of options and development of for sub county, tana river ...identification of management options and...

Workshop report

Identification of Management Options and Development of Action Plans for Ecosystem Services in Kigaruni (Wenje)

WRUA, Hola Sub County, Tana River County

Friends Motel Hola

22nd November to 2nd December 2015

2 | P a g e

TableofContentsSummary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Meeting key stakeholders in Tana River County .......................................................................................... 6

Half day meeting to agree on the project’s entry point ............................................................................... 6

Main workshop ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Introduction of the project and ecosystem services .............................................................................. 10

Identification of management options ................................................................................................... 10

Ranking of management options ............................................................................................................ 12

Developing action plans for identified management options ................................................................ 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 17

Annexes ....................................................................................................................................................... 19

Annex 1: Ecosystem services mapping sketch maps .............................................................................. 19

Annex 2: identification of management options, challenges and opportunities for the different

ecosystem services ................................................................................................................................. 21

Annex 3: Scored management options per groups ................................................................................ 25

Annex 4. Workshop evaluation ............................................................................................................... 27

Annex 5: List of participants.................................................................................................................... 28

3 | P a g e

SummaryThis was a two week field mission aimed at meeting with the key stakeholders in Tana River County to

introduce the project, identify the main entry point for the project and conduct a workshop with the key

county officials, NGOs and community members from Kigaruni (Wenje) WRUA to identify ecosystem

services’ management options and develop action plans. This field mission was organized in three

phases which included:

1. Meeting the key stakeholders in Tana River County and agreeing on the entry institution.

2. Identification of management options for ecosystem services in Kigaruni (Wenje) WRUA.

3. Development of action plans for the identified management option.

4 | P a g e

AcronymsACF: Action Against Hunger

CFA: Community Forest Associations

FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization

GAA: German Agro Action

ILRI: International Livestock Research Institute

IUCN: The International Union for Conservation of Nature

MTAP: Medium Term Arid Lands Plan

NDMA: National Drought Management Authority

NGOs : Non Governmental Organizations

SCMP: sub catchment management plan

WMC: Water Management Committee

WRMA: Water Resource Management Authority

WRUAs: Water Resource User Associations

WSTF: Water Service Trust Fund

UNICEF: United Nations Children Education Fund

5 | P a g e

ProjectBackgroundThe productivity of African landscapes is very low (one tenth or less of their potential). Water, land and

ecosystem quality is degrading over substantial areas. Yet many areas face serious pressures from

increasing rural and urban populations, compounded by the threat of global climate change. Rangeland

resources are numerous but the ecosystems are fragile requiring appropriate management strategies to

ensure sustainable productivity. Changes in these landscapes will be brought about through individual

decisions. But for change to be sustainable it must be systemic, facilitated and directed by institutions

that support communities of women and men (ILRI Proposal 2014).

This project addresses these challenges by assisting policymakers, planners and pastoralists use insights

on the role of ecosystem services to support the livelihoods of pastoralists and to identify grazing and

rangeland management options that will strengthen livelihood support over the long‐term. An analysis

of available practices, of their potential impacts on water, biodiversity and forage, and of the potential

tradeoffs among them could help to identify best bet practices. Incorporating such analyses into local

and watershed‐level decision‐making could contribute to minimizing impacts on the environment and to

enhancing of ecosystem services from rangelands. Furthermore, this screening will contribute

substantially to the knowledge of pastoral livelihoods and ecosystems in Africa, and the diverse

interactions between human uses and the natural environment.

IUCN’s role in the project is to lead the community and stakeholder engagement processes of the

project; provide introductions and liaison between ILRI scientists and local stakeholders; facilitate local

stakeholders to develop plans for the maintenance/improvement of ecosystem services; lead the

development of planning and stakeholder engagement tools and contribute to the writing of a scientific

report, to be led by ILRI, on the overall project.

This mission was aimed at meeting key stakeholders in Tana River County to introduce the project and

determine an entry point for the project. A workshop was also held to identify ecosystem services in

Hola Sub County, identify management options for the ecosystem services and develop action plans for

their implementation. The management options and action plans are expected to inform the

development of scenario modelling for management of ecosystem services in Tana River County.

