World Agroforestry Centre-ICRAF. United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, Nairobi, Kenya |

Post: PO Box 30677, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya |

Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD):

Biodiversity Management Programme (BMP) In the Horn of

Africa-Kenya.

Land Use Planning (LUP), Cross Border Stakeholder Dialogue

Platform (CBSDP) and Trans Boundary Steering Committee (TBSC)

Meetings Report: Oak Place, Nairobi, Kenya

30th June-2nd July 2015

R E P O R T C O M P I L E D B Y :

G R A C E K O E C H , A L E X O D U O R , M A I M B O M A L E S U , J O S E P H A T N Y O N G E S A A N D

J A N D E L E E U W

ii | P a g e

Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. iv

INRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................... 1

Justification for the meetings: Activity linked to project results ............................................... 2

1.0 Day One: Land Use Planning Stakeholder Session ....................................................... 3

1.1 Opening remarks and welcome address .......................................................................... 3

Mr. Maimbo Malesu-Head Water Management Unit, World Agroforestry Centre .............. 3

Dr. Jonathan Muriuki-Country Representative, World Agroforestry Centre ........................ 4

1.2 Biodiversity Management Programme Land Use Plan Concept Note ............................ 6

Dr. Dorothy Wanja-National Museum of Kenya ................................................................... 6

1.3 Participatory land use planning ....................................................................................... 9

Stephanie Duvail -KENWEB/NMK ....................................................................................... 9

1.4 Lamu County Spatial planning ...................................................................................... 10

1.5 Possible institutions to draw participants in the Training of Trainers of the participatory

land use planning ................................................................................................................. 13

1.6 Brainstorming on the Technical Committee (TC) ......................................................... 13

1.6.1 Terms of reference for the proposed Committee .................................................... 13

1.7 Way Forward ................................................................................................................. 14

1.8 Closing Remarks ........................................................................................................... 14

EU delegation ...................................................................................................................... 14

Josephat ............................................................................................................................... 14

Jan De Leeuw ...................................................................................................................... 14

2.0 CROSSBORDER STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PLATFORM .................................... 15

2.1 Opening and welcome remarks ..................................................................................... 15

Dr. Jeremias Mowo, Regional director Eastern and Southern Africa Region .................... 15

Maimbo Malesu-Head water management unit ICRAF ...................................................... 15

2.2 Presentation by the BMP project manager and partners ................................................ 15

Josephat Nyongesa BMP Project Management .................................................................. 15

ISSA Gedi – NRT-coast ....................................................................................................... 15

James Wang’ombe -KFS ..................................................................................................... 16

Dr. Mwachala – NMK ......................................................................................................... 16

2.3 Closing remarks ............................................................................................................. 18

iii | P a g e

Danilo .................................................................................................................................. 18

Mohamed ............................................................................................................................. 18

EU Delegation ..................................................................................................................... 18

3.0 TRAN’S BOUNDARY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING ............................... 19

RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 20

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: National and project level Stakeholders of Land use planning Photo by Albert

mwangi-ICRAF .......................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Mr. Maimbo Malesu (in front) leading the Land use planning meeting Photo by

Albert Mwangi-ICRAF .............................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Plenary session for Land Use Planning ..................................................................... 12

Table 2: Plenary session for Cross Border Stakeholder Dialogue Platform ............................ 17

Table 3: Plenary session for Tran’s boundary Steering Committee Meeting .......................... 19

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASDSP African Sector Development Support Programme

BMP Biodiversity Management Programme

EU European Union

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre

IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development

KFS Kenya Forest Services

LCG Lamu County Government

LFI Log Frame Indicator

LUM Land Use Mapping

NRT Northern Rangeland Trust

TOT Training of Trainers

iv | P a g e

Executive Summary

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Biodiversity Management

Programme (BMP) is a project managed by IGAD with financial support from

European Union (EU). In Kenya the BMP project is implemented by World

Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). It aims to contribute to conservation and sustainable

management of ecosystems in the IGAD region. Among the project activities are to

Strengthened cross-border cooperation and Land Use Planning.

This report describes a series of meetings which were organized by World

Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). The first meeting on Land Use Planning (LUP) was

aimed at gathering key national, project site level stakeholders on LUP and network

on current initiatives on LUP to ensure that biodiversity conservation is mainstreamed

to the Lamu spatial plan. The second meeting was on Cross Border Steering Dialogue

Platform (CBSDP) aimed at fostering dialogue on cross border biodiversity

management and conservation issues between Somali and Kenyan stakeholders in the

BMP cross border pilot area and the third meeting on Trans Boundary Steering

Committee was organized to establish a committee to monitor progress in the pilot

areas. The meetings provided several recommendations to fast track on project

activity implementation, future planning of similar workshops and partnership

engagements. However, CBSDP could not be established according to the objectives

due to low representation from Somalia to balance their Kenyan representatives

therefore the need to be reviewed as proposed by the meeting.

1 | P a g e

INRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

There is growing recognition that natural capital supports our economies and

wellbeing. The concept of ecosystem services has influenced and altered our

perspectives on the relation between people and their environment. It has led to the

recognition that nature provides many services, called ecosystem services, that are

crucially important to people. This includes services that satisfy basic human needs

such as food, fiber, energy and water (provisioning services),benefits got from

regulation of ecosystem processes for instance pollination (regulating services), non-

material benefits from ecosystems for instance social relations such as honey

gathering communities, recreation and ecotourism (cultural service and services that

serve for production of other ecosystem services for example habitat provision,

nutrient cycling and production of atmospheric oxygen(supporting services).

However, degradation of biodiversity through human related activities threatens

sustainable production of the ecosystem services. Degradation of ecological health is

further exacerbated by climate change.

