UNESCO-Kenya National Seminar on Sustainable Coastal Development through htegmted Planning and Management Focused on

Mitigating the Impacts of Coastline Instability Whitesands Hotel, Mombasa, 23-25 June 1997

SulMRlGRY REPURT

. ,

. .

. " " I . " _

. I. . . . . . . , ,

'f, - .

UNESCO-Kenya National Seminar on

through Integrated Planning and Management Focused on Mitigating the Impacts of Coastline Instability

Sustainable Coastal Development

Whitesands Hotel, Mombasa, 23-25 June 1997 -~~

SUMMARY REPORT

UNESCO 1997

U Y E S C O NAIROBI OFFICE

The authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of facts contained in this Textbook and for the opinions expressed therein which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the organisation

Published in 1997 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Regional Office in Nairobi P.O. Box 30592 Nairobi, Kenya

0 UNESCO 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 . BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ........................... 1

1.1 UNESCO’s New Initiative towards Coastal zone Management ........ 2 1.2 Theseminar ...................................... 3

2 . OPENING ............................................ 3

3 . PRESENTATIONOFPAPERS ............................... 4

3.1 4 3.2 Session 2 (chaired by Prof . Justin Irina) ..................... 4 3.3 Session 3 (chaired by Dr . Paul B . Vitta) ..................... 4

Session 1 (chaired by Prof . Eric . Odada) .....................

4 . FIELDTRIPS .......................................... 6

5 . FILMS AND DISCUSSIONS ................................ 6

5.1 Session 4 (chaired by Dr . Ezekiel Okemwa) ..................... 6

6 . CLOSURE .............................................. 7

ANNEXI: PROGRAMME .................................... 8

ANNEX 11: RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 11

ANNEX 111: PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE SEMINAR .................. 12

VULNERABILITY OF THE KENYAN SHORELINE TO COASTAL INSTABILITY By Kuna K . Kairu ............................. 13

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF COASTAL INSTABILITY (EROSION) IN KENYA: A CASE STUDY By J . Inonda Mwanje. PhD ........... 26

INTERDISCIPLINARY SURVEY ON THE STATUS AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF COASTAL EROSION ALONG THE TANZANIAN COASTLINE AND ISLANDS By J . Francis. N . Nyandwi andF . E . Msuya .................................... 41

INTEGRATED COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT STRATEGY TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN KENYA By B . A . J . Mwandotto. PhD ............................................ 52

SUSTAINABLE COASTAL DEVELOPMW THROUGH INTEGRATED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT: Efforts by the Government of Kenya in Coastal Zone Management By Ali Mohamed and David Kinyanjui ........................................ 63

ANNEX IV: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Coastal areas are the site of complex natural systems where intense interactions occur between land, sea wp and atmosphere. They comprise a variety of highly productive ecosystems (e.g. coral reefs, mangroves, coastal lagoons and creeks, estuaries and deltas, seagrass beds, etc.) that differ in nature, magnitude and importance from one another, and from one coastline to the other. Yet these ecosystems are extremely vulnerable, particularly to human increasing activities in the coastal zone.

From early times, human settlements and, indeed, civilizations have tended to develop in coastal areas. Throughout the centuries, these human societies had co-existed amicably with the coastal environment. In these "traditional" societies, low-energy technologies were employed and social practices were often aimed at the conservation of their surroundings. To-day, however, the emergence of m o d e m high-energy based societies in the coastal zone, and the resultant rapidly developing industrial, transport, residential and recreational complexes are seriously threatening the equilibrium of the coastal environment. One clear manifestation of such threat in East Africa is coastal erosion.

Coastal erosion is a serious environmental problem affecting several coastal and island countries in the West Indian Ocean region, including Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique, to name only a few. In many places in this region, the rate of coastline retreat and the resulting environmental degradation and economic loss, is so rapid as to be alarming.

Coastal erosion is associated with the transport of large amounts of sediment from one place to the other, driven by the enormous force of waves and winds. Although these processes have O C C U K ~ since the formation of the oceans, over time, the natural processes have been enhanced or exacerbated by a combination of different human actions and influences some of which could be controlled or abated with an appropriate coastal zone management system. Since tourism is a major foreign-exchange earner for the East African countries, particularly Kenya, and since coastal hotels and associated amenities such as beaches are a major attraction of the tourism trade, coastal erosion is a serious threat to both the national and the local economies.

Certain human actions have been injurious to coastal marine ecosystems besides contributing to erosion and shoreline alteration. Throughout the region, marine ecosystems have been destroyed or degraded through human activities such as destructive fishing practices (e.g. dynamiting), land reclamation, sand dredging, and lime and coral mining. Blast fishing on coral reefs, although illegal, is still widespread in the region, causing direct ecosystem destruction and subsequent coastal erosion.

Sand and limestone mining on the shore platform results in the destruction of marine flora and fauna, alteration of currents, and a significant erosion of beaches and the shoreline. Moreover, collection of sand for construction of sand-in-filling structures from adjacent beaches or dunes along the shore also accelerates beach erosion owing to the resulting lack of exchange of sand between the dunes and the beach.

1

The measures adopted to arrest the problem of shoreline erosion (e.g. erection of vertical sea walls), besides being unsightly and interfering with the aesthetic beauty of the beaches, have proved futile and several beach hotels and other properties continue to be threatened by the vengeance of the ocean especially during the high tide. Because the strategy of erecting sea walls is based on wave refraction and reflection, the structures have been found to induce secondary environmental problems, such as deflecting erosion to neighbouring beaches, and thus contributing to growing acrimony among and between hoteliers and other property owners.

1.1 UNESCO's N e w Initiative towards Coastal zone Management

With the above-mentioned considerations in mind, the General Conference of UNESCO, at its 28th Session (UNESCO, Paris, November/December 1995), adopted a new project on "Environment and DeveloDment in coastal Repions and in Small Islands (CS I)" whose overall objective is to design methods for the integrated planning and management of coastal regions and small islands towards sustainable development, including the promotion of training, capacity building and public awareness.

Within East Africa (initially Kenya & Tanzania), an aspect of the CSI programme is being implemented through a pilot project on 'Sustainable Coastal Zone Development througb Integrated Planning and Management to Mitigate and Control Coastline Instability-' which focusses on coastal erosion. While the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) in Mombasa (with the support of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO) is spearheading studies aimed at the characterisation of the Kenya shoreline into stable and vulnerable areas to coastal erosion, a Kenyan scientist and the Zanzibar-based Institute of Marine Sciences of the University of Dar-es-Salaam have conducted surveys on the extent and socio-economic impacts of coastal erosion in Kenya and Tanzania respectively, under the sponsorship of UNESCO Nairobi Office.

As a second step in this direction, and in consultation with relevant Progamme Divisions at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, it was decided to organize a high-profile national seminar for Kenya to which representatives of the major stake-holders (Government, Hotel Owners and Managers, Other Property owners, Tourist Operators, Coastal Communities and Fishermen) wefe invited in order to review existing knowledge on the problem of coastal erosion, including the results of the current studies referred to above, and to consider appropriate, possible actions that could be taken by the different groups, including Government, witb a view to controlling coastal erosion.

2

1.2 The Seminar

After a series of consultation meetings held during April to early June 1997 between this Office and representatives of relevant Government Ministries and Departments, and prior to the seminar, a public awareness campaign was launched in order to arouse interest and awareness among the local communities about the problem of coastal erosion, as well as about the seminar itself. The campaign which was organized in cooperation with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, the Communications Unit of this Office and the Kenya Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, included a radio documentary which was broadcast on radio in Kiswahili, and TV shots in English. The I O C supported this campaign by providing 3 video films on coastal management issues, including on coastal erosion in Kenya.

The government departmentdinstitutions that played a major role in the organization of the seminar include: the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFFU); the Coast Development Authority (DCA); the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS); and the National Environment Secretariat (NES). Dr. J. Inonda Mwanje of Kenyatta University, and the Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS) of the University of Dar-es-Salaam also played an invaluable, in their consultant capacities, in carrying out the suveys on the extent and socio-economic impacts of coastal erosion in Kenya and Tanzania respectively.

The seminar itself was held at Whitesands Hotel, Mombasa from 23 to 25 June 1997. Participants (up to 160) included coast Provincial Commissioner and District Commissioners with their Heads of Departments; representatives of beach hotels, other property owners, tourist operators, coastal communities and fishermen, as well as those of relevant government ministries based in Nairobi, public universities and United Nations Agencies and non-governmental organizations.

