Challenges and impacts of land use and land use planning on ecosystem, biodiversity, and people

1,534 views

Published on

Presented by Mohammed Said, Philip Osano, Dickson Kaelo, Shem Kifugo, Leah Ng'ang’a, Florence Landersberg, Norbert Heninger, Gordon Ojwang, Patrick Wargute, Lucy Njino, Polly Ericksen, and Jan de Leeuw at the Sustainable Growth and Adaptation in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) of Kenya, Nairobi, 6-7 November 2013

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,534
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
48
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Challenges and impacts of land use and land use planning on ecosystem, biodiversity, and people

  1. 1. Challenges and impacts of land use and land use planning on ecosystem, biodiversity, and people . Mohammed Said1,4,8 with contributions Philip Osano1, 2, 3, Dickson Kaelo4 , Shem Kifugo1, Leah Ng'ang’a1, Florence Landersberg1,7, Norbert Heninger7, Gordon Ojwang5, Patrick Wargute5, Lucy Njino5, Polly Ericksen1, and Jan de Leeuw6 1) International Livestock Research Institute; (2) Dept. of Geography, McGill University, Canada; (3) Africa Technology Policies Studies Network (ATPS); (4) Centre for Sustainable Dryland Ecosystems and Societies (CSDES), University of Nairobi; (5) Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing; (6) World Agroforestry Centre (7) World Resource Institute and (8) ASAL Stakeholder Forum Stakeholder Workshop on Sustainable Growth and Adaptation in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) of Kenya - 6th-7th November 2013, Nairobi. Workshop organized by IUCN and AWF
  2. 2. Outline • The wealth of Biodiversity in Kenya • Drivers of changes on biodiversity in the ASALs • Biodiversity Conservation Kenya ASALs – planning at county and country level • Regional development in the ASALs – what are the planning issues? • Challenges and opportunities
  3. 3. The wealth of Biodiversity – species richness a) Mammals b) Birds c) Reptiles Source: ACC Natural Capital
  4. 4. Major drivers of changes on biodiversity Sala et al., 2000 – Global Biodiversity Scenarios for year 2100, Science
  5. 5. What is happening in Kenya Rangelands 1. Biodiversity loss – wildlife declined by 50-70% in ASALs in the period 19772009 (Norton-Griffiths & Said 2010; Western et al 2009) 2. High poverty rates in pastoral communities 3. Initiative for communities to benefit from wildlife revenue - Payments for Wildlife Conservation (PWC) 4. Emergence of conservancies – more than 160
  6. 6. Wildlife trends in the Kenya rangelands between 1970s and 2000s Source: Natural Capital Atlas, DRSRS
  7. 7. Evolution of the Mara Conservancies Photos: Rob O’Meara, Sarah O’Meara Source of Information: Olare Orok Conservancy Trust publication
  8. 8. Shifts in Land Management in ASALs Mobility Tourism Benefits Communal Open Latent Privatized Closed Land Tenure Land Lease Photo credit: Philip Osano Gone Payments for Wildlife Conservation (PWC)
  9. 9. Evolution of conservancies in the Kenya Rangeland 100 0 100 200 Kilometers 160 40 Lodwar 35 30 Marsabit N 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Numbers 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 Isiolo Cumulative Nanyuki Garissa Narok Issues 1. Connectivity between conservancies and protected areas NAIROBI Conservancies Established No data 2000s 1990s I (humid) II (sub-humid) III (semi-humid) IV (semi-humid to semi-arid) V (semi-arid) VI (arid) VII (very arid) Mombasa 2. Linkages between various ecosystems, landscapes and countries Source: ILRI 2012
  10. 10. Trends of wildebeest and sheep & goats in the Mara Ecosystem Source: Ogutu, Owen-Smith, Piepho and Said 2011
  11. 11. Species Richness – herbivore Photos: Rob O’Meara, Sarah O’Meara Source of Information: Olare Orok Conservancy Trust publication Wildlife Density – herbivore Photo: Ron Beaton Source: DRSRS et al. in prep
  12. 12. Land tenure and policy changes in the Mara • In 1911, the Maasai lost about 60% of their best land and pastures • They were moved from northern reserves to southern reserves • Land tenure is changing from Group ranches to private ownership • Subdivision as been followed by land intensification • Since 2006 land around the Mara have consolidated to form the conservancies
  13. 13. Status of Conservancies - 2010 Names & Area (Ha) 1. Olare Orok (9,720) 2. Olkinyei (4,856) 3. Motorogi (5,466) 4. Mara North (30,955) 5. Naboisho (20,946) Maasai Mara National Reserve N 50 0 50 Potential for PWC 1. Enoonkishu (6,566) 2. Lamek (6,860) 3. Ol-Chorro (6,879) 100 Kilometers Source: ILRI, Dickson Kaelo, Philip Osano
  14. 14. Potential for Payment for Wildlife Conservation in East Africa Rangelands (incentive for managing land) Species Richness – herbivore Photos: ILRI, Msoffe
  15. 15. Scenario – land use and wildebeest migration Nairobi National Park and Athi –Kaputiei Ecosystem Source: Lilieholm et al. 2013; Ogutu et al. 2013
  16. 16. Future – need long term planning Celebrate Success
  17. 17. Institutional Requirements The County Government Bill, 2012
  18. 18. Institution Guidelines Vision 2030 Securing Wildlife Corridors