Biodiversity in the horn of Africa is vulnerable to degradation particularly in the cross

border area where high poverty level limits the livelihoods options of people living in

these areas. This is the case in the Kenya –Somalia border where poverty and low

social economic development have led to unsustainable use of ecosystem goods and

services resulting in loss of natural habitat. There is increasing recognition of

Biodiversity as main source ecosystem goods and services which support socio-

economic development. However, biodiversity conservation cannot be achieved in

isolation from social wellbeing. Conservation of the cross border diversity requires

joint stakeholder collaborative efforts to restore ecosystem goods and services. The

Biodiversity Management Programme (BMP) is an IGAD initiative with the financial

support of the European Union (EU) aiming to contribute to poverty reduction by

improving the social and economic wellbeing of the populations in the IGAD region,

through a better regional integration in the environmental sector. Its purpose is the

conservation and sustainable management of the ecosystems in the IGAD region, in

order to contribute to lasting ecosystem goods and services. ICRAF is one of the BMP

Implementing Partners and is managing one of the three projects, the Tana-Kipini and

Laga Badana Bush Bushle Land & Seascapes financed through the IGAD

Biodiversity Management Programme.

The Horn of Africa (HoA, synonymous with the IGAD region) has a rich and unique

biodiversity, expressed in a diversity of landscapes and the richness of species therein.

It hosts for example the second largest terrestrial wildlife (white-eared kobb)

migration in Africa, and several of the regions’ eco-regions figures among the Global

200 Terrestrial Eco-regions. The Coastal Forests of Kenya and Somalia further

comprise one of the worlds’ 34 biodiversity hotspots.

Unsustainable use and overexploitation of the natural resources degrades the natural

capital and its ability to provide the ecosystem services that underpin our wellbeing.

While this is undesirable for humanity at large, it is particularly problematic for poor

2 | P a g e

people whose livelihoods typically heavily depend on the ecosystem services

provided by their direct neighboring environment. The Horn of Africa is a global

poverty hotspot and many of the regions’ poor experience this loss of benefits from

ecosystem services. First of all many ecosystems in the Horn of Africa are degraded,

with reduction of benefits to people as a result. This effect of degradation on the

benefits that people derive from nature may be worsened by progressive climate

change. The benefits that poor people derive from nature are further exacerbated by

loss of access to land and water resources facilitated by weakness or absence of

secure tenure over these resources, allowing elites and international investors to

capture these resources at the detriment of the poor.

Border areas are frequently rich in biodiversity as a result of remoteness allowing

preservation of what has gone elsewhere. The Horn of Africa is no exception with a

number of unique biodiversity hotspots that span the borders between IGADs member

states. There are challenges however to preserve biodiversity in areas close to borders,

particularly when government institutions are weak (or absent) than in more

intensively used areas and when insecurity prevails as a result of this. In such cases it

is difficult to manage biodiversity within national territories. Given the trans-

boundary nature of the activities of stakeholders and the need to maintain corridors to

allow genetic exchange between cross border species populations, there need to

manage the biodiversity of cross border areas across the border of individual states.

It is imperative that there are bilateral and intra-regional agreements and cooperation

regarding the use of the lands and biodiversity along borders. Developing agreements

and exercising cooperation concerned with lands and natural resources that transcend

borders can promote peace, and promote sustainable development. To be effective

such bi- and multilateral agreements need to be accompanied by interventions that at

the same time support the conservation of biodiversity and the reduction of poverty

and food insecurity of the communities living in these areas. Ecosystem services

connect biodiversity and livelihoods, and there is increasing recognition that

biodiversity may be preserved and social needs addressed through projects that

support the poor to benefit from biodiversity based ecosystem services.

Justification for the meetings: Activity linked to project results

The meetings were linked to Activity 5: this activity aims at “promoting cross-border

cooperation in NRM and to facilitate the establishment of a trans-boundary protected

area. The results from activities 1 and 2 will serve as inputs to this activity”; Link to

Log Frame Indicator (LFI), this activity shall result in LFI 1.1 “Cross-Border

Stakeholder Dialogue Platform for biodiversity management established for coastal

zone by Q4_2015, and regular meetings thereafter”, LFI 1.2 “One (1) proposal for

establishment of a cross-border network of biodiversity conservation areas prepared

by the Cross-Border Stakeholder Platform and transmitted to the relevant national

decision makers by Q4_2016”and LFI 2.4 Two (2) cross border exchange visits (240

person days) are organized to strengthen the skills of stakeholders from the selected

3 | P a g e

demonstration sites in collaborative biodiversity management by Q4_2015. Activity

3: Land Use Planning the expected result is linked to LFI 2.1 Biodiversity and socio-

economic information about the cross-border ecosystems is collected, compiled and

made accessible and understandable to stakeholders and decision makers by

Q4_2015 so that biodiversity is mainstreamed into on-going planning processes.

1.0 Day One: Land Use Planning Stakeholder Session

Figure 1: National and project level Stakeholders of Land use planning Photo by

Albert mwangi-ICRAF

1.1 Opening remarks and welcome address

Mr. Maimbo Malesu-Head Water Management Unit, World Agroforestry Centre

Mr. Maimbo called the meeting to order at 9.30 am. He informed the participants that

Biodiversity Management Program (BMP) workshop will involve a series of three

meetings; first meeting on Land Use Planning (LUP) which aim at incorporating

biodiversity in the Lamu County spatial plan, second meeting on Cross Border

Steering Dialogue Platform (CBSDP) whose aim is to address Somalia and Kenya

issues of cross border biodiversity with need to come up with a proposal to best

manage the cross border biodiversity and the third meeting will be on establishment

of a Trans boundary Steering Committee to monitor progress in the pilot areas. He

then highlighted the objectives of the LUP meeting which were;

4 | P a g e

To gather key national and project site level stakeholders on LUP and network

on current initiatives on LUP at the project site. NMK leading the activities of

LUP for the BMP

To present and review a concept note on LUP for the IGAD BMP project.