6 | P a g e

MeetingkeystakeholdersinTanaRiverCountyThis was done to introduce the project to the county officials and to get their input in identifying the

institution to engage with as an entry point for the project. Among the stakeholders met included the

director for livestock, the county commissioner, the national Drought Management Authority (NDMA),

the county secretary, the ecosystem conservator (KFS) and the Kenya wildlife service, FAO Tana River

and German Agro Action Tana River. Individual meetings were held with these stakeholders to discuss

the objectives of the project. The county officials were receptive to the project and expressed their

support in working with the institution identified as an entry point for the project.

Halfdaymeetingtoagreeontheproject’sentrypointThis was a half day meeting that brought together the relevant stakeholders from the county. The

meeting was aimed at agreeing on the entry point for the project and ensuring that the lead institution

would receive adequate support from the county government and other NGOs in the county in

implementing the action plans to be developed. This meeting started with an introduction of the

project and the main project locations. An introduction of ecosystem services in general was made and

this led to discussions of the main ecosystem services in Hola Sub County and how the community in this

area benefited from the ecosystem services.

The main ecosystem services identified included:

Provisioning services which are those benefits directly derived from the environment and they include

water supply for domestic, agricultural and livestock needs; fuel wood, construction materials and

medicinal products from forests and food, pasture and fibre from the rangelands, forests and water

bodies.

Regulating services which comprise benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes and

they include: water purification by forests, shrubs and vegetation; air quality maintenance by forests;

climate regulation; flood control; erosion control by vegetation and pollination.

Cultural Services which are the non‐material benefits that people obtain from ecosystems through

spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences. They

include cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, educational values, aesthetic values, cultural

heritage values and recreation and ecotourism.

Supporting Services which are those that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem

services. Their impact on humans are either indirect or occur on a long term basis unlike the other

services whose impact on humans is direct and occur on a short term basis. They include, soil formation

and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling, habitat provision for wildlife, production of atmospheric

oxygen.

After identifying ecosystem services in Tana River County, a stakeholder analysis was done by the

participants. The aim of this exercise was to identify the stakeholders working on different aspects of

7 | P a g e

ecosystem services in the county. Table 1 gives the detailed analysis of what the different stakeholders

are currently working on in relation to ecosystem services in Tana River County.

Table 1: Stakeholder Matrix

Ecosystem service Stakeholders Roles in ecosystem service management at landscape level

Provisioning services (from forests / bushland which include fuel wood, building material, medicines) and Supporting service (carbon sequestration)

Community Forest Associations – CFAs Conservation of the forest Planting trees in the community

Local community Utilization of the forest Conservation of the forest

Kenya wildlife service Conservation of the forest and wildlife Policy implementation

County land management board – CLMB Policy makers on land matters

Water Resources User Associations – WRUAs Protection of water resources Conservation of water resources Management of water catchment areas

NGOs eg Nature Kenya Conservation of forests Tree planting

The environment department of the county government

Afforestation Waste management

NEMA Conservation Enforcement of regulations

WRMA Conservation and management of water resources

Provisioning service (Food)

County department of agriculture Provision of seeds Soil and water conservation Land management

County department of livestock Provision of drugs and vaccines for livestock Conservation of seasonal grazing areas. Issuing permits for livestock movement

National Irrigation Board Provision of water for farmers

Community Utilization of food Food production

County department of fisheries Education and awareness on fish farming

Cultural service

County department of gender, culture and social services

Promote restoration of social values and integration. Conservation of cultural sites

Community Conservation of cultural sites. Sustenance of cultural values

Supporting service (Wildlife habitat)

Kenya Forest Service Conservation of gazetted forests and bushland

Kenya Wildlife Service Conservation and management of wildlife and their habitats. Collaboration with other stakeholders to manage wildlife

8 | P a g e

Community Develop community conservation bylaws (formal / informal). Involved in conservation initiative eg formation of conservancies Traditional management initiatives

County department of wildlife and natural resources Formulation of conservation policies and restoration

WRUAs Protection of water catchments

Community Forest Associations – CFA Forest conservation in collaboration with KFS.

NGOs eg Nature Kenya Conservation of important bird areas.

County land management board Develop policies on utilization of public and communal land

County water department Rehabilitation of catchment areas

NEMA Develop and enforce policies on environmental management.