2. OPENING

The Director of UNESCO Nairobi Office and Chairman of the opening session, Dr. Paul B. Vitta, called the seminar to order at 10.00 on 23 June 1997. H e welcomed the participants to the seminar on behalf of UNESCO, and thanked them for having turned up in such a large number. Outlining the importance of the coastal zone and its ecological systems to humanity all over the world, he also drew the attention of the seminar to the vulnerability of these systems, partwlarly owing to increasing human activities in the coastal zone. Referring to coastal environmental degradation in the sub-region, Dr. Vitta expressed the hope that this seminar would provide yet another opportunity to the various stakeholders in the Kenyan coastal zone to review the seriousness of the situation, with special reference to coastal erosion, and to come up with concrete and practical proposals and determination to control coastal erosion. H e then invited Mr. H. M. Haji (personal Assistant to the Provincial Commissioner, Coast Province) to address the seminar and open it officially on behalf of the Provincial Commissioner, Mr. Timothy Sirma, w h o was unable to come.

3

Mr. Haji welcomed the participants to Coast Province and, in particular to Mombasa, and thanked UNESCO and its collaborators for having sponsored and organized the seminar. Stressing the importance the Kenya Government attaches to integrated coastal m n e management, Mr. Haji drew the attention of the seminar to the roles and responsibilities of the key research and management organs that have been established in this area, such as the Coast Development Authority, the Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute and the Kenya Wildlife Service. H e concluded by wishing the participants a successful meeting, and declared the seminar officially opened.

3. PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

During plenary sessions held on the first day, the following papers were presented and then discussed:

3.1 Session 1 (chaired by Prof. Eric. Odada):

- Vulnerability of the Kenya shoreline to coastal erosion: A case study (by Mr. K. K. Kairu, Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute);

- Socioeconomic impacts of coastal erosion in Kenya: A case study (by Dr. J. Inonda Mwanje, Center for Environmental Research and Extension (CERE), Kenyatta University);

3.2 Session 2 (chaired by Prof. Justin Irina):

- Socio-economic impacts of coastal erosion in Tanzania: A case study (by Ms. F. E. Msuya, Institute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar, Tanzania);

- Possible actions to mitigate coastal erosion in Kenya (by Dr. B. A. J. Mwandotto, Coast Development Authority);

3.3 Session 3 (chaired by Dr. Paul B. Vitta):

- The role of government in coastal zone management, with special reference to coastal erosion, in Kenya (by Mr. David N. Kinyanjui, National Environment Secretariat).

The key messages of the above presentations were as follows:

a) The Tanzania coastline is characterized by a mixture of sandy beaches, rocky outcrops, fringing reefs and extensive mangrove stands, particularly round river deltas; and can be grouped into the following geomorphological types: (i) coral limestone cliffed shorelines; (ii) beach rock shorelines; (iii) h o l w n e beach terrace shorelines; (iv) sand spit shorelines; (v) sand bank shorelines; and (vi) mangrove shorelines, with types (iii) to (v) being dominated by loose

4

sediments. The Kenya coastline can be grouped into five distinct geomorphological types, namely: (i) the relatively older deltaic shorelines of the Lamu area that have relatively higher relief; (ii) the extensive low-lying m o d e m deltaic shorelines of the Ungwana Bay area; (iii) the relatively higher fringing reef shorelines that stretch from Malindi to Shimoni; (iv) the very low lying deltaic areas north of Malindi to Tana river which may be termed the Sabaki/Tana delta system which is dominated by recent unconsolidated sands and clays; and (v) the L a m u Islands type of recent windblown sands and shallow water deposits in the creek system.

b) Along both the Kenya and Tanzania coastlines, severe coastal erosion is taking place, particularly in low lying non-limestone-cliff areas that are dominated by loose sands and clays, and affecting in varying degrees the cultural and socio-economic activities of coastal communities. It is due to a complex interaction of various natural processes which in most cases are intensified by human activities. The natural processes include, among others, the combined action of waves, tides, winds and currents; variations in sea level; land subsidence and storms. H u m a n activities that are believed to have had a synergistic effect on coastal erosion include the manipulation of hydrological cycles through mainly dam and port construction; mining of sand, limestone and coral for construction purposes; destruction of protective coral reef systems and coral barriers; destruction of coastal vegetation such as mangroves; building on beaches; and erection of beach structures such as sea walls.

c) The socio-economic and ecological impacts of coastal erosion include loss of beaches and their esthetics value; loss of arable land; damage to coastal properties or infrastructures; destruction of coastal forests; destruction of ecologically important ecosystems and species; and loss/reduction of income generating activities and incomes.

d) Kenya and Tanzania are parties to several international and regional statutes and protocols, let alone to their national legislations, which are aimed at the proper management and conservation of the coastal and marine environments, e.g. the Kenya Territorial Waters Act and the Coast Development Authority Act, to name only a few. However, the majority of the national legislations are sector-specific with hardly any recognition of the complexity and multi- seztoral nature of the coastal zone, and are thus poorly co-ordinated, if at all, both within themselves and with the international and regional statutes and protocols.

e) The present poorly controlled and unco-ordinated developmental activities in the Kenya coastal area have led to severe violations of construction and sanitary regulations, including grabbing of public utilities, such as access roadslpaths to the beach, which, among other things, has exacerbated coastal erosion and marine pollution. However, in a period of three (3) years, a local multi-institutional team based in Mombasa has planned and initiated an Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) process based on a pilot site in Mombasa ( Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu area) that has elucidated the pertinent coastal resource management issues, and their possible causes. Continuous interaction with the team with stakeholders has further crystallized the issues and made it possible to evolve some management strategies that have been ratified in a national technical consensus forum.

5

Critical in the ICAM process has been the establishment of a steering committee with a secretariat that oversees the execution and implementation of the ratified strategies, as well as issue-driven technical working groups that undertake various activities. This effort involves sensitization of, and demonstration to the government and the public at large, of the need for and importance of I C A M , prioritization of planned implementation activities, developing a national I C A M strategy, playing an interacting role between institutions charged with various implementation tasks, soliciting for resources for ICAM activities, and periodically sharing the experiences learnt with the public while updating the strategies.

Tuesday, 24 June, was devoted to field trips during which participants were able to visit and see various sites which are undergoing serious erosion or accretion, including those where certain 'control' measures are underway. One group went to the South Coast up to Diani-Gazi where the main feature is erosion in the face of increasing erection of sea-walls by beach-hotel owners, but where one could also see mangrove re-afforestation by K M F R I at Gazi; the other group went to North Coast up to Malindi-Ngomeni where the main features are: the vulnerability of the sand dunes to coastal erosion in the Mambrui area; destruction of mangroves in Ngomeni area due to salt works, thus also threatening the stability of Ngomeni village; and accretion along Malindi shoreline due to siltation by Sabaki river.

5. FILMS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Session 4 (chaired by Dr. Ezekiel Okemwa):

The session opened with the showing of the UNESCO film titled A RACE A G A I N S T T I M E after which the team leader of each of the two field groups summarized the different sites and activities which his group had visited the previous day.

During the discussions that followed, it was apparent that:

(i) If the deleterious anthropogenic activities in the coastal zone, such as those referred to above, were controlled, the rate of coastal erosion in most parts of the shoreline would be greatly reduced;. replanting of mangroves where they have been destroyed and afforestation of erodable areas with mangroves and other coastal vegetation where such vegetation can grow would have a similar effect.

(ii) M any of the deleterious human activities within the coastal zone are not carried out with the deliberate intention to degrade the coastal environment, but through lack of appropriate information at the appropriate time. For instance, hoteliers and other coastal developers do not erect sea-walls in order to accelerate coastal erosion in the adjacent vicinity but to protect their properties. If proven information was made available on

6

alternative structures that could protect their properties with minimum adverse effects, chances are that they would resort to these alternatives.

(iii) Although some of the existing legislations on the protection pad conservation of the coastal and marine environments may require updating, if properly co-ordinated and enforced, these legislations could contribute greatly to bringing coastal erosion under control. It was revealed that non-enforcement of these legislations is mainly due to apathy on the part of the administrators owing to lack of motivation as reflected by the very low salaries they are paid.

(iv) Whereas new initiatives towards the control of coastal erosion in Kenya were welcome, in Kenya there already exists a multi-institutional planning team headed by the Coast Development Authority (CDA), which has since 1994 spearheaded an Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) process within the Kenyan coastal zone based on a pilot study site of the Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu area in Mombasa, which is addressing several coastal management issues, including coastal erosion, and which could play an invaluable co-ordinating and advisory role towards ICAM if it were strengthened. Accordingly, the seminar adopted the recommendations given in Annex 11.

6. CLOSURE

The director of UNESCO Nairobi Office, Dr. Paul B. Vitta, thanked the participants for their ,active participation, as well as for their useful comments and recommendations. H e assured the seminar that human and financial resources allowing, UNESCO is prepared to co-operate with the governments and relevant institutions in the region, in the implementation of the adopted recommendations.

There being no other business, Dr. Vitta offically closed the seminar at 17.15 Hrs.

