Workshop report

Identification of Management Options and Development of Action Plans for Ecosystem Services in Kigaruni (Wenje) WRUA, Hola Sub County, County

Friends Motel Hola 22nd November to 2nd December 2015

Table of Contents Summary ...... 3 Acronyms ...... 4 Project Background ...... 5 Meeting key stakeholders in ...... 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

2 | Page

Summary This 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.

3 | Page

Acronyms ACF: 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

4 | Page

Project Background The 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.

5 | Page

Meeting key stakeholders in Tana River County This 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 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.

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

6 | Page

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 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 Provisioning services County land management board – CLMB Policy makers on land matters (from forests / bushland Water Resources User Associations – WRUAs Protection of water resources which include fuel Conservation of water resources wood, building material, Management of water catchment areas medicines) and NGOs eg Nature Kenya Conservation of forests Supporting service Tree planting (carbon sequestration) The environment department of the county Afforestation government Waste management NEMA Conservation Enforcement of regulations WRMA Conservation and management of water resources County department of agriculture Provision of seeds Soil and water conservation Land management County department of livestock Provision of drugs and vaccines for livestock Provisioning service Conservation of seasonal grazing areas. (Food) 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 County department of gender, culture and social Promote restoration of social values and services integration. Cultural service Conservation of cultural sites Community Conservation of cultural sites. Sustenance of cultural values Kenya Forest Service Conservation of gazetted forests and bushland Supporting service Kenya Wildlife Service Conservation and management of wildlife (Wildlife habitat) and their habitats. Collaboration with other stakeholders to manage wildlife

7 | Page

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. 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 Provisioning service Land use plans (Grasslands and pasture Financing ministry activities especially FAO areas) 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 National Irrigation Board Bulk supply of water for agriculture Water Service Trust Fund Financial support to institutions and Provisioning service communities (Water supply) Action Against Hunger Development of small water structures (boreholes and shallow wells)

8 | Page

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.

9 | Page

Main workshop This 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.

Introduction of the project and ecosystem services The 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

Identification of management options This 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:

10 | Page

Table 2: Ecosystem management options

Ecosystem service Management Options Water supply (provisioning  Establishment of water storage facilities eg water Pans, dams, rain water service), water purification harvesting etc (regulating service), water  Construction of animal troughs cycling (supporting service)  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.

11 | Page

 Law enforcement and surveillance.  Advocacy for change of land tenure.  Income generating activities.  Irrigation. Wildlife and wildlife habitats  Knowledge sharing on the importance of wildlife (supporting service) and  Fencing tourism (Cultural service)  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.

Ranking of management options This 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

12 | Page

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 Grazing management Catchment protection for (pathways used by livestock to committees instance tree and vegetation access water) planting on river banks. 2 Grazing management/enclosures Rotational grazing Grazing management patterns 3 Strengthening community Water harvesting Water harvesting structures committees structures 4 Reseeding, fodder farming and Malka corridors Reseeding pasture storage. 5 Destocking with capacity building Strengthening water Grazing management committees committees 6 Water harvesting infrastructure Tree planting Strengthening of water committees 7 Catchment protection and Reseeding Malka corridors conservation 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.

Developing action plans for identified management options Action 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:

13 | Page

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 Location Costs (Kshs) Responsible frame (where) body/persons (who) Sensitization Community support. Man power. One to Kina komba 200,000 to WRUA on the Awareness creation. Finances. four ward. 5 800,000 Provincial importance of Contribution from all months locations administration. grazing parties. County management Minimal resistance. administration. NGOs Formation and Have a functional Expert to train Three Kina komba 300,000 Social services. capacity (effective) body to them and months ward. WRUA. building of oversee the grazing oversee. Livestock grazing management pattern. Funds. department. committee WRUA. Water ministry. members Administration. County government. Setting up Ensure continued Council of One to Kina komba 200,000 to Council of elders. grazing blocks availability of pasture elders. two ward. 300,000 WRUAs. – dry and wet and browse. Opinion months. Chiefs. season grazing Reduce conflict. leaders. County government. blocks. Religious leaders. Grazing bill or Ensure effectiveness. Expertise One year. Kina kombe 400,000 – a County government. by laws Enforcement of the Funds realistic NGOs. law. County estimate is Council of elders. government. however WRUA. required.