Provisioning service (Grasslands and pasture areas)

Ministry of livestock Build capacity, provision of pasture seed provision of extension services pasture establishment and range reseeding

NDMA Support livestock ministry. Develop land use plans. Disease control Developing grazing management plans Control and maintain firebreaks

FAO Land governance Land use plans Financing ministry activities especially FAO

RPLRP Establishment of pastures Irrigation Reseeding

Community Grazing Management Committee Control of livestock migration and overgrazing. Develop grazing management plans Bylaws enforcement

NGAO Security enforcement

Water department Water infrastructure provision. Strategic planning

Ministry of livestock Water provision for livestock

WRMA Regulation and support to WRUAs

Provisioning service (Water supply)

National Irrigation Board Bulk supply of water for agriculture

Water Service Trust Fund Financial support to institutions and communities

Action Against Hunger Development of small water structures (boreholes and shallow wells)

9 | P a g e

German Agro Action Provision of water structures to schools and communities (water pans and boreholes)

WRUAs Conservation of catchments

UNICEF Provision of water structures (shallow wells) WASH activities. Water pans, boreholes troughs

NDMA Community support / capacity building.

MTAP Funding the development of sub catchment management plans (SCMPs) Funding the implementation of SCMP activities.

WMC Community water structure management

Once the stakeholder analysis exercise was completed, the participants were asked to identify an

institution / stakeholder that would be most ideal as an entry point for this project. The following

selection criteria were used to guide this exercise.

Organisation/institution with structure to manage ecosystem services at landscape level

Potential to link with county and national government institutions and structures

Authority to make decisions on the ecosystem services/resources

Ability to link with community at grassroots level

Ability to mobilize resources for ecosystem management

Appropriateness/potential of the project interventions to add value to its operations

Ability to bring different livelihood and ethnic groups together in resource management

Potential to bridge the gap and enhance collaboration between formal and traditional resource

management institutions

Potential to solve/convene dialogues on natural resource use conflicts

These criteria were applied in the analysis of the different stakeholders and it was agreed that the

Kigaruni (wenje) WRUA was the most ideal entry point for this project. Other than the screening

questions used to evaluate the ideal institution to engage, the Kigaruni (Wenje) WRUA was also

identified as a suitable entry point because of the following:

It is the only registered WRUA within Hola Sub County.

It has not yet developed its sub catchment management plan (SCMP)

It has already received funds for the development of its SCMP.

It is made up of different user groups in the sub catchment including the community forest

association, the grazing associations, the water user associations, etc.

It is comprised of both the framers and livestock keepers.

Its focus is on water and other resources within the sub catchment.

10 | P a g e

MainworkshopThis was organized by IUCN in collaboration with ILRI. The workshop brought together key stakeholders

in the county and community members from the Kigaruni (Wenje) WRUA. The main objectives of the

workshop were:

To understand ecosystem services found in Hola Sub County.

To identify management options for these ecosystem services.

To develop community action plans for management of these ecosystem services.

IntroductionoftheprojectandecosystemservicesThe introduction session of the workshop included an overview of the project aim and objectives and

how this workshop would build into the project. This was followed by an introduction of ecosystem

services in general for the participants to understand the main topic under discussion. The different

benefits of ecosystem services were also discussed including the categories of ecosystem services. An

introduction of scenario modelling was also done and this focused on how the outputs of the workshop

would be used to create different scenarios that would be used to analyze the best management

options to manage and derive more ecosystem benefits from Kigaruni (Wenje) area.

Participants were then grouped into three groups and their task was to map out the county and give a

location of the different ecosystem services found within the Kigaruni WRUA. The main ecosystem

services identified by the participants included:

Water supply which is a provisioning ecosystem service.

Pasture which is a provisioning ecosystem service.

Food which is a provisioning ecosystem service.

Forests which is both a provisioning, supporting and regulating ecosystem service.

Wildlife and wildlife habitat which provides provisioning and supporting ecosystem services

Cultural ecosystem service.

