Biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, and sustainable livelihoods inform land use planning in ’s Yala Delta.

2016 ESPA annual science conference – 17th -18th Nov 2016 Rob Field1, Paul Muoria2,3, Paul Matiku2, Serah Munguti2 Emily Mateche2, Dickens Odeny4 4 Simon Shati2, Sarah Sanders1

1. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds - RSPB. 2. Nature Kenya 3. Kenyatta University 4. National Museum of Kenya outline

• Biodiversity Importance of • Ecosystem services and their assessment • Ongoing - Land use planning • Way forward Yala Swamp National and regional context-

Biodiversity value

Baseline biodiversity assessment- December 2014 • Birds –a total of 172 bird species (Odino, 2009) - 5 papyrus endemics • Fish –fish species at – some are of conservation importance – endangered • Mammals –30 mammals – including the rare sitatunga Biodiversity value --birds Common Name Scientific Name Status IUCN red list • A Key Biodiversity area Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni VU KBA – IBA Sooty Falcon Falco concolor NT • A potential Ramsar site White-headed Vulture Trigonoceps occipitalis VU • Lake Kanyaboli – Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus NT gazette as a national park – but contested Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus NT Grey Crowned Crane Balearica regulorum VU Eurasian Roller Coracias garrulus NT Papyrus Gonolek Laniarius mufumbiri NT Papyrus Yellow Warbler Chloropeta gracilirostris VU

NT = near threatened, VU – Vulnerable, EN – Endangered Fish

Common Name Scientific name IUCN status • Lake kanyaboli is Critically important –has fish now Grahams tilapia Oreochromis esculentus endangered extinct in Lake Vitoria • Many not assessed Critically Oreochromis variabilis • Others are data deficient endangered Victoria robber Brycinus jacksonii Endangered Victoria Marcusenius victoriae Endangered stonebasher Synodontis victoriae Near threatened squeaker

Blue Victoria Haplochromis nubilus Vulnerable mouthbrooder Mammals

At least 30 species including

Common name Scientific name IUCN status National status Hippopotamus Hippopotamus Vulnerable Vulnerable amphibious Sitatunga Tragelaphus Least Concern Endangered spekii Leopard Panthera pardus Near Threatened Endangered Conservation/ management issues Human settlements • Environmental degradation • Wetland Use Conflicts • Population growth • Climate change • Water demand • Poor Infrastructure and social services • Governance on land issues- local community, 2 county government, NLC, private companies – investors, KWS - • Land use conflicts – large scale commercial farmers - Rice farming – already taking plance - sugarcane farming – experimental and plans to expand -other planned developments

Planned developments in Yala wetland and adjacent areas. Importance of Yala Swamp Provides– goods •Food- •Harvested Wild – fish, bushmeat •Cultivated –Fish farming, Crop farming •Fuel. •Timber •Livestock fodder •Thatching material •Genetic resources. Sugar Rice •Natural medicines cane •Fresh water – 70% of residents around swamp

80 70 70 Goods provided by Swamp 60 Maize50 40 34.0 32.0 30 18.3 16.7 20 Percent of Percent of residents 10 3.3 3.0 2.3 1.7 1.3 1.0 0 water Firewood Thatch Papyrus Fish Herbal Bush meat Fruits Charcoal Fodder Timber grass medicine Cultural Services Regulating Services • Spiritual and religious • Air quality regulation. values • Climate regulation - carbon storage – • Aesthetic values. climate change adaptation/mitigation - • Cultural heritage values Carbon Credits?. • Recreation and • Water regulation – stores water, regulating ecotourism – see below its flow and availability – needs development • Water purification and waste treatment – sediments deposited, harmful chemicals 80.0 Local community income sources removed 70.0 60.0 • Natural hazard regulation – Flooding 50.0 40.0 • Pollination – many crops need this 30.0 20.0 10.0 %of residents 0.0

50% 47% 40% 31% 30% Percent reduction in nutrients between 20% Dominion Farm and Lake Sare 10% 0% Phosphates Nitrates Policy makers –to scientists ------where is the evidence? Yala Swamp Ecosystem Service assessment to inform land use planning.

Paul Muoria1,2, Rob Field3, Paul Matiku1, Serah Munguti1, Emily Mateche1, Simon Shati1, Dickens Odeny4 (2015). Yala Swamp Ecosystem Service assessment.

