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

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

The wealth of Biodiversity – species richness
a) Mammals
b) Birds
c) Reptiles
Source: ACC Natural Capital

Major drivers of changes on biodiversity
Sala et al., 2000 – Global Biodiversity Scenarios for year 2100, Science

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

Wildlife trends in the Kenya rangelands between
1970s and 2000s
Source: Natural Capital Atlas, DRSRS

Evolution of the Mara
Conservancies
Photos: Rob O’Meara, Sarah O’Meara
Source of Information: Olare Orok Conservancy Trust publication

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)

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

Trends of wildebeest and sheep & goats in
the Mara Ecosystem
Source: Ogutu, Owen-Smith, Piepho and Said 2011

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

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

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

Potential for Payment for Wildlife Conservation in East
Africa Rangelands (incentive for managing land)
Species Richness – herbivore
Photos: ILRI, Msoffe

Scenario – land use and wildebeest migration
Nairobi National Park and Athi –Kaputiei Ecosystem
Source: Lilieholm et al. 2013; Ogutu et al. 2013

Future – need long term planning
Celebrate Success

Institutional Requirements
The County Government Bill, 2012

Institution Guidelines
Vision 2030
Securing Wildlife Corridors

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

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

Strategic Impact Assessment
Planning at regional level
Examples
LAPSSET and Ewaso N’giro

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.

LAPSSET corridor
90% of LAPSSET corridor in ASAL
counties
Source: ILRI, WRI

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

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

© 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

Livestock density
The corridor crosses areas with
high density of livestock.
Source: ILRI, WRI

Market infrastructure
Biggest markets of Northern Kenya
connected to the corridor. Not all
smaller markets connected.
Source: ILRI, WRI

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

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

Ecosystems important
for their ecological
functions
The corridor and associated
development overlap with
ecosystems important for their
ecological functions.
Source: ILRI, WRI

Flagship species
distribution
The corridor and associated
development interfere with the
habitat and corridor of wildlife, and
therefore with tourism.
Source: ILRI, WRI

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

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

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

Regional Analysis
Ewaso N’giro Ecosystem

Elephant density and movements, 1995-2010
Source: Ericksen et al. 2011

Tourism facilities in Laikipia, Samburu and Isiolo
Source: Ericksen et al. 2011

Plans
Need to see this in Kenya
Source: Ministry of Transport in Quebec

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

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