7

ANNEXI

PROGRAMME

Sunday, 22 June 1997

17h.00: Arrival and registration of boarding participants

Monday, 23 June 1997

08h.30: Registration continued

Wh.30: Opening Ceremony - Chairman Or. Paul B. Vitta) . Opening/UNESCO speech do- . Guest of Honour speech . Practical arrangements- (Mr. G. Kitaka)

10h.30: TEAKOFFEE BREAK

PAPER PRESENTATION

Chairman: Prof. E. Odada

1 lh.OO - 1 lh.45: Vulnerability of the Kenya Shoreline to Coastal Erosion: A case study by Mr. K. K. Kairu;

llh.45 - 12h.30: Socio-economic Impacts of Coastal Erosion in Kenya: A case Study by Dr. J. Inonda Mwanje.

12h.30 - 14h.00 LUNCH

m i o n 2; PAPER PRESENTATION

Chairman: Prof. JustinIrina

14h.00 - 15h.00 Socio-economic Impacts of Coastal Erosion in Tanzania: A case Study by Ms. F. E. Msuya;

15h.00 - 15h.45 Possible Actions to Mitigate Coastal Erosion in Kenya by Dr. B. A. J. Mwandotto.

1531.45 - 16h.15 TEA/COFFEE BREAK

8

ANNEX 11

RECOMMENDATIONS

This Seminar:

1. Recommends to the Ministry of Land Reclamation, Regional and Water Development that the Coast Development Authority (CDA) be strengthened and empowered, 'through appropriate amendment of its Act, to vet, in collaboration with other relevant authorities, all forms of infrastructural development within its area of jurisdiction. In this regard, the hitherto ad hoc Coastal Management Steering Committee be legalized and established as a permanent body under CDA.

2. Recommends to the Provincial Commissioner Coast Province that he undertakes necessary steps to repossess all public utility land and beach access roads that have been allocated to private developers and have them registered under the Land Perpetual Succession Act, CAP 286 of the Laws of Kenya.

3. Urges all stakeholders within each contiguous coastal zone that in considering corrective measures for the protection of their properties, priority be given to collective concerted action rather than individual approaches. In this regard, the measures taken should ensure the proper conservation and management of the coastal environment, including beaches and related ecosystems, taking into account available scientific information and indigenous environmental conservation practices.

4. Recommends to CDA that a strategic plan be developed for the development of the coastal zone as a guide to all planners and investors.

5. Recommends to the CDA Coastal Management Steering Committee to develop, in cooperation with other relevant agencies, a code of conduct to guide developers and users of coastal resources within the coastal zone, as well as to review existing coastal management legislations with a view to improving them.

6. Recommends that the Ministry of Land Reclamation, Regional and Water Development urgently explores possibilities. and effective measures to increase the water supply of Mombasa town and its environs so as to stem the over-exploitation of underground water that is leading to saltwater intrusion.

7. Recommends to the coastal and island countries of the West Indian Ocean region to cooperate in all matters relating to Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).

1 1

ANNEX I11

PAPERS PRESENTED AT THE SEMINAR

12

VULNERABILITY OF THE KENYAN SHORELINE

TO COASTAL INSTABILITY

BY

Kuria K. Kah Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research ulstitute (K.n

P. 0. BOX 81651, MOMBASA, KENYA.

INTRODUCTION

F.R.9

Like other countries of the world, the Kenya coastal zone has experienced rapid development and increase in human population. This has altered the environment and resulted in physical and ecological modification. In addition to human interference with coastal systems, natural factors that affect the land ocean boundary, especially changes in the relative sea level, natural shift in the river discharge points, coastal subsidence and the sea state have contributed to coastal erosion. In addition to influence by the different forcing factors shoreline evolution is controlled by the coastal geology. Stable shorelines built from lithified beach rock and reef limestone are resistant to erosive forces, while low lying and unconsolidated shorelines are vulnerable to shoreline change. Three different coastal types are recognised along the Kenyan Coast (Fig. l), which include the fringing reef shoreline of southern Kenya, the deltaic shorelines of the Sabaki and the Tana river delta area, and the ancient delta area of the Lamu Archipelago. Coastal erosion has been recognised at different localities in all the three coastal types. Its occurrence is controlled by the coastal setting and the geology.

Coastal zone development in the last 30 years has not appreciated the problem of coastal erosion. Extensive coastal infrastructure is sited on low lying recent coastal settings vulnerable to shoreline change. As a result, in recent years coastal erosion has become a major threat to most of the tourism infrastructure. Attempt to control shoreline change by building sea walls has accelerated coastal erosion and loss of large volumes of Holocene beach sands fronting protected areas, such as those found at Bamburi and Diani.

To protect coastal investment and beaches from continued erosion, there is need to develop new guidelines to manage the coastal zone. Such guidelines must take note of the dynamic nature of coastal environments, natural shore evolution, future development on river systems and the projected sea level trends. Past changes in the sea level (Morner 1973) and models of global sea level change (Morner, 1987), must be taken into account.

13

Fig. 1: Geological Setting of the Different Coastal Areas

2'1

3'5

4' 5

c 1

SABAKI - TANA

40'E

t P \ 0 t \

Lamu

t P h c, 0

Scale: 0 40 K m

I

41'E

14

BACKGROUND ON COASTAL GEOLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY

The Kenya coast is a passive continental margin. Faults with NE-SW trends generate the majority of the Kenyan coastal depositional basins. Thick sedimentary deposits of Permo-Triassic to recent cover the coastal zone. The lowest sector of the coastal plain is of Pleistocene to Recent geology in the Malindi and Mombasa- Kwale area (Caswell, 1953; and Thompson 1956) and lies at an elevation of 0-2OOm. Pleistocene limestone and Holocene to Recent beach rock form the basal geology of the coastline and the intertidal platform. For the Kwale, Kilifi and Malindi sector, 14 km wide N-S tending reef limestone complex forms the positive terrain at 5-25m and the intertidal platform (Caswell, 1956; and Thompson, 1956). Beach rock and poorly cemented aeolinites occur in the Kilifi and Kiwayu area.

The Vasco da Gama area forms a transition point from the fringing reef shoreline of the south to the river dominated shoreline of the north. Recent beach sands, windblown deposits and deltaic deposits cover the older Pleistocene terraces in Malindi area (Caswell, 1953; and Thompson 1956). The shoreline in this sector comprises of cliff and Holocene beach sands that occur sporadically over the 0-5m terrace. Similar stratigraphy is observed in Mombasa area.

The different terraces of the coastal plain have been mapped in Mombasa area by (Caswell, 1956; and Ase 1981). Terraces occur at various levels extending from sea level. Important terraces that control modern shore evolution and configuration are noted at 0-5m and 5-10m above sea level datum (OD). Terraces occurring above 10m do not fall within the erosion regime.

In the northern sector, mapping of the coastal stratigraphy is limited to the Hadu Fundi Isa area (Williams, 1962). Recent unconsolidated sands cover the coastal zone in this sector and windblown deposits that overlie mixed deltaic units and older Pleistocene erosional surfaces. Extensive sectors of this area lie below 10m above sea level.

T o cover the different coastal types observed along the Kenya Coast, representative sites were selected in Msambweni, Diani, Bamburi and Silver Sands (Malindi) in the fringing reef shorelines. In the deltaic shorelines, Mamburui and Ngomeni sites were chosen while in Lamu only one site in Shela Beach was visited.

DATA COLLECTION

A desk study was undertaken to develop a geological framework of the three study sites. For each selected site 5OOm of shoreline were selected and walked to identify the main rock units. A general classification based on the characterization of the different environmental rock units was used. A scheme designed by the Texas Group was utilized in the study (Fisher et. al., 1973). Position of each rock unit was recorded relative to mean-sea-level to develop a qualitative index of position within the erosional regime. For the reconnaissance survey, frequency of the stations was not uniform. The vulnerability indices were used, based on the nature of the sediments, degree of exposure within the erosional regime, the sediment budget, and the observed erosion trend. The vulnerability indices used were based on the premises that Index 1 denotes the -st vulnerable area while Index 6 denotes relatively stable area. The following classes of indices were adopted:

15

1-2

3 4 5 6

Exposed unconsolidated shorelines on the 0-5m level negative sediment budget (1) and with a wide intertidal platform (2). Exposed unconsolidated shorelines on the 0-5m level with a positive sediment budget. Poorly consolidated shorelines on the 0-5m terrace. Coastal cliffs behind the intertidal platform. Unconsolidated shorelines above the 5m terrace.

COASTAL TYPOLOGY AND COASTAL EROSION

Erosion in The Gazi area

Erosion in Gazi is a progressive problem that has been observed for at least the last 10 years. Gazi has an extensive 0-5m fossil platform covered by 0-5 meters of mixed peat, sand and clay, of Holocene age. On the southern edge of the mangrove area, beach sands cover the intertidal platform that extends landwards to cover a 500m wide fossil terrace. The unconsolidated shorelines in this sector fall in the vulnerable category 1 and 2 due to the negative sediment budget and the unconsolidated nature. Longshore drift along this sector is due north. This has resulted in the formation of a spit from sands derived from the eroding southern beaches. The sand is lost to the creek at the northern section of the bay. The eroded sands are accumulating as sandbars in the shallow creek.