1 Nature Kenya, 2 Kenyatta University 3 RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 4 National Museums of Kenya Our Approach/ methods

• We used the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) developed by Peh et al (2013) http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/science/assessing-ecosystem-services-tessa

• TESSA was developed by Cambridge Conservation Initiative Participatory Rapid Appraisal – scoping exercise • Conducted a 2 days stakeholders workshop • the site boundary and land cover map, with estimated area coverage of each land cover/land use type • the drivers of change and their relative impact on the habitats and associated ecosystem services • projected future land cover / land use and ecosystem services changes, based on the drivers of change • plausible alternative scenarios for future land use • the potential impact of future changes in land cover / land use on the most relevant ecosystem services Extent – 20,756 ha

Scrub/woodl and Floodplain Fallow Subsistence 2% Open water 1% 1% farming 10% 11% Settlements Rice 2% Cultivated 9%

Papyrus 64% Perceived Ecosystem service provision in three future states 6.0 5.0 Current State Continued Development Current State Conservation 4.5 5.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 Perceived value service of value Perceived Perceived value service of value Perceived 1.0 1.0 0.5

0.0 0.0 Climate Water Flows Wild goods Cultivated Recreation Climate Water Flows Wild goods Cultivated Recreation regulation goods regulation goods Ecosystem Service Ecosystem Service

4.5 Current State Balance 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Perceived value service of value Perceived 0.5 0.0 Climate Water Wild goods Cultivated Recreation regulation Flows goods Ecosystem Service Detailed ES assessment

Services accessed. • climate regulation • cultivated goods – farming, aquaculture • harvested wild goods • Recreation • water provision and regulation services - limited - capacity and time

2 Future Scenario 1. Continued Development 2. Balanced/hybrid development 3. Conservation – not practical

Results of Ecosystem asessement 1. Climate regulation carbon storage in vegetation and soil at Yala Table 8. Net total Global warming potential over 100 years All values are tonnes CO2 equivalents Continued Scenario Current Development Balance

Project Habitat Descriptions Min max min max Min max

286,091 173,195 465,771 120,943 325,330 286,091 Abandoned land

189,549 140,026 694,793 68,546 340,111 189,549 Village Cultivated

-58,388 -297,056 -24,867 -606,974 -50,811 -58,388 Rice Cultivated

55,439 27,728 110,000 6,932 27,500 55,439 Papyrus

Degraded/Burnt 495,389 43,892 1,245,696 -410,553 642,129 495,389

286,091 173,195 465,771 120,943 325,330 286,091 Total Global warming potential

• commercial– net warming effect • Current – net cooling effect • Hybrid – net warming effect – not large 2. Cultivated crops production

Current Continued Development Balance

Area - Acre Millions US Area - Acre Millions US Area - ha Millions US $ $ $

Subsistence 5,881 1.14 9,547 1.85 6,669 1.29 farming Commercial 4,819 5.09 17,661 18.67 8,645 9.14 Total 6.23 20.52 11.43 3. harvested goods

Millions US $

3.14

0.81

0.58

0.09 4. Recreation • interviewed 58 respondents (28 international and 30 national) • 68 international visitors who were from diverse countries including North America, Europe and the rest of Africa. • 1024 national visitors 22 groups of school and college students and 55 other individuals.

Visitor Local spending category Oct 14 - Annual Spending under different scenarios (US $ ) Mar15) Current Balance Development

Internatio 3,361 6,722 6,722 0 nal

National 2,490 4,980 4,405 0 Total 5,851 11,702 11,127 0

1 US $ = 100 KSh 2014 Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on world markets for various schemes.

2014 Carbon Dioxide Price Reference

-1 $tCO2eq

US Regional trading scheme Potomac Economics (RGGI) 5.21 (2015)

US Government (SCC) 42.25 US Government (2013)

UK Government central 2.23 DECC (2013) High 10.71

Verified Emissions Reduction 3.80 Hamrick et al (2015)

EU’s emission trading scheme 5.71 CCC (2014) Balance sheet- US $

Total Value Cont. Service Current income Development Balanced Using global VER voluntary market value of carbon GWP/Emissions 71,120 -2,450,217 -439,994 Cultivated goods Subsistence 1,264,331 2,052,490 1,433,822 Commercial 5,660,906 20,746,477 10,155,618 Harvested wild goods 5,125,080 3,843,810 5,125,080 Recreation 13,002 0 12,364 Balance 12,134,438 24,192,559 16,286,890