Sketches of the mapping exercise of resources within kigaruni (wenje) WRUA are included as annex 1 of

this report

IdentificationofmanagementoptionsThis was done to identify how benefits from the ecosystem services within Kigaruni sub catchment could

be enhanced. The participants identified different management options for the ecosystem services

found within the sub catchment. Participants also identified the challenges and opportunities for the

different ecosystem services found within the county. A detailed list of the group work on identifying

the different management options and the challenges and opportunities associated with each

ecosystem service is attached as annex 2. Table 2 gives a summary of ecosystem management options

identified by the participants:

11 | P a g e

Table 2: Ecosystem management options

Ecosystem service Management Options

Water supply (provisioning service), water purification (regulating service), water cycling (supporting service)

Establishment of water storage facilities eg water Pans, dams, rain water harvesting etc

Construction of animal troughs

Opening up of Malka corridors

Water catchment rehabilitation/ and protection

Water purification.

Fish farming.

Flood receding farming.

Tree planting.

Strengthening of water utilities and water committees.

Pasture (provisioning service) Adherence of grazing patterns / Rotational grazing.

Reservation of pasture areas (milking herds)

Pasture management committees

Feed storage.

Fodder farming.

Destocking.

Value addition of prosopis to produce fodder. Eg charcoal production.

Clear policies on land use and grazing management.

Reseeding.

Enclosures.

Empowerment / diversification.

Food (provisioning service) Provision of farming equipment

Provision of fertilizer and pest control subsidies.

Construction of storage facilities.

Alternative livelihoods.

Re‐afforestation.

Water harvesting.

Tree planting.

Integrated farm management practices.

Increased food production.

Population control measures.

Creating awareness on natural foods.

Irrigation

Creation of more market centers.

Capacity building.

Transparency and accountability.

Forests (provisioning service) Gusa bylaws

Community forest organizations

Restriction on charcoal burning

Traditional rotational management systems

Re‐afforestation

Empowerment of WRUAs and CFAs

Awareness creation.

12 | P a g e

Law enforcement and surveillance.

Advocacy for change of land tenure.

Income generating activities.

Irrigation.

Wildlife and wildlife habitats (supporting service) and tourism (Cultural service)

Knowledge sharing on the importance of wildlife

Fencing

Establishment of community based conservancies

Law enforcement and surveillance.

Community empowerment and education.

Animal control to avoid conflict.

Alternative wildlife farming.

Habitat rehabilitation.

Income generating activities.

Opening of wildlife corridors.

Fire management.

Manageable families.

Cultural services Strengthen traditional economic activities.

Equality on resource sharing and representation.

Establishment of cultural centers.

Introduction of cultural education in the school curriculum

Protection of cultural sites by WRUAs and CFAs

Exposure visits.

Publicity.

RankingofmanagementoptionsThis was done to identify the most desirable and feasible management option for Kigaruni sub

catchment. Participants were required to initially identify 4 management options that the WRUA would

want to implement in the near future. These management options were from the total list of

management options listed for water and pasture in table 2. This was because water and pasture had

been identified as the two most important ecosystem services in Kigaruni sub catchment both at the

half day stakeholder meeting and at the beginning of the main workshop. For the 4 selected

management options, participants were to analyze them using the criteria in table 3. Each management

option was then scored with 3 being the highest mark and 1 being the lowest mark. The scores were

then aggregated to come up with the ranked management options. The scoring per group is attached as

annex 3 of this report.

Table 3: ecosystem services ranking criteria

Ranking criteria (1= low, 2=medium or 3=high)

Low costs

Technical ease

Likelihood of government support

Ease of securing community support

Strength of impact

13 | P a g e

Deliver benefits quickly

Benefits wide range of people

Likelihood of failure (reliability)

Positively affect multiple ecosystem services

From the scoring exercise, table 4 provides the ranked management options per group.

Table 4: Ranked Management Options per group

Group 1 Group 2

Group 3

1 Opening up malka corridors (pathways used by livestock to access water)

Grazing management committees

Catchment protection for instance tree and vegetation planting on river banks.

2 Grazing management/enclosures Rotational grazing Grazing management patterns

3 Strengthening community committees

Water harvesting structures

Water harvesting structures

4 Reseeding, fodder farming and pasture storage.

Malka corridors Reseeding

5 Destocking with capacity building Strengthening water committees

Grazing management committees

6 Water harvesting infrastructure Tree planting Strengthening of water committees

7 Catchment protection and conservation

Reseeding Malka corridors

8 Value addition of animal feeds Fodder farming Fodder / Pasture farming

The final ranking of management options was as follows:

1. Grazing management

a. Grazing committees

b. Grazing patterns.