The occurrence of peat in crevasses within the intertidal platform indicates that mangroves were at one time more extensive than they are today. This is supported by local mangrove cutting records. Extensive coastal erosion has therefore occurred in recent history, estimated at 100-2OOm. Clear cutting of mangroves is thought to have aggravated the erosion problem.

The Diani and Bamburi Sector

The Diani and Bamburi sector is characterized by a fringing reef 1.5-2km offshore and a 0-2OOOm intertidal platform cut from cemented mixed limestone and coquinas. A unit of Holocene to Recent sand 1-1.5m thick overlies the 0-5m terrace that terminates 50-500m westwards on a relict fossil cliff (Fig. 2a). Higher terraces occur above 10m.

Erosion of the 0-5m terrace on which most of the hotels are built is observed along the developed areas. Over 25m of developed coastal area is facing a serious erosion problem, especially in Bamburi and Diani areas. Extensive sea walls built to contain the problem have accelerated beach erosion, characterized by a beach drawdown of 1-1.5m in most of the protected areas (Plate 1).

16

Fig. 2a - b: Geological Framework of the Bamburi-Diani and Ungwana Bay m p e Shorelines

>

U Ix X I SCALE

z 0 6

k s - U

w 41 J

w 3

2

1

EDGE OF THE llOOMl o - 5 MODTERRACE

KANAMAI CONFERENCE x x

X

x x x x x x X X x x x x x ? ? x ? W

0 Fia. 2 b Kgaama’ I and Diani twe sott i na

17

Plate 1: Accelerated erosion caused by building a sea wall in Bamburi

18

The Sabaki-Tana Delta Area

The river Sabaki-Tana delta area extends from Malindi to Lamu. In the Malindi-Mamburui area, lithified limestone forms the solid base of the present shoreline. North of Ngomeni, discontinued but poorly cemented beach rock is observed in a few localities. Recent unconsolidated deposits cover the rest of the coastal zone. However, north of the present Tana delta and the Lamu area, lithified beach rock and reef limestone occur once more along the shore to form cliffs and the intertidal platform. For the whole sector, the lithified intertidal units are overlain by Recent unconsolidated mixed deltaic units, lagoonal deposits and windblown sands.

The shore zone in Ungwana bay is dominated by barrier Islands that line the shore from the Tana delta to Ngomeni (Fig. 3 ). The formation of these Islands is associated with spit development and predominantly southerly longshore drift in a depositional environment characterized by a high tidal range 34m, wave heights of 1-3m and a relative sea level rise. The southerly growth of the spits is accompanied by beach chaniers, tidal deltas, high coastal dunes and sandbar systems (Plate 2). The string of Islands that can exceed 5km shelter coastal lagoons and mangroves. North of the Tana delta extensive dune fields cover the low lying coastal zone. Shorelines in this sector are transient and exhibit both periodic erosion and accretion tendencies. A good example is Malindi bay which.was experiencing severe erosion necessitating the building of a revetment to protect the port and the hotel areas.

In the last 10 years Malindi has prograded for over 100-200 meters. Similar progradation is noted in the Sabaki delta front. The south draining estuary shown in the 1889 Bathymetric chart now lies over 200m inland (Fig 4).

This deltaic progradation is noted further north in Mamburui where a new dune line has built up 100-200111 in front of the 1889 Duneline (Plate 3). ' Similar instability is observed in the northern coastal dunes and mangrove areas. Evidence of a shift in the Tana delta in recent times is represented by the numerous abandoned channels. Construction of the Ozi canal in the 18th Century shifted the river estuary to the present northerly position. The coastal setting in this sector falls under Index 3 of unconsolidated shorelines receiving large supplies of river sediments.

The Lamu Archipelago

The Lamu archipelago is a group of low-lying Islands of varying geometry. The northerly Islands of these sector, namely the Kiwayu, Simambaya and Kiunga string of ancient barrier Islands are of variable geology ranging from reef limestone to cemented beach rock overlain by Recent sands. Narrow low- lying beaches occur in areas protected by wide intertidal platforins. In Manda and Pate, extensive limestone and poorly cemented beach rock are the dominant coastal units, with unconsolidated sands and clays occurring in mangrove areas and behind wide intertidal platforms.

19

Fig. 3: Barrier Island Shorelines of Ungwana Bay

20

Plate 2: Barrier Island Shorelines of Ungwana bay

21

Fig. 4: Comparison of the 1884 and the 1966 Bathymetric Charts: Note shoreline accretion in the 1966 bathymetry

1:

KEY: ---- -1889 Coast and river channel. 1889 Bathymetric contours.

12 9 2_ h 1889 SPot depths. 4 1966 Bathymetric cdntours. 911% 6@,,1966 Spot depths.

-.-.-.

22

Plate 3: Accreting dunes of Malindi bay: Note new dune line

23

In Lamu cemented beach rock forms the intertidal platform overlain by recent windblown deposits. The lower areas are covered by mixed sands and clays. The Islands have a negative sediment budget that developed after the last major rise in sea level that isolated the Islands from the Tana delta system. Permanent shoreline recession is observed on the eastern side of the Island. This necessitated extension of a sea wall built in 1889 southwards, to protect the hospital; in the hotel areas of Shela Beach, sea walls have been built in recent years. A slow progressive loss of the Islands beaches has been observed. This is replenished naturally by sands eroded from the eroding Shela dunes that is transported northward by the longshore drift. This sector falls within the most vulnerable environments of Index 1 category. Considering the Islands negative sand budget, sand replenishment from the Shela dunes is not sustainable. A new management strategy is required to save the Islands’ shorelines.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The Kenya coastal zone has one of the most developed tourism industry within the region, valued at billions of shillings. Development plans for these hotels did not anticipate the problem of shoreline change. As a result, over 90% of the hotels are built in vulnerable areas. These include most of the beach front environments of hotels in Diani, Tiwi, Nyali, Bamburi, Kikambala, Watamu, Silver Sands and Mamburui. All the affected hotels are sited on wedged Holocene sands, 0-5m thick that overlie a narrow coastal terrace 50 to 500m wide cut when the sea level was higher. The second terrace occurs at an elevation of 5-10m. The present development strategy has placed extensive hotel development in relatively vulnerable areas that are already suffering severe coastal erosion.

Erosion mitigation works, using revetments have been erected to protect Lamu and Malindi towns. The oldest section in Lamu dates back to the 18th century (Ghaidan, 1976). In the newly developed areas, sea walls have been erected to protect tourist hotels. Where walls have been erected severe beach degradation occasioned by loss of beach sands has occurred. Beach drawdown of up-to 1.5m is observed in the Bamburi area.

Considering the large investment (billions of shillings) and the severity of the present erosion problem, the present erosion trend must be managed. Any selected management strategy must address itself to the need of maintenance of the quality of the beaches. Not all the available coastal erosion protection measures can achieve this. Detached offshore breakers, groins, reno mattresses and sand nourishment are the main options. In beach areas, the structures of choice are required to dissipate the incoming wave energy gently enough to allow the settling of sands. The commonly used sea walls are associated with beach scour and are totally unsuitable for beach areas. To be effective the selected protection structure must be carefully designed. In this regard, in an area like Diani the selected protection strategy must cover the whole beach stretch, the same apples to Bamburi and the other areas.

W e have already made mistakes that will be expensive to manage in monetary and environment terms. Available data on global climate trends and the geological character of our shorelines indicate that coastal erosion will continue to affect vulnerable shorelines even in the distant future. The development and management strategies w e are using today are not working well. In some areas they have favoured further degradation of our shorelines resulting in diminished beach quality. Therefore, w e must review our past strategies with the aim of designing new strategies that will reduce our vulnerability to shoreline change. In developed areas where the level of investment justifies coastal protection, comprehensive erosion mitigation solutions must be designed with clear objectives of the desired results. In this regard

24

the need to conserve our beach environments, for instance, must be included as one of the criteria in design. In undeveloped areas, there is need to characterize our shorelines, bearing in mind their vulnerability to erosion and flooding and taking note of changes in river use, global climate, sea level and the erodability of the shore forming material.

REFERENCES

Ase L.E.I. (1981): Studies of shores and shoreline displacement on the Southern Coast of Kenya. Geog Annaler. 63: 303-310.

Caswell, P.V, (1953): Geology of the Mombasa-Kwale Area. Report No. 24, Geol. Surv. Kenya.

Caswell, P.V, (1956): Geology of Kilifi Mazeras Area. Report No. 34, Geol. Surv. Kenya.

Fisher, W. L. V., Brown, L. F., J r Mc Grower, J. H., and Groat, C. G., (1973): Environmental Geologic Atlas of the Texas Coastal zone, Beaumont to Port Arthur Area Bur. Econ. Geol Univ. Texas at Austin 93pp.

Ghaidan, Usam (1976): Lamu: A Study in Conservation. East African Literature Bureau, Nairobi.

Morner N. A. (1973): Eustatic Changes in the Last 300 Years Paleogeogr. Paleoclim. Paleoecol 13, 1-14.

