adverse impacts.
• To ensure that the benefits from KCDP reach the IPs in an equitable manner and through institutions that respect and are able to serve them in a timely manner.
The main objective of the consultancy is to elaborate a SA report as a project management
instrument and as input for the preparation of an IPPF.
Statement of work
• Identification of IPs and elaborate on their vulnerability and demographic profile as well as other social and economic characteristics;
• Identify potential effects of the project activities on the IPs;
• Establish the appropriate institutional framework applicable through consultation with the IPs;
• Map key stakeholders and existing local level IP institutions and how they must be engaged;
• Recommend the best consultation mechanisms that will enable voice, access and participation of these groups in project activities throughout the project cycle (planning, implementation, and M&E);
• Propose the most applicable participatory mechanism for the empowerment of the IPs to deal with the identified issues, enhance feedback on areas that are important for their survival and development;
• Recommend appropriate disclosure to include appropriate language.
4
• Outline performance monitoring and impact indicators.
Expected outputs, schedule and reporting
The SA report will focus on the analysis of ways to design and implement the project to enhance the delivery of culturally appropriate benefits and of potential social, economic, gender, health, and cultural impacts of the proposed project, and if adverse effects are likely, recommendations for their avoidance, minimization, or mitigation. The SA report will contain the following aspects:
1. Executive Summary: a summary of the SA and its methodology, key findings and recommendations
2. Findings of the SA, including stakeholder and institutional analyses, and a description of the data and information gathered
3. Description of the process of free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities
4. Socio-economic and other relevant baseline data 5. Maps of the Indigenous Peoples areas, currently and traditionally occupied, used or
owned 6. Description of the legal and institutional context pertaining to Indigenous Peoples and the
sector in the country 7. Description of potential benefits for Indigenous Peoples 8. Description of potential adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples Recommendations for
project design and implementation, including recommendations to ensure that project benefits are culturally appropriate and sustainable, and recommendation for appropriate mitigation measures for any adverse impacts. These recommendations are incorporated into project design and the Indigenous Peoples Plan
9. Recommendations for capacity building and institutional strengthening Recommendations for participation of and free, prior, and informed consultation with Indigenous Peoples during project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation
10. The evaluation of the extent of broad community support for the project, including any formal agreements reached with Indigenous Peoples’ communities and/or their organizations. Should be supported by data based evidence.
11. Annexes: In addition, the SA may include annexes on specific issues, such as: the itinerary of the social assessment process, relevant maps, minutes of meetings and consultations with the Indigenous Peoples and other key stakeholders, financial implications and a proposed budget and plan to follow through with the recommendations, and an outline for the Indigenous Peoples Plan.
Qualifications of the Consultants
Among other requirements, social assessment practitioners for a project affecting Indigenous
Peoples should have:
o Social science training (commonly in the social sciences, such as anthropology or sociology)
o Field experience in conducting both qualitative and quantitative social research o Appropriate familiarity with the languages and cultures of the affected communities,
5
o Proven sensitivity to Indigenus Peoples and cultural minority issues o Demonstrated experience in conducting social studies that meet international standards of
rigor and professionalism o Operational experience preparing or informing development projects and applying World
Bank safeguard policies o No conflicts of interest in undertaking the assignment.
The Timeframe and Budget
1. Time-frame: Specify time and duration of the SA, identifying delivery dates of key
outputs such as when the preliminary and final reports are forwarded to the borrower by
the contracted entity (e.g. consultant, firm, NGO). The TOR may also identify delivery
dates for when the borrower presents a preliminary report to the Bank for comments and
when a final report will be prepared and submitted to the Bank. Given the specific project
areas and the relative small number of communities involved, the social assessment
should take about 6 weeks.
2. Budget: The budget for the SA is itemized and contingencies provide for any needed
follow-up work.
Supervisor
The contractor will report to the PMT designated representative.