Have a common understanding on how to deliver the outputs.

To clarify the roles and responsibilities of ICRAF, NMK, County Government

planning unit and other of the BMP Project stakeholders on LUP in the project

site.

Select a technical committee for LUP activity

To refine the BMP action plan for the LUP activity, led by NMK

After highlighting the objectives of the meeting Mr. Maimbo welcomed Dr. Muriuki

to give the welcome address.

Figure 2: Mr. Maimbo Malesu (in front) leading the Land use planning meeting

Photo by Albert Mwangi-ICRAF

Dr. Jonathan Muriuki-Country Representative, World Agroforestry Centre

Dr. Muriuki welcomed all the participants and expressed his desire to have had the

meeting held in Lamu. He however appreciated the participants for attending the

meeting at the Oak place where he branded it as Lamu and made the participant feel

at Lamu. Dr. Muriuki summarized a number of facts about Kenya;

5 | P a g e

• Poverty reduction has been driven by economic growth but improvements in

income are not evenly shared amongst people and amongst counties

• Poverty is staggering and is concentrated in rural areas and nearly 4 in 10

Kenyans continue to live in extreme poverty. Poverty levels are highest in

ASALs (up to 70%)

• The rural poor depend on income and consumption from crops and livestock

as a primary source of livelihood

• Agriculture is the mainstay of Kenya’s economy (25% GDP; 62%

employment; 45% of government revenue), but is not reaching its potential to

fully contribute to poverty reduction and shared prosperity

• Small-scale production (0.2–3 ha; ca 67% farmers <1 ha; ca 87% of farms < 2

ha) accounts for 75% of the total agricultural output and 70% of marketed

agricultural produce but has performed very poorly

• Improving livelihood of smallholders therefore means increasing productivity

and off-farm income generation activities

• Areas of medium-to-high agricultural potential occupy 17% of Kenya’s land,

but support about 80% of population -15% of Kenya’s smallholder farming

area has a population density exceeding 550 people per km2

• About 83% of land is located in Arid and Semi-Arid areas (ASALs)

From the above mentioned facts, Dr. Muriuki formulated several questions that each

participant should deliberate on;

How to increase agricultural productivity and competiveness in the wake of

small and declining farm sizes and lack of access to land

How to raise productivity (total factor) in fragile ASALs with minimal

degradation and resource conflicts?

How to maintain biodiversity in the wake of competing land uses especially

those beyond agriculture

Other than the general situation of Kenya, Dr. Muriuki gave a brief introduction on

LUP. He defined Land-use planning as a systematic assessment of land and water

potential, alternatives for land use and economic and social conditions in order to

select and adopt the best land-use options. Its purpose is to select and put into practice

those land uses that will best meet the needs of the people while safeguarding

resources for the future.

Dr. Muriuki appreciated that LUP promote best use of limited resources in that the

developed LUP plan help the various stakeholders to; assess the present and future

6 | P a g e

needs and systematically evaluate the land's ability to supply them, identify and

resolve conflicts between competing uses, between the needs of individuals and those

of the community, and between the needs of the present generation and those of future

generations, seek sustainable options and choose those that best meet identified needs,

plan to bring about desired changes and learn from experience. He emphasized that

there can be no blueprint for change. The whole process of planning is iterative and

continuous. At every stage, as better information is obtained, a plan may have to be

changed to take account of it.

He emphasized that Land use planning can only be useful when there is need for

changes in land use, favorable political will and ability to put the plan into effect. He

thus proposed that all stakeholders should focus on the four LUP principles;

Planning is for people - The planning team must find out about people's needs

and also the local knowledge, skills, labour and capital that they can

contribute.

Land is not the same everywhere - Land cannot be moved, and different areas

present different opportunities and different management problems.

Technology - knowledge of land-use technologies: agronomy, silviculture,

livestock husbandry and other means by which land is used

Integration - avoid mistake of focusing too narrowly on land resources without

enough thought given to how they might be used. Integrate information about

the suitability of the land, the demands for alternative products or uses and the

opportunities for satisfying those demands on the available land, now and in

the future.

Having the above principles in mind, Dr. Muriuki proposed a "Bottom-up" planning

which is initiated at the local level and involves active participation by the local

community. He observed that this approach is advantageous because people will be

more enthusiastic about a plan seen as their own, the local communities are awareness

of land-use problems and opportunities and better information is fed upwards to

higher levels of planning the main challenge of the approach is the interest difference,

limited technical knowledge among the local communities and local efforts may

collapse because of a lack of higher-level support or even obstruction. Based on the

mentioned challenges which outweigh the benefits, Dr. Muriuki appreciated the

involvement of all the key stakeholders in LUP for a successful and sustainable land

use plan. After finalizing his presentation, Dr. Muriuki declared the workshop open.

1.2 Biodiversity Management Programme Land Use Plan Concept Note

Dr. Dorothy Wanja-National Museum of Kenya

Dr. Wanja introduced her presentation by informing the participants that ICRAF is

one of the BMP Implementing Partners (IP) and is managing one of the three projects

7 | P a g e

financed through the IGAD Biodiversity Management Programme in the Horn of

Africa and is implemented in the cross-border area of North Eastern Kenya and

Southern Somalia in an area extending from the Tana River in Kenya to the Laga

Badana area in Somalia. She outlined the main role of BMP in LUP which is to;

develop and implement holistic and integrated planning for the land or

seascapes and formulate an implementation strategy,

Support Lamu County to mainstream biodiversity planning and management

in its ongoing plans of developing a spatial plan and enhance capacity of key

stakeholders.