Morner, N. A. (1987): Models of Global Sea Level Changes. In: Sea Level Changes, M.J. Tooley and I. Shennan (Eds.), Blakwell, Oxford, pp. 332-55.

Thompson, A. 0. (1956): Geology of the Malindi area report No. 36, Geol. Surv. Kenya.

Williams, L. A. J. (1962): Geology of the Hadu Fundi Isa Area. Report No. 52, Geol. Surv. of Kenya.

25

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF COASTAL

INSTABILITY (EROSION)

IN KENYA: A CASE STUDY

J. Inonda Mwanje, PhD.

Director, Center for Environmental Research and Extension (CERE),

Kenyatta University, P. 0. Box 43844, Nairobi. Tel: 02-810910 EXT. 57216

ABSTRACT

Coastal erosion in Eastern Africa, more so along the Kenya coastline has received little attention from researchers. Over the years the problem has become increasingly serious. In addition, it has been noted that there is inadequate knowledge of its effects on natural resources as well as the lives of the local communities.

The UNESCO sponsored study reported here established that local communities and fishermen base their knowledge of coastal physical changes on observations and experience. They appear to be more knowledgeable in this regard than decision makers and hoteliers. Further, these respondents thought that the occurring changes are predominantly natural phenomena and cited the most affected areas as the north coast beach , along the Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu shoreline; and the Gazi areas in South Coast Zone.

Indeed the cited effects of coastal erosion included the decrease of agricultural land, destruction of coastal properties and reduced fish catches. It emerged that the most common mitigating action taken by coastal communities is the planting of vegetation, while some hotel establishments erected seawalls along the shoreline. In retrospect most respondents observed that the role of government was very low and that integrated efforts with local communities could be useful in combating the effects of coastal erosion. Hence, there is need to develop proper interventions for sustainable coastal resource utilization.

26

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Ocean coastline of East Africa lies between 2' 15' N to 11' 45' S. In most cases it has been initiated by relative movements between land and sea. The Kenyan coastline lies between 2' 15' N and 4' S and extends for approximately 402 Km., from the Umba River mouth in the south to the Somalian border in the north (Fig. 1). The 200 nautical miles zone off the high water mark along the shoreline has been declared an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The Kenya Coastline can be subdivided into four physiographic regions. Detailed geological and geomorphological aspects of these physiographic regions have been considered by several authors, including Caswell and Baker (1953), Caswell (1956), Thompson (1956), Hori (1970 and 1972). Ase (1978), Toya et. al. (1973), Sikes (1930), Ojany (1984 a,b), Oosterom (1988), and others. Two major characteristics of the coastline are noted:

e The two types of the Kenyan coastline:

(i) Coasts of Submergence: resulting from rise in sea-level, hence drowning of coastal areas to produce broad bays, coves, lagoons, estuaries, gulfs, off-lying islands, peninsulas, and straits.

(ii) Coasts of Emergence: resulting from a fall in sea-level or a tectonic/volcanic - generated elevation of the land and adjoining continental shelf that lead to a retreat of the sea and subsequent emergence of the sea floor.

e Due to Pleistocene climatic / eustatic episodes, four levels of development of the littoral zone are identifiable (Oosterom, 1988). These are:

- The active level of littoral zone: characterized by the landforms of the modern shore and

The lower levels of the littoral zone: characterized by coastal landforms of former shores

The middle levels of the littoral zone: characterized by coastal landforms of former shores

the related coastal deposits;

apparently related to mainly Holocene deposits;

apparently related to the Pleistocene sands and the underlying reef complex; The higher levels of the littoral zone: characterized by coastal landforms of former shores apparently related to the Changamwe and Magarini deposits.

- -

The coastal areas of Kenya are known to be extremely valuable as they concentrate a rich diversity of natural habitats and a large variety of natural resources. Coastal communities have from time immemorial depended on the exploitation of these resources for commerce and industry. Given the apparent wide range of significant economic opportunities, emerging threats due to the effects of coastal instability (erosion) are of great concern.

27

Ungwana- E Formosa L-

’+ .ikebuni ‘Mornbrui

Hg.1 THE STUDY SITES ALONG THE KENYA COASTLINE 28

It is appreciated that there is a definite shift from traditional resource use patterns to new practices which may not necessarily be in balance with natural ecosystems. Hence these ecosystems are set to experience overwhelming stress as a manifestation of the exponential growth in population sue, with no matching growth in natural resource base. Already the social, economic and ecological impacts of coastal erosion include, loss of white sand beaches; loss of prime arable land, leading to reduced agricultural productivity; damages and even destruction of coastal property or infrastructures eg. hotels' structures, roads, fish landing sites, etc.; destruction of indigenous coastal forests (especially the Kayas); destruction of ecologically important ecosystems such as the coral gardens and mangroves, as well as the genetic pool and the species they support; and the loss of employment opportunities.

The vulnerability of the Kenya shoreline to coastal instability, especially due to coastal erosion has recently been documented by Kairu (1989 and 1997). Other relevant works include, CDA et. al. (1996), Mwanje et al (1989), and the UNEP/IGBP Kenya Task Force (1992). Given the need to encourage coastal communities to utilize coastal ecosystems in a sustainable manner, more so those that are known to be highly fragile such as the coral reef ecosystems, UNESCO launched the study on Environment and Development in Coastal Regions and in Small Islands (CSI), which set out, among other things, to identify human use practices that are likely to impact negatively on the most vulnerable areas of the shoreline especially due to coastal erosion. The study focused on four target groups considered to be the key players, namely, the local community, the fishermen, the hoteliers and tourist operators, and decision makers. The focus of the study was on the effects of coastal erosion on the culture and socio-economic aspects along the coastline of Kenya. Each group was interviewed on similar issues covering: Knowledge on coastal physical environmental change, Knowledge on causes of coastal erosion and coping strategies or mitigating options, and the investment profile on the management of changes on the shorelineheaches.

The problem of coastal erosion has been noted to be more serious in areas which happen to be most attractive for the development of tourism. These areas fall within four delineated zones, namely, the south coast, the Mombasa Island, the north coast, and the Malindi-Watamu area. The significance of these areas in the economy of the coast region have been documented in many studies such as Schoorl & Visser (1991), and Mwanje, et. al. (1989). This paper is a presentation of the study results of the CSI survey.

PROJECT AREA

The study sites in Kenya were the south coast zone especially Diani beach complex, the Mombasa Island and the shorelines to the north of the Island, and the Malindi-Watamu-Mamburui area (Fig. 1). These areas were so selected as they were thought to have "hot spots" with regard to effects of coastal erosion. It should be noted that Kairu (1997) explores to a greater degree, the vulnerability of some of these "hot spots".

S"DY CONCERNS

The study addressed pertinent issues that link economic resource utilization practices to coastal natural environments within the project area. The key questions considered were:

29

0

0 0 0

W h y is there such a gap between community and decision makers’ commitments to the health of the natural physical environment along the coastline? What is the status of knowledge of the key players on coastal erosion? What is the status of indigenous knowledge systems on the management of coastal erosion? What are the socio-economic impacts of coastal erosion? Thus: - are w e failing to realize the economic potential of coastal natural resources?

what economic programmes appear to disregard the maintenance of a high quality of - coastal environmental conditions?

0 What then is meant by the term sustainable development?

These and related socio-economic issues constitute the main basis of this paper.

STUDY MEXHODOLOGY

A questionnaire survey was conducted between November, 1996 and April, 1997. Appropriate codes for data analysis were developed by the author, and research assistants from the coast were engaged to administer them in both Kiswahili and local languages. Actual translation and distribution of translated questionnaires was not done. However, the research assistants were trained to translate these instruments simultaneously during the interviewing sessions in order to ensure accuracy and standardisation of the translation process and content analysis.

The survey was conducted using random sampling procedures by which individuals from each group were selected and interviewed, each with equal chance of being selected. In the case of beach hotel owners/managers and the decision makers, questionnaires were left to be completed and collected later.

The average number of questions in each instrument was 45. Each of the four target groups was interviewed on similar issues including: Knowledge on coastal physical environment; Knowledge on causes of coastal erosion and coping strategies or mitigating options; and the investment profile on the management of changes on the shoreline or beaches. In retrospect each questionnaire was group-specific in content, yet somewhat similar to the rest.

Field sampling was conducted in Msambweni area, Gazi, Chale Is., Diani beach complex, Ukunda, Tiwi, Matuga, Kwale town, Shelly beach, Ng’ombeni, Likoni, Shikadabu, Waa, Mombasa Island, Nyali- Bamburi-Shanzu Zone, Kilifi, Gedi, Watamu, Malindi, Mamburui. All the beaches in these areas were visited. The sample size for each group was as follows: Community, 135; Fishermen, 89; Hotel Owners/Managers, 27; and the Decision Makers, 21. One of the limitations was that most Hoteliers and Decision Makers failed to exhibit marked enthusiasm with the objectives of the study. Thus the study team received limited co-operation from them, which resulted in low responses to the study instruments.