2. Strengthening water committees.

3. Establishment of strategic water infrastructure.

4. Opening up pathways used by livestock to access water points (Malka corridors).

5. Reseeding degraded areas.

DevelopingactionplansforidentifiedmanagementoptionsAction planning is a process that helps to focus ideas and to decide what steps should be taken to

achieve particular goals. It is generally a statement of what one is expected to achieve over a given

period of time. They provide a rationale, key steps, the cost, time frame and key stakeholders to be

engaged in implementing an activity. From the list of 5 management options identified, action plans

were developed for the first three management options which included:

14 | P a g e

1. Grazing management

a. Grazing committees

b. Grazing patterns.

2. Strengthening water committees.

3. Establishment of strategic water infrastructure.

In developing the action plans, the participants were expected to use the following components:

The main activities

The rational for the main activity

The resources required.

The time frame for implementation.

The location

The cost.

The implementing body

Table 5: Action plans

Management option 1 – Grazing Management Key activities Rationale (why) Resources Time

frame Location (where)

Costs (Kshs) Responsible body/persons (who)

Sensitization on the importance of grazing management

Community support. Awareness creation. Contribution from all parties. Minimal resistance.

Man power. Finances.

One to four months

Kina komba ward. 5 locations

200,000 to 800,000

WRUA Provincial administration. County administration. NGOs

Formation and capacity building of grazing committee members

Have a functional (effective) body to oversee the grazing management pattern.

Expert to train them and oversee. Funds. WRUA.

Three months

Kina komba ward.

300,000 Social services. WRUA. Livestock department. Water ministry. Administration. County government.

Setting up grazing blocks – dry and wet season grazing blocks.

Ensure continued availability of pasture and browse. Reduce conflict.

Council of elders. Opinion leaders. Religious leaders.

One to two months.

Kina komba ward.

200,000 to 300,000

Council of elders. WRUAs. Chiefs. County government.

Grazing bill or by laws

Ensure effectiveness. Enforcement of the law.

Expertise Funds County government.

One year. Kina kombe 400,000 – a realistic estimate is however required.

County government.NGOs. Council of elders. WRUA.

15 | P a g e

Management option 2 – strengthening water committees Key activities Rationale (why) Resources Time



Capacity building on : Management skills Financial management skills

Providing information. Self management.

Funding trainers 30 members for each skill

2 months Kigaruni WRUA

600,000 per month. 900,000 per month. 900,000 per month.

County government NGOs National government. CDF. International donors.

Transport Access Vehicles (4 by 4). Motorbhikes (5) Bicycles. (8)

6months.3months.1month

Kigaruni WRUA

5million 500,000 80,000

County government NGOs National government. CDF. International donors Member’s contribution. Community

Office Operation space Office block. 4months. Kigaruni WRUA

400,000 Fundraising

Bylaws Guidance rules adherence.

Constitutions. Water use resolutions

2 weeks. Tana river county

50,000 Members. consultant

Exchange visits – this was ab additional one

Management option 3 – Establishment of strategic water infrastructureKey activities Rationale (why) Resources Time



Construction of three earth pan 20,000 cubic meters

Reduce distance moved by animals in search of water. Reduce domestic and wildlife conflicts. Storage for use in dry seasons.

Funds. Land. Technical expertise including indigenous knowledge. Development partners. County government.

January to june

10million each.

Vukoni juu. Dadash kori. Dadash mare.

Kigaruni

Construction of two sand dam

Preservation of water for use during the dry season.

Funds. Land. Technical and

January to June.

2.5million each.

Haronesa. Korobo.

Kigarguni

16 | P a g e

local expertise. Development partners. County government.

5 tanks for roof catchment of 50,000litres capacity (masonry not plastic tanks)

Preservation of water for use during the dry season.

Funds. Technical expertise. Development partners. County government. Masonries.

January to june.

1.5million each.

Vukoni primary. Wenje dispensary. Hara dispensary. Bakisana primary. Maroni primary. Kipendi nursery.