To achieve these objectives, BMP will;

conduct public meetings for stakeholder consultation, establish and support

technical land use committee,

Mainstream land use planning for biodiversity management to ongoing LUP

processes in County and develop capacity in LUP implementation strategy for

the Lamu County.

The main deliverables that will be generated from the above activities are;

200 lead community members mobilized to participate in project,

Technical Land Use planning committee appointed,

PLUP strategy developed and implemented, LUP within County supported

with equipment and training,

Land use planning (LUP) in County technically supported for participatory

and biodiversity inclusion and capacity of communities and stakeholders

enhanced for sustainability of activities.

Dr. Wanja defined LUP as a cross-sectorial and integrative decision-making process

that facilitates the allocation of land to the uses that give the greatest sustainable

benefit and involves local individuals, society, government and other stakeholders.

She acknowledged LUP as important as it; maximize the use of scarce natural

resources, ensure equity in distribution of costs and benefits of utilizing land

resources and make best use of available land resources. Despite it benefits, LUP is

faced with a number of challenges such as; functional disconnect between planning

and implementing agencies, lack of technical and institutional capacity of local

authorities, lack of consultations between various stakeholders and national land use

framework.

Dr. Wanja explained to the participants that understanding the existing land policy in

Kenya provide an important guideline to development of an effective land use plan.

She mentioned that the national land policy was developed under the secretariat at

Ministry of lands (MoL) which involved; government agencies, CSOs, NGOs and

private sector. The policy received positive comments from 600-stakeholders

8 | P a g e

symposium, MoL, Kenya land alliance and other stakeholders. Some institutions had

reservation on the national land policy for example the Law Society of Kenya and the

Kenya Land Owners Association who developed a strategy to address the economic,

social, cultural, governance and political ramifications of land issue from an historical

and contemporary context.

She appreciated the fact that the national land policy sets goals and direction for

present and future management of land with the main mandate to; provide opportunity

for all citizens to access and beneficially occupy and use land, ensure economic

viability, social equity and environment sustainability in allocation and use of land,

promote efficient, effective and economical operation of land markets, promote

efficient and effective utilization of land and land-based resources, promote efficient

utilization of land. She cherished the fact that the current land policy values economic

productivity, equity, environmental sustainability and conservation of culture. She

also pointed out that the current land policy adopts plural approach in which different

systems of tenure co-exist and benefit from equal guarantee of security tenure aimed

at promoting reconciliation and realisation of critical values which land represent. She

then emphasised that the national land policy on land use proposes filling gaps i.e.

weak and ineffective systems of regulation on land use to ensure environmental,

health and aesthetic benefits to public. The role of the government in LUPs is to;

Harmonize structures, decision-making processes and planning

standards and regulation

Enhance institutional and human resource capacity of planning

institutions

Provide a coordinated framework for enforcing planning decisions

Establish mechanisms of resolving planning and development control

disputes

Develop mechanisms for regulation of development in freehold and

planned urban areas

The other regulators in LUP are the Local authorities and management institutions,

NEMA in consultation with lead agencies who are mandated to establish and review

land use guidelines aimed at establishing the impacts on quality and quantity of

natural resources. Dr. Wanja appreciated the fact that Lamu County has land

historical injustices and various types of land uses for example Lamu Port, Southern

Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPPSET) Corridor Project, Agriculture, pastoralism,

forestry, wildlife conservation and tourism. In her conclusion Dr. Wanja mentioned

that to develop a land use for Lamu the lead institutions such as; governments of Tana

River and Lamu Counties, ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development, the

National Treasury and nature Kenya should be involved.

9 | P a g e

1.3 Participatory land use planning

Stephanie Duvail -KENWEB/NMK

Stephanie introduced her presentation by defining a map as a diagrammatic

representation of the earth's surface with two essential concepts; location and

representation. She then pointed out that the map represents technical and scientific

information which include spatial boundaries of the forest, botanical information, key

mammals corridors, biodiversity hot spots. This kind of information will be generated

in WP 1: biodiversity using remote sensing and transects. Land has a number of uses

whose value range from socio-economic, cultural and customary. Of concern is

whether there is a possibility of consensual sharing of natural resources.

She highlighted that BMP will employ a collective mapping exercise that aims at

capturing people’s perception of their environment and it requires allowing the space

for participants to define the issues, ideas and experiences that are important to them

through representation on floor, or paper. Participatory land use planning is a good

way of taking into account local knowledge on forest, generates dialogue and build

consensus on some local issues and facilitates awareness, consultation and

involvement of citizens.

She then summarized the methodology for participatory land use planning;

Training of the trainers

Presentation of the methodology

Presentation of examples from Tanzania and Mali

Sharing of best practices

Practical training of the Participatory mapping tools

Step 1 - Building a global map together (on the floor)

Step 2 – Geo-referencing the observations: how to use handheld GPS

with villagers

Testing of the methodology

Step 1 - Building of the floor map and discussion on the management

Objective: Collective building of a typology

Example of the questions to be explored in a focus group

Limits of the forests?

Spatial variations?

Uses of the forests? What are the most useful areas? Who are the users?

Hydro-ecological functioning of the forest?

Local perception of the issues and threats to the forest?

Step 2 – Geo-referencing the observations

Objective: Building a geometrically-correct map following the agreed

typology

3 groups (social and gender balance) for the different part of the forest to

collect GPS points.

Step 3 - Integrate the points in GIS, build the map.