  19. 19. Vision 2030 Conservation • Ensure that all wildlife ecosystems are fully protected • Incorporate natural resource in national accounts • Secure wildlife corridors and migration routes Environmental planning and governance • Upgrade capacity for enhanced geo-information coverage and application • Use of incentives for environmental compliance
  20. 20. Wildlife dispersal areas and corridors • Connectivity of conservation areas both dispersal and wildlife corridors (Vision 2030) • Conservation of metapopulation • Restoration of degraded lands and wildlife MEMR
  21. 21. Strategic Impact Assessment Planning at regional level Examples LAPSSET and Ewaso N’giro
  22. 22. The Lamu Port Southern SudanEthiopia Transport Objective: Carry out analyses to avoid and mitigate negative social, economic or ecological impacts resulting from the LAPSSET corridor.
  23. 23. LAPSSET corridor 90% of LAPSSET corridor in ASAL counties Source: ILRI, WRI
  24. 24. Spatial multi-criteria evaluation: process Stages What are the economic, social and ecological goals of the LAPSSET corridor? What are the spatial indicators to achieve these goals? What is the relative importance of these goals? Suitability maps according to stated criteria and weighting Examples • Economic goal: maximize the connectivity with local livestock markets • Social goal: maximize poverty reduction • Ecological goal: minimize impacts on water flows • Economic indicator: minimize distance to local livestock markets • Social indicator: minimize distance to areas with high poverty incidence • Ecological indicator: at least 10 km from key rivers and wetlands • Vision “equal”: economic goal=social goal=ecological goal • Vision “ecological”: ecological goal>economic goal>social goal • Suitability map with economic vision • Suitability map with social vision • Suitability map with ecological vision Source: ILRI, WRI
  25. 25. To build map on slide 9 To build map on slide 13 To build map on slide 17 To build map on slide 20 Source: ILRI, WRI
  26. 26. © KMC © ILRI © ILRI © Lewa Wilderness Economic goals of the LAPSSET corridor considered in the analysis - Maximize transportation of people and goods - Maximize economic opportunities related to livestock and crops - Maximize economic opportunities related to tourism - Preserve the watersheds important for hydropower production
  27. 27. Livestock density The corridor crosses areas with high density of livestock. Source: ILRI, WRI
  28. 28. Market infrastructure Biggest markets of Northern Kenya connected to the corridor. Not all smaller markets connected. Source: ILRI, WRI
  29. 29. Example of economic suitability map + (green in map): increased economic activities all along the corridor - (red in map): potential impacts on watershed that produces electricity Source: ILRI, WRI
  30. 30. Ecological goals of the LAPSSET corridor considered in the analysis © Ewaso Lions - Preserve ecosystems important for their ecological functions (wetlands, open water bodies, closed forests) - Preserve biodiversity (flagship species) © Ewaso Lions © Winslow
  31. 31. Ecosystems important for their ecological functions The corridor and associated development overlap with ecosystems important for their ecological functions. Source: ILRI, WRI
  32. 32. Flagship species distribution The corridor and associated development interfere with the habitat and corridor of wildlife, and therefore with tourism. Source: ILRI, WRI
  33. 33. Example of ecological suitability map - (red in map): Mitigate impacts on ecosystems providing important ecological functions (water quantity and quality, soil erosion, carbon sequestration) and on flagship species and biodiversity in general all along the corridor Source: ILRI, WRI
  34. 34. Suitability maps portraying an equal vision regarding the economic, social and ecological goals of the LAPSSET corridor © Japan Port Consultants Ltd. Economic goals = social goals = ecological goals © Siemens
  35. 35. Suitability map for an equal vision + (green in map): economic, social and ecological goals achieved - (red in map): either economic, social or ecological goals not achieved Source: ILRI, WRI
  36. 36. Regional Analysis Ewaso N’giro Ecosystem
  37. 37. Elephant density and movements, 1995-2010 Source: Ericksen et al. 2011
  38. 38. Tourism facilities in Laikipia, Samburu and Isiolo Source: Ericksen et al. 2011
  39. 39. Plans Need to see this in Kenya Source: Ministry of Transport in Quebec
  40. 40. Challenges and Opportunities • Policy and Blue Print - County Government Bill, 2012; Vision 2030; East Africa Community; and others …. • Expertise – need ecologist, land economist, environmental engineers, sociologist and land use planners at both national and county level • Data – availability of data; data sharing (big problem); spatial tools to integrate data; advance statistics and econometric models
  41. 41. Acknowledgment • • • • • • • • • • • International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); Dept. of Geography, McGill University, Canada; Africa Technology Policies Studies Network (ATPS); Centre for Sustainable Dryland Ecosystems and Societies (CSDES), University of Nairobi; Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing (DRSRS); World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF); World Resource Institute (WRI); African Conservation Centre (ACC) BEST - Ecosystem Service Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) ASAL Stakeholder Forum (ASF) ASARECA

×