Kigaruni WRUA

17 | P a g e

ConclusionEcosystem services are an important part of communities and they provide essential goods and services

for the overall functioning of the ecosystem. In Hola Sub County, there are several ecosystem services

which include provisioning services like food and pasture, regulating services like water purification and

drought control, cultural services like wildlife and forests and the supporting services like water and

nutrient recycling and carbon sequestration. From this list of ecosystem services, the most important

ones as per the community are the provisioning services which comprise water supply and pasture

provision. The main water source for Tana River County is the Tana River from which the county’s name

is formulated. There are also several other small seasonal rivers and lakes within the county. Participants

at the workshop and stakeholders engaged in the discussions expressed that water and pasture

degradation is on the rise and this is caused mainly by human factors which include:

Farming on livestock corridors and fencing them off.

Charcoal burning.

Loss of mobility which has reduced to overstocking in some areas and consequently overgrazing

which limits the period for vegetation regeneration.

Massive land clearance and leaving it bare which makes the land susceptible to prosopis

infestation.

Poor fire management during bush burning which often results in fire spreading to non‐target

areas including the forests and pasture lands. This affects wildlife in the forests and bees (honey

production). This also leads to loss of some tree species.

Movement of livestock which increases the spread of prosopis.

Hunting of wild animals.

Sand harvesting.

There are also practices being done by the communities in the area that are beneficial to the ecosystem

services. These include:

Mixing soil with crop residues and grass during ploughing to enhance soil moisture.

Planting trees around the farms to reduce soil erosion. Trees planted are mainly fruit trees –

mangoes, oranges, lemons and guavas.

Stopping community members from defecating in the rivers and livestock from drinking water

directly from the rivers.

Community sensitization by WRUAs on the dangers of tree cutting and charcoal burning.

Formation of community conservancies. Through these conservancies, community rangers are

appointed and their main task is to who protect their environment from timber loggers and

wildlife poaching. This has contributed to reduced deforestation. This also follows traditional

structures and community leaders are required to approve for trees to be cut.

Despite the current efforts by the community to protect the ecosystem services, there is more that is

required to enhance the ecosystem benefits. Collective effort is required from the community, the

county government and NGOs/CBOs in the county.

18 | P a g e

Despite our reliance on knowledgeable community members and resource persons from both county

and national governments for this project, the short term nature of our engagement does not allow for

an in depth analysis of management options and ecosystem services. We should be cautious in dealing

with re‐seeding without addressing root cause of vegetation loss and emphasis should first be placed on

establishing effective herd controls to enable natural regeneration. We should be concerned about

proposed enclosures due to the implications for land rights and governance and the risk of private

acquisition of communal land. We should also ensure that planning is informed by much better

assessment of rangeland health in order to avoid the narrative of assumed rangeland degradation being

used to justify changes in land use and management practices (and thereby leading to further land

acquisitions). It is therefore desirable to allocate more time to engage a large portion of the community

members for an in depth analysis as opposed to relying on few individuals and to strengthen the

participatory planning with more technical support and awareness raising.

19 | P a g e

Annexes

Annex1:Ecosystemservicesmappingsketchmaps

20 | P a g e

21 | P a g e

Annex2:identificationofmanagementoptions,challengesandopportunitiesforthedifferentecosystemservicesGroup 1

Ecosystem Service Challenges Opportunities Management options

Water Scarcity in terms of quantity and quality Accessibility Floods Channeling water for irrigation Human wildlife conflict

Rivers Lakes Rain

Water storage facilities eg water tanks, dams etc Animal troughs Malka corridors Water catchment rehabilitation

Pasture Scarcity Run off Bush encroachment Lack of seeds (grass) Disruption of grazing patters.

Existence of traditional management systems

Adherence of grazing patterns Reservation of pasture areas (milking herds) Pasture management committees

Food Environmental degradation Human wildlife conflict Scarcity High fertility rates Food storage Irregular rain patterns Using old farming systems

Plenty of lands Availability of extension officers

Provision of farming equipment Provision of subsidies. Construction of storage facilities.

Forests Deforestation Lack of rotational harvesting Profit centered individuals

Traditional management systems Forest areas Forest officers Wildlife officers

Gusa bylaws Community forest organizations Restriction on charcoal burning Traditional rotational management systems

Wildlife Poaching Human wildlife conflict Lack of compensation

High value for crocodile meat and eggs Wildlife officers Game reserve

Knowledge sharing on the importance of wildlife Fencing Establishment of community based conservancies

Culture Abandonment of culture. Lack of benefit sharing. Discrimination against certain persons or groups.