30

RESULTS

The Status of Knowledge on Coastal Erosion

Serious damages to natural resources such as those found at the "hot spots" along the Indian Ocean coastline are of great concern to the peoples of the region. To this end the target study groups have attained diverse knowledge on the processes involved. However, lack of homogeneity in knowledge status may have resulted into different ways of response to the resulting consequences of coastal erosion. As the striving man imposes his will on nature, he has created an ecological imbalance, with disastrous results. The knowledge status on the coastal natural physical changes is summarised as follows:

0 Common knowledge among all the target study groups included the following:

- notable physical changes along the shoreline, especially on the beaches have occurred.

save for decisioii makers, the other three key players can easily identify environmental

the effects of coastal erosion are loss of shoreline, beach and-corals.

In some areas the beaches have grown in terms of sand deposits while other beaches have lost sand.

physical changes if they affect shoreline /beach/fishing grounds. - -

0 Most respondents observed that any physical change along the coastline is a continuous growing phenomenon and can be controlled through appropriate mitigation. However only one-half of the hoteliers have some awareness on actual physical changes that occur along the coral reef.

0 Local communities and fishermen reported that community-based legislation for protection of the shoreline existed in most coastal areas. No clear indication on its effectiveness was provided. This group base their knowledge on coastal physical changes on observations and experience. Most affected areas are the Nyali-Bamburi-Shw zone and the Gazi area. In some areas (eg. the south coast) they cited destruction of the coral reef and mangrove forests.

0 Majority of decision makers appear to rely on textbook explanations with regard to causes of coastal erosion. They lack first hand experience.

Impacts of Coastal Erosion on Coastal Communities

The noted impacts were as fo!lows:

0 In some cases due to lack of suitable alternatives coupled with increasing population pressure, poor communities and individuals along the coast have lead to rapid change in cultural perception of the Kayu shrines. Consequently, some of these Kayus have been encroached upon for purposes of subsistence agriculture and human settlements. Such actions have often led to irrevocable environmental degradation of the targeted fragile ecosystems along the shoreline.

0 Developers pose major threat on coastal ecosystems given that they aim at rapidly achieving maximum profits from the exploitation of these coastal land resources in the minimum time possible.

31

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Coastal erosion has resulted in the destruction of fishing grounds as well as white sand beaches.

Breakage of corals has become common in the "hot spot" areas.

Employment opportunities in areas adversely affected by coastal erosion have diminished. For instance fisheries productivity has declined in some of the "hot spot" areas (especially lagoons) thus rendering families of many fishermen impoverished and conditions associated with absolute poverty have set in. In this regard the incurred annual losses due to loss of fisheries are estimated to the tune of Ksh. 300-500 per day, or between Ksh. 110,OOO to Ksh. 183,000 annually. Some fishermen, especially those operating in the prone producing areas are forced to use smaller nets to catch more produce, with devastating results on population regeneration.

Likewise tourism activities are declining.

Infrastructure such as fish landing jetties have been destroyed, and also suitable sites for construction of new ones are increasingly being eroded.

Ground water quality in wells and boreholes is declining due to increased intrusion of salt water into underground aquifers in shoreline areas.

Destruction of sea turtle breeding grounds was reported in Malindi-Watamu area. For example it was observed that seawalls constructed as erosion control measures act as a barrier that prevents female turtles from climbing to nesting sites, besides reducing sand quantity in shoreline areas that constitute nests.

Loss of natural beach profile due to progressive erection of erosion control structures by developers along the shoreline has occured.

Denial of access to the sea, a situation made more serious by increased restriction by hoteliers/land developers on free community access, especially along the Ukunda-Diani Beach Complex.

Indiscriminate cutting of the mangrove trees in coatsal littoral environments which constitute the breeding grounds of a variety of fisheries, has also resulted in loss of canopy, loss of arboreal organisms, and soil erosion in farm plots near the shoreline and creek zones, etc. The ecological and economic consequences are disastrous. As a result, fishermen and local communities call for strict legislation on harvesting practices of mangroves which appear to accelerate the rate of coastal erosion as well as destruction of breeding grounds eg. for prawns. The obstacles facing the implementation of existing legislation have been considered in Wamicha and Mwanje (1997).

Tendency towards fishing activities are increasingly becoming unattractive as more fishermen are displaced from their traditional operating zones and only very few shore front fishing villages remain.

Some hotel establishments have resorted to modification of the natural shoreline geometry to enhance the scenic value of their properties (i.e along their areas of jurisdiction). They also argued that such modifications prevent flooding, washing away of white sand beaches, and

32

keeping away the strong sea waves as well as the beach boys. Common structures erected are sea-walls [See Plate 1 & 21. These structures are estimated to cost between Ksh. 2 million- 5 million to erect. The impacts of these structures include: - damage of the natural environment due to deflection of wave energy to hitherto un-eroded

destruction of vulnerable areas which include fragile ecosystems such as: marine parks;

acceleration of sea-wall related damage by increased activities in the tourist industry,

(or accretion) parts of the shoreline.

mangrove ecosystems; coastal sand dune systems; lagoons, coves and bays; coral gardens; etc.

especially hotel construction.

-

- Despite the adverse socio-economic effects recorded due to coastal erosion, the Kenya Tourism Management Board which was expected to tackle some of the consequential issues is reportedly non-functional.

Indigenous Mitigation Options

The current rapid increase in coastal erosion has exerted pressure on existing traditional initiatives for adjusting to hitherto gradual changes. Consequently the following have occurred:

local community and fishermen have been compelled to focus on controlling physical changes due to erosion through community efforts using enhanced embarkments made of tree/coconut/mangrove poles. Such activities have resulted in the destruction of local vegetation. local community and fishermen are increasingly spending more time attending to the effects of coastal erosion on littoral environments in which they operate, to the extent that valuable time which should be used to improve their economic productivity is being squandered.

0

The methods of controlling coastal environmental physical change considered in this analysis were: community effort, government intervention, natural control (do nothing), abandonment of affected areas, use of mangrove poles, and others (eg. reconstruction of shoreline geometry). The majority of the community group, 65(57.5%) reported that they have not (in the past) specifically addressed the issue of controlling coastal erosion as a group. Those who reported collective use of community efforts, 36(3 1.9%) said that they advised against the cutting of shoreline vegetation such as Kaym and mangroves, as a measure against coastal erosion. The rest of the respondents reported: government intervention, 7(6.2%); and natural control (do nothing), 3(2.7%). In the case of fishermen, the majority, 42(67.7%) reported that they used no control method. Only a few reported or cited the application of community efforts, 19(30.6%), and government intervention, 1(1.6%), respectively. Likewise, the majority of hoteliers, lO(55.696) used no method; while those employing community efforts were, 6(33.3%), and natural control, 2( 1 1.1 %).

Among all the study groups, government intervention was established to be insignificant. In general, decision makers, the majority of wkom could have been involved in government efforts, appeared to offer no practical solution with regard to the control of coastal erosion. Thus confirming that very little official effort is invested in the control of coastal environmental physical changes.

33

PLATE 1: A Seawall Structure at a Site on Diani Beach, South Coast Study Zone

PLATE 2: Shoreline Erosion of the Seawall Structure Shown in Plate 1.

34

Previous Control Strategies Used by the Community

This section reviews previous control strategies and investment put into participatory efforts by community and fishermen groups to control coastal erosion as well as related management of fishing grounds. The results should be amenable to the design of community-based strategies or mitigating options. Some aspects of financial estimates on the cost of maintenance of structures are also explored. Nevertheless, there were no reports of elaborate control programmes. Thus, the majority of community group, 87(77.0%) did not mention any specific strategies. However, those who reported the use of embankments were 23(20.4%; and sea walls, 3(2.7%). All fishermen and hoteliers gave no response in this regard. The above results demonstrate that, collectively, minimal control of coastal erosion is undertaken by all the four groups.

The cited community-based coastal erosion legislation are: picking of corals be discouraged; strict environmental sanitation be observed in beach areas; shoreline erosion be controlled through community efforts; indiscriminate cutting of mangroves be discouraged; and non-existence of any community-based legislation. It is worthy noting that fishermen made no mention of legislation pertaining to shore protection and the banning of the cutting of mangroves. Perhaps this question was misunderstood at this stage of the interview.

Response to Coastal Erosion by Hoteliers

0 Despite increased adverse effects due to coastal erosion this has failed to have an impact on actions by most hotel industry investors. For instance, nothing is forthcoming on the beach management programme. Sea-grass accumulation is a common feature and it costs Ksh. 15,000/= per month per hotel to clear. This amounts to an estimated cost of about Ksh. 2.25 million for all hotel establishments along the cost per month. Such economic costs are a result of erosive activities along the coral reef which have also reduced production of shells and other economically viable products.