10 | P a g e

Feedback session with the villagers and debriefing with the participants

Participatory mapping of Witu forest

She concluded by listing important tools to adopt

Natural resource management negotiation and planning

Representing the space as it is perceived at the village level, instead of a

technical map imposed from outside, excellent toponymy

Understanding of the natural resource management strategies, and

conflicts

Caution should be taken on;

Allowing enough time and space for people to express their views

To be combined with other mapping techniques

Whose map? (Closely monitor who is taking part in the process)

1.4 Lamu County Spatial planning

Hon. Amina==Executive member, Land ,Urban Development, Infrastructure and

Natural Resources Lamu County Government (LCG)

Hon. Amina reiterated Lamu County aspirations in taking the spatial planning

forward. She highlighted that Spatial Planning is an expensive exercise for the County

government thus requires cooperation and support from various stakeholders. Lamu

County government gets from the National government only Ksh 1.6 Billion as total

county budget for all the sectors. Spatial Planning is directed by different

instruments/Acts as well as the desire to achieve vision 2030. There are a number of

economic, social and environmental benefits that can be accrued from Spatial

Planning.

Hon. Amina informed the participants that the County Government of Lamu held a

Lamu Spatial Planning Key Stakeholders Workshop on the 28th May 2015 and 29th

May 2015 in Ukunda. The key objectives of this workshop were to:

Understand and agree on a process by which Key Stakeholders can participate

in the Lamu County Spatial Planning Process;

Link Stakeholder processes to be consistent with the Lamu County overall

goals;

Build a common understanding of Spatial Planning in Kenya at the county

level under the devolved system of governance;

Determine the roles of Key Stakeholders in supporting the County Spatial

Plan;

Make explicit the approach and processes of spatial planning and ensure that

this is embedded within the process design;

Examine key drivers, threats, trends etc and build scenarios for the future of

Lamu County; and

Agree on the road map towards the completion of the County Spatial Plan.

The proposed way forward at the end of the workshop was:

To constitute the Steering Committee comprising of Chief Officers from the

County Government of Lamu;

11 | P a g e

To Constitute the Technical Committee comprising of Directors of various

departments within the County Government of Lamu;

The Technical Committee to finalize the Concept Paper and Work plan;

The Concept Paper and Work plan to be submitted to the County Executive

Committee for further review and adoption;

The main Consultant to meet the Technical Committee to review the Concept

Work & Work plan in view of the outcomes of the Ukunda Workshop;

The adoption on the Concept Paper and Work plan by all stakeholders; and

Implementation of the Work plan to completion of the Lamu county spatial

plan within 6 months’ time frame.

Of important to note from the workshop was that a number of stakeholders are doing

similar things which requires coordination from the LCG. The work of planning unit

is to minimize duplication of efforts for purposes of coordination.

In terms of Natural Resource base, there is an archipelago, mangroves, wild animals

etc. this needs sustainable utilization. There is encroachment of water resources areas

owing to scramble for resources. Most of the indigenous trees in Witu are now getting

extinct. ICRAF has a role to play on this. The Spatial Plan will help in knowing what

each space is for. There is Tana Delta Land Use being developed to its final stages

whose proposed strategic interventions need to be integrated into the County

programs and projects.

In her conclusion Hon Amina accentuated that it was important for all the participants

to note that all the steps mentioned above and the way forward are ongoing and all

stakeholders are expected to be briefed on the progress soon. After briefing the

participants on the spatial plan launch in Ukunda, Hon. Amina presented the concept

note of Lamu County Spatial Plan and the draft work plan. She was enthusiastic to

note that ICRAF has already set up base in Lamu and the county government is

looking forward to working with them in sustainable management of its natural

resource

12 | P a g e

Table 1: Plenary session for Land Use Planning

Comment/Question Response

AMU ranch conserves wildlife and forests; the main challenge to its activities is lack of LUP and management. This has brought land grabbing, unplanned development, un-implemented development e.g.

LAPSSET. The ranch does not oppose LAPSSET but they disagree with the lack of comprehensive IEAs,

similar to coal plant.

Hon. Amina: I do agree that planning is important to avoid chaos. It is critical and we take cognizance of it. The coal plant is controversial whose energy is expected to be drawn from here serves the whole

country. Proponents say that S. Africa is already powered by coal. Anyhow, the LCG hasn't given it a go

ahead. Environmental Assessment report is being awaited for scrutiny.

Stephanie: question to Amina: Do you think our plan has not been participatory? Can your technical

committee be willing to participate in the 3-day participatory mapping?

Participatory LUP tool is appropriate and engages various sectors. The tool can be used not only by for the

community but at different levels. The technical Committee could also benefit from it. A mission to Sweden for Urban Planning showed that planning is done at the same time to avoid wasting resources.

Therefore the tool can be used for different thematic groups. The technical committee as a coordinating

unit is supposed to guide on resource mapping. Lamu County does not necessarily have a particular methodology for mapping and thus we are open for ideas.

Dorothy, NMK: We will appreciate to have your work plan to help us understand and plan well on areas

that require strengthening. Besides the community, it will also help us understand which other stakeholders or beneficiaries should be brought on board for capacity building. BMP-LUP is actually about

mainstreaming biodiversity into the existing land use plans.

Alex Oduor: Alex suggested that there is need for the LCG to convene a stakeholders meeting that should

discuss institutional arrangements with a view to upgrading the already existing institutional framework. This is in tandem with what NEMA suggests on Stakeholder engagement plan. The policy guidance needs

to be mapped out clearly. A stakeholder mapping should be done to understand what each is doing. NMK

is keen to participate in a stakeholder meeting to be convened by the LCG.

Mr. Badi NEMA: We appreciate that LCG is initiating a SP. It would be important to get your plans to

know what we can contribute. For Stephanie, it is risky to undertake the Social mapping without integrating with GIS/RS. Just like what Stephanie has done in TZ, Kenya has also done the same and the

experiences there should be shared for discussions. The law requires that every plan should be subjected to

a strategic environmental assessment. I suggest that these processes should be well managed and the onus rests with the LCG and respective partners.