14 | Page

Management option 2 – strengthening water committees Key activities Rationale (why) Resources Time Location Costs (Kshs) Responsible frame (where) body/persons (who) Capacity Providing information. Funding 2 months 600,000 per County government building on : Self management. trainers Kigaruni month. NGOs Management 30 members WRUA 900,000 per National skills for each skill month. government. Financial 900,000 per CDF. management month. International skills donors. Transport Access Vehicles (4 by 6months. Kigaruni 5million County government 4). 3months. WRUA 500,000 NGOs Motorbhikes 1month 80,000 National (5) government. Bicycles. (8) CDF. International donors Member’s contribution. Community Office Operation space Office block. 4months. Kigaruni 400,000 Fundraising WRUA Bylaws Guidance rules Constitutions. 2 weeks. Tana river 50,000 Members. adherence. Water use county consultant resolutions Exchange visits – this was ab additional one Management option 3 – Establishment of strategic water infrastructure Key activities Rationale (why) Resources Time Location Costs (Kshs) Responsible frame (where) body/persons (who) Construction Reduce distance Funds. January 10million Vukoni juu. Kigaruni of three earth moved by animals in Land. to june each. Dadash kori. pan search of water. Technical Dadash 20,000 cubic Reduce domestic and expertise mare. meters wildlife conflicts. including Storage for use in dry indigenous seasons. knowledge. Development partners. County government. Construction Preservation of water Funds. January 2.5million Haronesa. Kigarguni of two sand for use during the dry Land. to June. each. Korobo. dam season. Technical and

15 | Page

local expertise. Development partners. County government. 5 tanks for Preservation of water Funds. January 1.5million Vukoni Kigaruni WRUA roof for use during the dry Technical to june. each. primary. catchment of season. expertise. Wenje 50,000litres Development dispensary. capacity partners. Hara (masonry not County dispensary. plastic tanks) government. Bakisana Masonries. primary. Maroni primary. Kipendi nursery.

16 | Page

Conclusion Ecosystem 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.

17 | Page

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.

18 | Page

Annexes

Annex 1: Ecosystem services mapping sketch maps

19 | Page

20 | Page

Annex 2: identification of management options, challenges and opportunities for the different ecosystem services Group 1

Ecosystem Service Challenges Opportunities Management options Water Scarcity in terms of quantity and Rivers Water storage facilities eg water quality Lakes tanks, dams etc Accessibility Rain Animal troughs Floods Malka corridors Channeling water for irrigation Water catchment rehabilitation Human wildlife conflict Pasture Scarcity Existence of traditional Adherence of grazing patterns Run off management systems Reservation of pasture areas Bush encroachment (milking herds) Lack of seeds (grass) Pasture management committees Disruption of grazing patters. Food Environmental degradation Plenty of lands Provision of farming equipment Human wildlife conflict Availability of extension Provision of subsidies. Scarcity officers Construction of storage facilities. High fertility rates Food storage Irregular rain patterns Using old farming systems Forests Deforestation Traditional Gusa bylaws Lack of rotational harvesting management systems Community forest organizations Profit centered individuals Forest areas Restriction on charcoal burning Forest officers Traditional rotational Wildlife officers management systems Wildlife Poaching High value for crocodile Knowledge sharing on the Human wildlife conflict meat and eggs importance of wildlife Lack of compensation Wildlife officers Fencing Game reserve Establishment of community based conservancies Culture Abandonment of culture. Tourist attraction. Strengthen traditional economic Lack of benefit sharing. The new constitution. activities. Discrimination against certain Availability of sacred Equality on resource sharing and persons or groups. places. representation.