Tourist attraction. The new constitution. Availability of sacred places.

Strengthen traditional economic activities. Equality on resource sharing and representation.

Group 2

Ecosystem service Challenges Opportunities Management options

Water Poor water distribution. Minimal water harvesting. Poor water quality. Water scarcity in the dry season. Flooding.

Construction of water harvesting infrastructure eg dams and ponds. Water purification. Fish farming.

22 | P a g e

Flood receding farming. Range reseeding. Tree planting.

Pasture Overgrazing. Resource competition. Invasive species. Depletion of perennial grasses. Persistent drought. Livestock influx from neighboring communities. Lack of supportive policies.

Establishment of grazing management committees. Destocking. Rotational grazing. Value addition of prosopis to produce fodder. Clear policies on land use and grazing management. Pasture storage for dry season use. Pasture farming.

Food Change in eating habits. Population increase. Decline in soil fertility. Food scarcity. Climate change.

Alternative livelihoods. Re‐afforestation. Water harvesting. Tree planting. Integrated farm management practices. Increased food production. Population control measures. Creating awareness on natural foods.

Forests Logging Charcoal burning. Wild fires. Conversion of forests to farmlands. Land tenure systems.

Presence of the county government. KWS, KFS and NEMA

Re‐afforestation Empowerment of WRUAs and CFAs Awareness creation. Law enforcement. Advocacy for change of land tenure.

Wildlife Poaching Human livestock wildlife conflict Habitat loss Inadequate knowledge on wildlife.

Law enforcement. Community sensitization. Establishment of wildlife conservancies. Animal control to avoid conflict. Alternative wildlife farming. Habitat rehabilitation.

Culture Cultural disruption. Destruction of cultural sites. Population pressure. Presence of different religion.

Establishment of cultural centers. Introduction of cultural education in the school curriculum Protection of cultural sites by WRUAs and CFAs

Group 3

Ecosystem service Challenges Opportunities Management options

23 | P a g e

Water Drought Inadequate water supply Poor water quality. Accessibility. High cost. Conflicts.

Existing river Tana. County government. Development partners. The new constitution 2010. Existing structures within the communities.

Establishment of water reservoirs. Rain water harvesting. Protection of water catchment areas. Strengthening of water utilities and water committees. Reseeding. Enclosures.

Pasture Drought. Conflicts. Invasive species. Overstocking. Pests and diseases. Wild animals.

County government. Community grazing committees. Research. Availability of livestock insurance

Reseeding. Enclosures. Seasonal grazing management. Management of invasive species through charcoal production. Destocking. Empowerment / diversification. Pasture stocking. Fodder farming.

Food Drought. Inadequate storage facilities. Poor road networks. Lack of markets. High costs of input. Corruption. Inadequate farm equipment. Human wildlife conflict. Subsistence farming. Pests.

River tana County government. Development partners. Subsidies. Political goodwill. Chapter 6 of the constitution.

Irrigation. Provision of funds. Creation of more market centers. Establishing house hold storage facilities. Improved / modern farming methods. Government subsidies on pest control. Capacity building. Transparency and accountability.

Forests Drought. Charcoal burning. Deforestation. Poverty. Ignorance. Banditry Unemployment

Land availability Availability of carbon markets. County government. Availability of partners. Ranches. Aesthetic beauty.

Irrigation. Community empowerment. Income generating activities. Surveillance. Education and awareness raising. Afforestation.

Wildlife / tourism Poaching. Human wildlife conflict. Banditry. Pests and diseases. Poor roads. Population increase. Habitat fragmentation Drought

Government. Community conservancies. KWS. Kora national park. Tana Primate (Baomo) Tourism

Surveillance. Community empowerment and education. Income generating activities. Creation of community conservancies. Opening of wildlife corridors. Fire management. Manageable families.

Cultural Lack of exposure. Lack of publicity.

Tourism. Community values and

Exposure visits. Publicity.

24 | P a g e

Modern education. Civilization.

norms. Potential for income generation.

25 | P a g e

Annex3:ScoredmanagementoptionspergroupsGroup 1

26 | P a g e

Group 2

Group 3

27 | P a g e

Annex4.Workshopevaluation

28 | P a g e

Annex5:Listofparticipants

of options and development of for sub county, tana river ...identification of management options and...

Documents