George Wara to Stephanie:

How far will you go in mapping Witu which is small area? Answer: This is really a start of ToT. A very short course not so much of teaching but more about discussions. The 3-day training will take one village

to bring people on the same page so that all understand the methodology.

NRT – Issa Gedi: On one hand, the LUP process is a bit late given the continued loss of biodiversity.

However, the legislative process makes this initiative valid. Targeting communities makes the LUP quite

easy and simple to internalize. Therefore making the community own the process is a plus even for the LCG as they are the beneficiaries. Currently, there is a lot of local spatial knowledge. The only problem is

that it has not been documented.

On the question of who owns the plan? The answer is LCG. What is important at the end of the day is the fact that LUM (Land use mapping done by the communities will contribute the knowledge that the LCG

needs to see how people are using the lands.

Cliff: There are 2 issues. In the CN of LCG, there have indicated that they have launched the process but

nothing has really takeoff. The Governor and executive committee need to be made aware of any processes that have transpired. The County Planning Unit needs to be set up to facilitate all Spatial Planning’s (SPs).

I hear that WWF is planning with ASDSP for resource mapping.

13 | P a g e

1.5 Possible institutions to draw participants in the Training of Trainers of the

participatory land use planning

Farmer groups

Youth representatives and women

Administrators

o Chiefs

o Ward Administrators

Members of County Assembly

It is important to get one representative from each stakeholder e.g. one from KWS,

KFS and perhaps two from Lamu County. The original plan from ICRAF is that

NMK take lead in this activity as they have knowledge in Biodiversity whose spatial

plans they can mainstream. The technical committee assigned by LCG will be the

liaison group for linking all the interested parties.

1.6 Brainstorming on the Technical Committee (TC)

The project has provision for the technical committee to meet eight times. SAVE

LAMU is undertaking a similar process like the one we are carrying out. Either we

get their documents or they become part of this committee. The committee should

have 12 individuals who take the views of the land users and provide feed -back to the

planning process at the county level.

ICRAF lead the process of formulation of the ToR for the TC.

Proposal for the name of the committee:

LUP Advisory Committee

Liaison Committee

What was the idea behind the formation of the TC? Link to gather the representation

from the community to LCG, representation should be according to settlement; user

groups or discipline (Mariners, Foresters), Religious representatives. The committee

should be County based.

1.6.1 Terms of reference for the proposed Committee

Liaison between community and county government

Community Awareness raising (The committee should have adequate

information the do’s and don’ts)

Capacity building on sustainable LUP development

The committee should deal with M&E.

Conflict prediction and resolutions.

Work closely with the local community.

Interest and rights of the committee

Policing on the LU and make updates about new information

LUP is a regular process that has financial implications. The committee should

advice on the sourcing for funds that will go towards sustaining LUP.

Review expectations among different stakeholders in view of legal and policy

aspects

14 | P a g e

1.7 Way Forward

ICRAF will draft the ToR for the Technical Committee to initiate a process

between the committee and the LCG.

ICRAF is also lining up a number of support facilities in terms of computers,

GIS support etc. in order to build capacity of LCG staff.

The proposed training on participatory LUP has been postponed for now.

Before September, it should be possible to conduct this training.

Processes of LUP talked about today should be realized. ICRAF expects to

have an approved spatial plan in 2 years’ time.

1.8 Closing Remarks

EU delegation

The meeting was productive. It is very important to conclude with something that can

be approved. This should already have been drafted. Despite delays occasioned by

matters beyond our control, it is important to still find a way around and move on

with cost effective alternatives.

Josephat

I am grateful for the attendance to this meeting. I acknowledge the delays, which is

actually beyond our control. Our focus is on the LUP to ensure that biodiversity

management is mainstreamed. The LUP process is not necessarily a paper work

intervention but involved also participatory approaches. We should be cognizance of

the cost implications. Producing a good document i.e. the LUP document by itself it

not sufficient, this should be a workable document. The presentation by the Hon.

Amina of the LCG was really inspiring as it has given us a clear way forward on the

direction we can take. Let us make use of available resources e.g. the existing plans

including Tana County LUP, some of which have taken three years to develop. The

committee can be worded as you may recommend, either Technical or Advisory.

What is important is the role this committee shall play. Identifying the key

stakeholders is so important in ensuring that the committee does not waste time with

negative dynamics. Hon, Amina already reiterates that there are potential institutions

that can be involved in the development of the LUP.

Jan De Leeuw

The counties have a much bigger say these days. Thus the discussions held today for

which LCG presented a clear status in respect to the LUP is well appreciated. I look

forward to fruitful discussions in the subsequent meetings.

15 | P a g e

2.0 CROSSBORDER STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PLATFORM

2.1 Opening and welcome remarks

Mr. Maimbo introduced the meeting by informing the participants that the cross

border stakeholder dialogue platform has the mandate to foster dialogue between the

member states on cross border biodiversity. Mr. Maimbo then invited Dr. Mowo to

give the opening remarks and welcome address.

Dr. Jeremias Mowo, Regional director Eastern and Southern Africa Region

Dr. Mowo thanked the participants for attending the meeting; he acknowledged the

presence of the EU delegation and the IGAD advisor and expressed his happiness to

note that Danilo is around to experience some of the issues the project is facing. The

sites in Lamu and Somalia have their share of insecurities. He cautioned the

participant to be keen on their safety as we cannot ignore the current security

situation. He proposed extrapolation of the activities conducted in Lamu to the

Somalia site. Dr. Mowo wished the participants a fruitful meeting and declared the

meeting open.