Awareness of the Problem

Coastal communities showed that they had reasonable awareness of the key coastal environmental physical changes along the Kenya coastline, e.g beach erosion, shoreline erosion due to sand harvesting, submergence of coastal lands, intrusion of sea water into near-shoreline fresh water bodies, and breakage of coral beds and/or rocks for use in construction. For instance, the majority of the community group, 122(91.0%) said they would easily identify these changes, the rest, 12(9.0%) would not. Likewise, fishermen and decision makers who would identify these changes were, 76(86.4%), and 16(76.2%), respectively. O n the other hand, all hoteliers reported that they would readily identify these changes.

Serious damages to natural resources such as those found at the "hot spots" along the Kenyan coastline are of great concern to the peoples of the region. To this end, the four targd study groups have attained diverse general knowledge on the processes involved. However, lack of homogeneity in knowledge base may have resulted into different ways of response to the resulting consequences of coastal erosion. As man strives for a living, he has created an ecological imbalance, with disastrous results.

35

A Synthesis of the common knowledge among all the target study groups indicates that awareness covers the following aspects:

notable physical changes along the shoreline, especially on the beaches. In some areas the beaches have grown in terms of sand deposits while in others, they have lost sand. save for decision makers, to a greater extent, the other three groups could easily identify coastal environmental physical changes if they affect shoreline / beach / fishing grounds. the effects of coastal erosion are loss of shoreline, beach and corals.

0

0

0

Observations Made on Shoreline Changes

Among the community group, the most common change noted is that of shoreline erosion, 62(54.996), followed by submergence of shoreline, 16(14.2%). Further, other cases were reported: beach erosion, 13(11.5%); and coral damage, 9(8.0%). However, infiltration of saline water into fresh water aquifers was not reported. In the case of fishermen, the majority reported to have noted shoreline erosion, 41(64.1%), followed by beach erosion, 13(20.3%). The rest reported, infiltration of saline water into fresh water aquifers, 4(6.3%); and coral damage, 3(4.7%). As for hoteliers, the majority reported to have noticed beach erosion, 8(44.4%), followed by shoreline erosion, 6(33.3%). Also reported was infiltration of saline water into the aquifers, 2(11.1%). Nevertheless, hoteliers gave no information on submergence of shoreline and coral damage. Thus fishermen, are the only group that reported having noted shoreline submergence, especially in South Coast Zone around Msambweni and Ramisi estuarine.

The results reported above indicative that the community and fishermen groups interact more often with the physiographic features along the shorelines, as opposed to hoteliers, who tend to confine their activities around specific beaches at which they operate. Thus the approach by fishermen in addressing shoreline issues is indicative of their deeper understanding of the coastal environment, especially the sea- land interactions. For instance, fishermen showed keen interest in fisheries, especially those found in mangrove areas, which are associated with shoreline conditions.

The Role of Government The role of government was seen to cover the following possible actions: the enforcement of existing legislation, policing the beach areas, controlling the felling of mangroves, controlling the building of structures near the high water mark, controlling trawling activities in the near shore waters, support fishermen eg. by providing fishing vessels and gear, and demolition of illegally constructed structures such as the seawalls.

Indeed most respondents expected the government to play a significant and important role in controlling coastal erosion. Nevertheless, the results of the survey show that respondents had a wide range of views in this regard. Those from the community group who thought that the enforcement of legislation was the most important role expected of the government were 24(17.8%). However, an equally significant proportion of respondents in this group, 24(17.8%) did not know the role to be played by the government. O n the other hand, the majority of hoteliers, 12(52.25%) suggested that the government should control the building line, away from high water mark as recommended in all the hot spots studied especially Diani Beach Complex, Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu area, and Malindi-Watamu-Mamburui sector of the shoreline. Most of the decision makers, 7(41.2%), had no idea on what role the government should play; yet a reasonable number of them were in government service. Hence, it could be inferred that the non-committal response of these respondents sheer lack of interest.

36

Alternative Socio-economic Activities

Under the scenario of a rapidly deteriorating coastal environment especially due to mangrove destruction and shorelineheach erosion, and focusing on those dependent on marine and other resources in the littoral zones, a number of alternative economic activities were considered. These are: small-scale enterprises, Jua Kali activities, formal employment, agricultural production/activities, migration to other economically favourable areas along the Coast, and investing in tourism activities.

Among the community group, the results indicate that, those opting for agricultural production, were 32(23.9%); small-scale enterprises, 20(14.9%); Jua Kali activities, lg(14.296); and investment in tourism activities, g(6.796). Only 2(1.596), opted for formal employment as an alternative economic practice. However, 52(38.8%) lacked alternative options to resort to.

In the case of fishermen, 29(36.7%) mentioned Jua Kali activities. The rest indicated, agricultural production/activities, 16(20.3 %); investment in tourism, 9(11.4%); small-scale enterprises, 7(8.9%); migration to other less impacted zones, 3(3.8%), and opting for formal employment, 2(2.5%). A total of 13(16.5%) gave no alternative option.

Among the decision makers the most important options were as follows: agricultural production/activities, 4(30.8%); Jua Kali activities, 3(23.1%); and small-scale enterprises, 2(15.4%). The alternative of migrating to less impacted zones, attracted only 1(6.7), respondents. A total of 3(23.1 %), respondents gave no alternative option. Hoteliers did not address this issue.

E M E R G I N G KEY MESSAGES

These are as follows:

0

0 0 0

0

There is lack of knowledge among respondents as to how to deal with loss of shoreline and white sand beaches and the resulting implications on the building line. Very little is know of the wave dynamics and its implications on sea walls or embarkments. Little is known on the ecology and significance of mangroves. Lack of information on existence of bankable economic response to effects of coastal erosion on investments and adjustment to resulting economic changes. Local communities are not willing to admit their role in breakage of corals as a consequence of fishing methods. The adverse effects of such actions need to be amplified and articulated so as to enhance awareness.

0 Lack of:

- awareness on the effects of coastal erosion on the lives of the local communities. enforcement, of existing legislation on the protection of the coastal environment. a workable concept on "land access rights" among coastal communities, given the

- -

effects of coastal erosion on their lives.

37

Most of the coastal (local) communities own land communally within the framework of indigenous economy. It is noted however that the concept of "land amss rights" among the indigenous peoples does not necessarily include the right of ownership of the property but instead reflects on a person's or social unit's place in the social matrix and/or structure. It promotes access other than exclusive possession. This situation does raise new dimensions in sustainable development along the shoreline and influences the intra-cultural and socio-economic diversity. Hence the need for innovation of new and workable concepts.

Although most indigenous people at the coast have developed specialized rmurce management initiatives suitable for survival within the littoral environment in which they operate, and that such systems are thought to have zero-negative impacts on the natural environment, the flexibility they hitherto enjoyed no longer exists as more land is acquired by developers.

The economic development must begin at the grassroots level and grow to national levels by paying special reference to ecological dynamics with the aim of reducing 'environmental opportunity costs'. This may not have been well attained at the coast as economic decisions are made away from the target communities.

It is not possible to easily predict human preferences and values within their living environment as human-environment interactions are complex. Thus economic development programmes instituted within coastal environments must put into consideration ideas covering social systems; cultural patterns; social structure, role and status; decision making processes; community participation; etc., so that the analysis of indigenous economic systems and associated resource management initiatives may be well understood on prior basis. This is yet to happen.

Perhaps a new concept which I choose to refer to as "enhancement of prosperityn, should be adopted. This new concept as opposed to that of "deviation of poverty", as implied' in "sustuidZe deveZopment", is in m y view much broader and sensitive to human behaviour. It entails the "exchange of service" among people with a common destiny. Ideally it should permit mobilization of community-based resources for use by individuals who constitute that community. Thus, whereas the concept of "susfuinabZe deveZ0pmen.t" has definite limits in growth and that it may not lead to the eradication of poverty, that of "enhancement of prosperity" through "exchange of service" at community level has great promise in eradicating poverty. The gains as defined by the communities themselves is infinity in nature.

C O N C L U S I O N The scenario depicted above is a major challenge to coastal communities and policy makers. Without concerted efforts decision makers with jurisdiction covering the shoreline will continue to experience difficulties in their operations. Thus decision-making practices must be changed.

Recognition must be paid to the production systems in indigenous economies which tend to ensure minimum levels of consumption to meet the society's needs. It is noted that economic unit and its membership depend upon prior sorts of social relations. To this end the associated indigenous initiatives may present viable and bankable solutions to environmental problems arising from coastal erosion.

38

Because of the realization of the environmental crisis facing the Kenyan coastline, the present study is of significant impbrtance, hence this seminar. The findings of the study should be instrumental in the adoption of relevant indigenous coastal resource management initiatives within the framework of man- environment interactions. The relevance of the study to sustainable resource conservation and development is notable. The sensitivity of coastal environments to shoreline changes, especially due to erosion, should therefore be documented. The use of articulated and innovative research techniques for data gathering for use in planning, should be adequately supported.

It is a well known fact that, tourism tends to be related to politics. For the industry to flourish it needs support of government policy for its vantage position in the economy to be fully realized. The coastal peoples should be encouraged to promote a "culture of wise" use of coastal area resources so as to "enhance prosperity".