Using social cost of carbon (SCC-US Government) GWP/Emissions 790,740 -27,242,548 -4,892,040 Cultivated goods Subsistence 1,264,331 2,052,490 1,433,822 Commercial 5,660,906 20,746,477 10,155,618 Harvested wild goods 5,125,080 3,843,810 5,125,080 Recreation 13,002 0 12,364 Balance 12,854,058 -599,771 11,834,843 Recommendations

1. Develop Payment for ecosystem Services (PES) mechanisms including exploring the likelihood of tapping into the voluntary carbon markets; 2. Forge partnerships with the private sector to assist in the conservation and management of Yala Swamp; 3. Develop a Land Use Plan for Yala Swamp accompanied by a Strategic Environmental Assessment to ensure that all ecosystem services provided by the swamp are adequately recognized and protected; 4. Develop the tourism potential of Yala Swamp by training more local tour guides and investing in tourism infrastructure and in marketing; 5. Reducing the dependency on harvested wild goods by supporting local community fish ponds, and by supporting value addition and marketing of papyrus products. 6. Further studies be conducted on the hydrology of Yala Swamp including the geomorphology of the basin, water balance and the importance of the swamp in flood and water quality regulation. Still on progress 1. Hydrology 2. Annual biodiversity surveys Biodiversity + Ecosystem services

Optimizing delivery of ecosystem services to maximize benefits to man and environmental conservation

Land use plan Who are the stakeholders driving the process? • Busia + Siaya County governments • Legal mandate for LUP • Lead process • Submits SEA to NEMA • Approves LUP • To develop regulations to implement • National Government -IMTC– policy and technical support and scientists (NMK, Nature Kenya, RSPB, University etc )- support from UK planning expert. Team completed Tana LUP and SEA • NGO and donors – facilitators • Large scale investors – private sector • Local community – Scenarios Analysis - on going

1. Historical – what can we learn Impacts on 2. Conservation – maintain status 1. Water – quantity and quality quo 2. Land – extent - demand 3. Commercial - 3. Employment – from various 4. Hybrid plus – uses a) Balance development and 4. Economic value conservation 5. Biodiversity b) Ensure equity 6. Climate change regulation c) Employ polluter pays principles and d) Mainstream conservation of biodiversity e) Conserve ecologically sensitive areas Commercial scenario

Current situation 2050

2030 Hybrid plus scenario --Balance development and conservation --Ensure equity --Employ polluter pays principles and ---Mainstream conservation of biodiversity ---Conserve ecologically sensitive areas current

2050 2030 Proposed land use plan Buffer Zone 1. Agriculture (commercial and subsistence) 2. Settlement (towns and villages) 3. Industrial development 4. River corridors and channels 5. Public utility

Core Zone (Wetland) 1. Agricultural production areas 2. Conservation areas a. The river channels (corridors)

Open b. Riparian area water 9% c. Papyrus zones agricultu d. Open water re 29% 3. Scrub/woodland conserva settleme tion 4. Human settlement nt 61% 1% Overarching planning statements relating to the buffer zone

1. ‘Any development proposal which causes the volume of water reaching Yala Swamp to decrease below environmental flow will be refused planning permission’ 2. ‘Proposals rehabilitating riverbanks and other riparian zones will be promoted’ 3. ‘Industries and other institutions that discharge effluents that do not comply with the law will be denied planning permission 4. ‘Projects in this zone will lay emphasis on local community involvement’ .Emphasis here will be employment creation, improvement of livelihoods and value addition of fisheries, agricultural produce and natural goods and services

Also for Core Planning objectives for buffer zone

The primary objectives of the buffer zone will be: 1. Protect prime agricultural land to assure food security 2. Ensure sustainable settlement patterns 3. To encourage establishment of diverse but appropriate industrial enterprises Way forward

• Lucky because political leadership is cooperative and needs LUP –

Next steps • technical and political process moving together - 1. Complete draft SEA and LUP - 2. SEA – submit to County government for - then to NEMa 3. LUP – Submit to county governments – • County assembly • Executive approval ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • Donors: • Water Resources Management • UK government - Darwin Initiative Authority • USAID/East Africa - PREPARED • Various Experts – project • KFS • MacArthur Foundation • KEFRI • Siaya and Busia County Governments • Local community and leaders • Dominion Farms Limited • Field assistants • KWS • Many others • NEMA