Maimbo Malesu-Head water management unit ICRAF

Mr. Maimbo went through the programme and highlighted the specific objectives

which are:

To facilitate information/knowledge exchange of on-going and planned

activities by stakeholders within the cross border area

To ratify draft ToR for the cross border platform

To prepare a concept note for the preparation of a network of cross border

protected areas

Reconsider the roles of CBSDP and TBSC

Mr. Maimbo invited the project manager and the partner to give brief presentations

which are summarized in the sections below;

2.2 Presentation by the BMP project manager and partners

Josephat Nyongesa BMP Project Management

Presented an overview of the IGAD-BMP project, he highlighted the main

achievement and progress.

ISSA Gedi – NRT-coast

NRT Spearheads 27 community conservancies. They are holding on from working in

Awer because of insecurity issues. In the operational area, there are certain issues to

consider i.e. management plan for the Hanshak Nyongoro conservancy to guide on

development. Rangers are trained to carry out monitoring activities. The ToR is being

processed with ICRAF and their activities synergies well with LUP and mapping.

16 | P a g e

James Wang’ombe -KFS

KFS is implementing activity 7 dealing with agroforestry and afforestation. Contract

was signed last year and funds were delivered. KFS activities are on track now and

they are undertaking training on tree nursery management and tree growing. This will

go hand in hand with RWH and intent to plant at least 30000 trees; 10,000 for

protected areas and 20,000 for the farmers. Trees on forest reserves will be

exclusively indigenous. Other trees will be planted through natural regeneration. The

approach to be used is Farmer Field School and farm forestry schools. He

acknowledged Nyongesa pro-activeness as compared to the previous manager.

Dr. Mwachala – NMK

The National Museums of Kenya (NMK) is known for biodiversity management and

have a presence in the project area. They have done a lot of work in the highlands and

wetlands that led to the Ramsar convention. They are interested to maintain the

biodiversity with a focus on activities that jeopardies biodiversity. The great ground

nuts scheme in Tanganyika is a history lesson of doing things the wrong way. In

relation to Southern Somalia, NMK is in a very good position to contribute to the

project as they cover this area very well; they have collected a good database on

biodiversity in this area. NMK participated in the production of biodiversity atlases

which will be launched with the President soon.

17 | P a g e

Table 2: Plenary session for Cross Border Stakeholder Dialogue Platform

Comment/Question Response

Lamu County had the pride of Mbambakofi (Mahogany) etc. These trees have been vandalized in the eyes of KFS from 1970. From indigenous to agroforestry is destructive.

Agroforestry does not mean planting with exotic trees. Farmers will cooperate with extension officers to plant with indigenous. KFS is only responsible for gazette areas. Areas outside these are responsibility of

county governments. In any case, the no.1 responsibility of KFS is to gazette biodiversity areas. Sometime,

the county government refuses and plunders these areas.

NMK: In 2014, NMK and UNESCO carried out a cultural and natural heritage study. The outcome was that the biodiversity will be affected. These include breeding grounds, the mangroves, fishing etc. The

approach to mitigation is holistic and long term.

LAPSSET is going to create massive destruction. LAPSSET will pass through Awer, Sanye and Bajuni areas destroying mangroves, resort areas etc. What proposition does KFS have?

LAPSSET is a also a headache for KFS. However, there are a lot of forces where licensing affects land use and harm biodiversity of a given area. Fortunately, Boni forest is being surveyed for protection and

gazettement purposes.

We are informed that terrorist are already in the Boni forest and yet it is being gazetted.

The KFS cannot deal with a forest that is not gazette. Outside the forest, we can only deal with people

holding forest materials

I am Bashir from Boni, which is between Awer and the other communities in Kenyan side of Boni forest

especially in Ijara- Garissa. How were we invited without the other people.

This was not done but can be planned later. We have to scale down to manageable area coz of available

resources despite the fact that the area is trans boundary. The Somalians couldn't come expect only. One

Minister could come today but has promised to come tomorrow.

It is important to show what the project will practically undertake given the insecurity status. We cannot

take Boni forest for granted when we know that it is a terrorist den.

From Stephanie 7: Is the idea to train students still there? Yes, ICRAF in partnership with ANAFE still plans to do so. However, the insecurity is still a problem.

This meeting was meant to be done in Lamu. But the County Commissioner advised that they cannot allow nationals from Somalia into Lamu. That is why the meeting was moved to the County Commissioner was

actually meant to come here but didn't make it. One meeting planned is a public event in Witu, Lamu

which has been approved by the County Commissioner – who will also act as the Guest of Honor.

From MCA Boni 8: I am also a government official, why am I left out in decision making? I am only

learning of the gazettement outside my jurisdiction although I support gazettement.

ANSWER from KFS 8: The Awer Community has taken the initiative to conserve the Boni forest. The

forest act gives 2 major ways of gazettement. 1. People can decide on it, 2. President can also get advice

and act accordingly. I support the gazettement of Boni as it will lead to better management. In any case, the law is inclusive and the community can apply for concession top manages the forest. A land which is

0.5 ha in area can be applied for gazettement even at individual level for protection.

from IGAD Boni 9: Why not think of a mitigation measure given that some of the aspects e.g. involving

the Somalia counterparts for cross border activities is not possible? Six months delay has already occurred. Security issues were known from the beginning – we need to come up with solutions.

From KFS 9: This meeting is key to come up with ideas on how to address these challenges. Luckily, two

participants from Somalia will be here to actualize the cross border meeting. ICRAF could already initiate the fast tracking f activities via the partner representatives based in Juba land. ICRAF has already initiated

the ToR for RAAS which has a local presence in Juba land. This is in addition to Somalia consultants.