Group 2

Ecosystem service Challenges Opportunities Management options Water Poor water distribution. Construction of water harvesting Minimal water harvesting. infrastructure eg dams and Poor water quality. ponds. Water scarcity in the dry season. Water purification. Flooding. Fish farming.

21 | Page

Flood receding farming. Range reseeding. Tree planting. Pasture Overgrazing. Establishment of grazing Resource competition. management committees. Invasive species. Destocking. Depletion of perennial grasses. Rotational grazing. Persistent drought. Value addition of prosopis to Livestock influx from neighboring produce fodder. communities. Clear policies on land use and Lack of supportive policies. grazing management. Pasture storage for dry season use. Pasture farming. Food Change in eating habits. Alternative livelihoods. Population increase. Re‐afforestation. Decline in soil fertility. Water harvesting. Food scarcity. Tree planting. Climate change. Integrated farm management practices. Increased food production. Population control measures. Creating awareness on natural foods. Forests Logging Presence of the county Re‐afforestation Charcoal burning. government. Empowerment of WRUAs and Wild fires. KWS, KFS and NEMA CFAs Conversion of forests to farmlands. Awareness creation. Land tenure systems. Law enforcement. Advocacy for change of land tenure. Wildlife Poaching Law enforcement. Human livestock wildlife conflict Community sensitization. Habitat loss Establishment of wildlife Inadequate knowledge on wildlife. conservancies. Animal control to avoid conflict. Alternative wildlife farming. Habitat rehabilitation. Culture Cultural disruption. Establishment of cultural centers. Destruction of cultural sites. Introduction of cultural education Population pressure. in the school curriculum Presence of different religion. Protection of cultural sites by WRUAs and CFAs

Group 3

Ecosystem service Challenges Opportunities Management options

22 | Page

Water Drought Existing river Tana. Establishment of water Inadequate water supply County government. reservoirs. Poor water quality. Development partners. Rain water harvesting. Accessibility. The new constitution Protection of water catchment High cost. 2010. areas. Conflicts. Existing structures Strengthening of water utilities within the and water committees. communities. Reseeding. Enclosures. Pasture Drought. County government. Reseeding. Conflicts. Community grazing Enclosures. Invasive species. committees. Seasonal grazing management. Overstocking. Research. Management of invasive species Pests and diseases. Availability of livestock through charcoal production. Wild animals. insurance Destocking. Empowerment / diversification. Pasture stocking. Fodder farming. Food Drought. River tana Irrigation. Inadequate storage facilities. County government. Provision of funds. Poor road networks. Development partners. Creation of more market centers. Lack of markets. Subsidies. Establishing house hold storage High costs of input. Political goodwill. facilities. Corruption. Chapter 6 of the Improved / modern farming Inadequate farm equipment. constitution. methods. Human wildlife conflict. Government subsidies on pest Subsistence farming. control. Pests. Capacity building. Transparency and accountability. Forests Drought. Land availability Irrigation. Charcoal burning. Availability of carbon Community empowerment. Deforestation. markets. Income generating activities. Poverty. County government. Surveillance. Ignorance. Availability of partners. Education and awareness raising. Banditry Ranches. Afforestation. Unemployment Aesthetic beauty. Wildlife / tourism Poaching. Government. Surveillance. Human wildlife conflict. Community Community empowerment and Banditry. conservancies. education. Pests and diseases. KWS. Income generating activities. Poor roads. . Creation of community Population increase. Tana Primate (Baomo) conservancies. Habitat fragmentation Tourism Opening of wildlife corridors. Drought Fire management. Manageable families. Cultural Lack of exposure. Tourism. Exposure visits. Lack of publicity. Community values and Publicity.

23 | Page

Modern education. norms. Civilization. Potential for income generation.

24 | Page

Annex 3: Scored management options per groups Group 1

25 | Page

Group 2

Group 3

26 | Page

Annex 4. Workshop evaluation

27 | Page

Annex 5: List of participants

28 | Page