These mitigation measures shall be outlined so that IGAD and the EU are aware.

18 | P a g e

In the afternoon session Mr. Maimbo presented the proposed ToR for the cross border dialogue

platform which stirred up a number of issues and since the discussion could not be completed

because of the unbalanced representation from the member states(low representation from

Somalia) , the way forward summarized below was proposed.

Today’s meeting could not mature due to un balanced participation

Activity implementation in Kenya should proceed

CSDSP amendment will be done once information from both side available

open dialogue with Somalia people, operationalize bush Bushle as a national

reserve===Issa has interacted with people who were interested in setting up a

conservancy

Danilo proposed to the team to consider dropping Somalia from the project; write a

justification, due to practicality. This proposal was opposed by Mwalimu Badhi and

Josephat observation that ICRAF could priorities the activities feasible to implement and

already some activities are on-going in Somalia.

2.3 Closing remarks

Danilo

He appreciated the honesty and open minded expression from all the participants. He however

expressed his concerns of the incomplete meeting as it is causing more delay to the project; he is

not optimist, some stakeholder not in a position not able to express what they feel. He said he

was happy to participate and he will advise IGAD.

Mohamed

He thanked IGAD for bringing the project, ICRAF for new management which salvaged the

sinking ship and expressed optimism in delivery.

EU Delegation

Khola thanked everybody for participations, she reminded the participants that ICRAF project is

very important, it the most challenging but this should not scare us be proactive, and realistic

most important is to help communities, see what can be done on the site, how efficiently and not

waste money.

19 | P a g e

3.0 TRAN’S BOUNDARY STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

This session allowed the stakeholder to discuss a number of issues summarized in the table

below;

Table 3: Plenary session for Tran’s boundary Steering Committee Meeting

Comment/Question Response

How many trees are KFS planning to plant 500 farmers planting 40 trees each

How are we going to address security issues in

Somalia

Minister: nothing much can be done until

ashabab are removed from bush bushel area

What is the difference between TBSC and

CBSDP

Nyongesa: no much difference as they have

similar roles

Malesu: TBSC is institutional while CBSDP is

institutional

The membership is therefore different, CBDSP

is have community members while TBSC is

more of advisory

Can we operate in Badhadhe? Project intervention should , bush bushel

reserve was proposed

Kiamboni in Somalia can be a good meeting

place

Bush bushel is a forest with surrounded by

villages, KDF,AMISOM and juba soldier

safeguarding the area, the minister is born in

the bush bushel area and Ras Kiamboni,

Burgavo, and Badhadhe are safe and the

activities can be implemented in this sides

Are there any institutions that we can work

with?

Minister to confirm, development oriented

issues

Is it possible to get contact with the local

government in Ras Kiamboni, Burgavo and

Badhadhe

Yes the minister will link ICRAF with the

contact local government person

ICRAF to Brief the minister with the activities

that are already operational

Let them know the other Somalia partners that

ICRAF is working with them

Juba land is linked to the federal government

of Somalia, it is good to create a raptor with

the government for efficient operation

20 | P a g e

Proposal, icraf is already working with two

consultant and RAAS

The handle expressed yesterday could be

solved if the minister was around ; it is

therefore good to think backwards to fill in the

gaps of the CBSDP

How will ICRAF get to Somalia contact the

minister then plan to visit Somalia

Three level of transport will be explored, from

ICRAF, the Lamu government and Somalia

before ICRAF can travel to Somalia

Immigration office Boundaries closed, for

people to travel they need to get approval from

the immigration department.

Use the minister as the contact person

Could there be a local arrangement with local

commissioner to travel to Somalia

Clearance is still essential from the cities of

both countries

CBDSP cannot be establish without Somalia

participants, the minister kindly inform ICRAF

of the possible organization they can work with

MoU between Kenya and Somalia Through the federal government there is a n

agreement so there is need for a new agreement

with juba land

This is a good idea to explore as it will help

facilitating implementation of its activities

IGAD it might take time

Is there any institution managing the bushel

bush

There is none

RECOMMENDATIONS

ICRAF to speed up the implementation of the contracts with partners including the

related transfer of funds

ICRAF in collaboration with partners to review the Cross Border Stakeholder Dialogue

Platform and develop an adjustment plan which can be submitted to IGAD/EU

Delegation

At least two weeks before any meetings ICRAF to share information on the topics to be

discussed.

21 | P a g e

ICRAF to improve the coordination among partners/stakeholders in order to have a better

buy –in the project

The Somalia Jubba land administration to update ICRAF the changes of contact

persons/agencies to be involved in the activities at the demonstration site

Jubba Land Minister of Water Energy and Environment indicated to the committee that

part of Bush Bushle, forest area is insecure. However, the Minister proposed that the

project can operate at Ras-kamboni, Burgabo, Manarani and Badadhe District. These

areas are located in the demonstration site.

The meeting noted that the movement on the border between Lamu and Jubba Land is

restricted. However, under special circumstances the Lamu county Commissioner in

liaison with the Jubba Land Administration can facilitate cross border movement.

The meeting recommends that the Jubba Land Minister of Water Energy and

Environment or representative should be a member of Trans boundary Steering

committee (TBSC)

The meeting recommends that all cross border stakeholder dialogue and Tran’s boundary

steering committee meetings should be conducted at the demonstration site.

CONCLUSION

Cross Border Stakeholder Dialogue Platform could not be established according to the

objectives of the meeting therefore the implementation need to be reviewed. The

possibility to establish the CBSDP need to be evaluated and this will be done by ICRAF

and stakeholders.

The meeting facilitated contact with the Jubba Land Administration. The meeting noted

that this contact will establish further engagement level at the pilot site in Somalia

22 | P a g e

23 | P a g e