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ase, L.E. (1978). Preliminary Report on Studies of Shore Displacement at the Southern Coast of Kenya. Geogr. Ann. 60A (3-4): 209-21.

Caswell, P.V. (1956) Geology of the Kilifi - Mazeras Area. Report No. 34. Geological Survey of Kenya, Govt. Printer, NBI.

Caswell, P.V. & Baker, B.H. (1953) Geology of the Mombasa - Kwale Area. Report No. 24, Geological Survey of Kenya, Govt. Printer, NBI.

Coast Development Authority, et. al. (1996): Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): A Study of Nyali-Bamburi-Mtwapa Area.

Hori, N. (1970) Raised Coral Reefs Along the Southeastern Coast of Kenya, East Africa. Geogr. Rept. Tokyo Metrop. Univ. 5: 2547.

Hori, N. (1972) The Geomorphology of Marine Terraces of Kenya and its Significance on the Pleistocene Eustatic Changes of Sea-Level. Hiroshima, PP. 193-202 (J).

In: Essays of Geographical Science, Univ.

Kairu, K. K. (1989): Preliminary Survey on Coastal Erosion and Coastal Protection Structures in Shelly Beach and Diani area, Kenya. In: Interdisciplinary Research on Marine Coastal Systems along the Kenyan Coast; P. 45-49; Programme for UNESCO-ROSTA, Nairobi.

Kairu, K. K. (1997): Vulnerability of the Kenyan Shoreline to Coastal Instability. Paper Presented at CSI Workshop, June 25-28, 1997, Mombasa.

Mwanje, J.I. (1997): Socio-economic Impacts of Coastal Instability (Erosion) In Kenya: A Case Study. Project 2, Survey Report on Environment and Development in Coastal Regions and in Small Islands (CSI), Eastern Africa, UNESCO-ROTA, Nairobi, Kenya.

Mwanje, J.I., Omara-Ojungu, P. and Ruwa, R.K. (1989) Integrated Resource Development and

39

Conservation in the Coastal Areas of Eastern Africa: A Study of Kenya. MAB Report to UNESCO-ROSTA, 1 18PP.

Ojany, F.F. (1984a) Kenya's Shorelines. In: Schwartz, M.L. & Bird, E.C.F. (Eds.) World Shorelines, Dowdan Hutchinson and Ross.

Ojany, F.F. (1984b) Some Aspects of the Geomorphic Evolution of the Kenya Coast with Special

Case Studies in Cameroon and Kenya. Reference to the Kambe Limestone Rocks of the Kilifi Area. In: National Man-Induced Environmental Changes in Tropical Africa: A Preliminary Report of the Tropical African Geomorphology and Late-Quaternary Palaeoenvironments Research Project (1982/83, Sappro, Japan, PP. 117-127.

Oosterom, A.P. (1988) The Geomorphology of Southeastern Kenya: PhD - Thesis, University of Wageningen, Netherlands.

Sikes, H.L. (1930) The Drowned Valleys on the Coast of Kenya. J. E. Afri. and Uganda Nat. Hist. SOC., NO. 38, PP. 1-9.

Schoorl, J. and Visser, N. (1991): Towards Sustainable Coastal Tourism: Environmental Impacts of Tourism on the Kenyan Coast.

Thompson, A.0 (1956) Geology of the Malindi Area. Report No. 36, Geological Survey of Kenya.

Toya, H., Kadomura, H., Tamura, T. and Hori, N. (1973) Geomorphological Studies in Southeastern Kenya. Geogr. Reports, Tokyo Metrop. Univ., No. 8. PP. 51-137.

UNEP/IGBP Kenya Task Force (1992): The'Implications of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise in the East African Coastal Region: A Study of Kenya. Project Report No. 1, OCA/PAC (UNEP).

Wamicha, W. N. and Mwanje, J. 1. (1997): Environmental Management in Kenya: Have the National Conservation Plans Worked? Publication of the Organisation of Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

40

INTERDISCIPLINARY SURVEY ON THE STATUS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF COASTAL

EROSION ALONG THE TANZANIAN COASTLINE AND ISLANDS

BY

J. Francis, N. Nyandwi and F. E. Msuya Institute of Marine Sciences University of Dar es Salaam

P.O. Box 668 Zanzibar, TANZANIA.

ABSTRACT

The problem of coastal erosion is becoming increasingly important in Tanzania making its study very crucial. In an attempt to highlight the problem, a study was conducted along the coastal areas of Mainland and the Islands in Tanzania during December 1996 to March 1997. The methodology involved both face to face interviews using questionnaires and in situ observations.

It was observed that people all over the surveyed coastal areas were very much aware of the problem of coastal erosion to about 99%. Those people who were born and have been living at the coast had higher knowledge than the others. Physical changes that were observed by the people included beach erosion and shoreline erosion while causes ranged from sand mining, destruction of coral reef barrier and indiscriminate cutting of mangroves to use of destructive fishing methods and coastal construction. Effects of erosion included decrease in agricultural land, destruction of coastal properties and reduced fish catches. In all the surveyed areas, the main mitigation option tried by the people was planting of vegetation along the shoreline while the government erected sea walls in some areas. Majority of the people recommended government intervention with community participation as the best solution of the erosion problem.

INTRODUCTION

Coastal erosion is a problem facing many coastlines world wide. Generally, coastal erosion is caused by a complex interaction of various natural processes and in most cases is intensified by human activities. All these affect sediment distribution and dispersal. The natural processes include among others; the combined action of waves, tides, winds and currents, variations in the seal level, land subsidence and storms. Human activities that could have a synergistic effect on coastal erosion include the manipulation of hydrological cycles through mainly dam construction, port construction, mining of sand and coral for construction purposes, destruction of protective coral reef systems and coral barriers, destruction of coastal vegetation, building on beaches, and coastal structures.

41

The social, economic and ecological impacts of coastal erosion include, loss of beaches, loss of arable land, damages to coastal property or infrastructures, destruction of coastal forests, destruction of ecologically important ecosystems and species

The coastline of Tanzania is 800 km long and the land area of the coastal zone is approximately 30,000 km2 (figure 1). The width of the continental shelf ranges between 4 and 35 km. The islands within the continental shelf include Unguja, Pemba, and Mafia as well as numerous small but beautiful islands and reefs such as Latham, Tutia, Songosongo, and Mbudya. Coastal erosion is at present observed on several areas along the Tanzanian coast, affecting in varying degrees the economic and socio-economic activities of the coastal communities.

Despite the fact that coastal erosion has significant socio-economic impacts on the coastal communities along the Tanzanian coastline, w e are not aware of any study on the socio-economic impacts of coastal erosion along the Tanzania coastline. However, in other parts of the world similar studies have been conducted (Ives and Furuseth, 1988).

In light of the aforementioned, the Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS) was commissioned by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Nairobi Office to carry out a survey on the socio-economic impacts of coastal erosion on the various communities along the Tanzanian coastline and islands.

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted using questionnaires from December 1996 to March 1997. Four groups of people namely, the local coastal fishermen, local coastal communities, local coastal decision makers (planners and managers) and beach hotel owners/managers were targeted. The questionnaires with their corresponding codes were developed by a consultant on behalf of UNESCO, Nairobi Office. The questionnaires were translated into Swahili before conducting the interviews. The survey was conducted by randomly selecting individuals from each of the four groups for face to face interviews. Some questionnaires were given to the respondents to fill in and were collected\ later. h & observations formed part of the study.

The codes were designed purposely to assist in data collection and analysis.

The questionnaire for local coastal fishermen contained about 50 questions. The other three questionnaires contained similar types of questions with some additions and omissions to suit the particular group.

Site visits of known eroding areas and interviews with communities were carried out along the mainland coast including the southern regions, Dar es Salaam and Coast regions and Tanga region. O n Unguja Island, the survey covered all parts of the Island from North to South. O n Pemba Island, visits were made to Mkoani, Vitongoji and Kiuyu areas.

Generally, the people were very cooperative on Unguja Island, less cooperative on Pemba and on the mainland coast. Some were simply suspicious of the intentions of the questions. A total of 85 people were interviewed 34 of whom were local community members, 10 decision makers, 34 fishermen and 7 hoteliers.

42

This study had the following limitations: too many questions in all the questionnaires, leading to few interviews than expected, language problems since the majority of the targeted groups do not speak English, and the questionnaires were too complicated for most respondents to fill in. More time and resources would have been needed for a wider coverage.

RESULTS

STATUS OF COASTAL EROSION

Tanzania like all countries bordering the Indian Ocean is affected by the monsoons, which control the atmosphere-ocean dynamics in the region. The monsoons have influence on wind direction and strength, temperature, rainfall, and so on. The coastline is characterised by a mixture of sandy beaches, rocky outcrops, fringing reefs and extensive mangrove stands, particularly around river deltas. The coastline (of Tanzania) can be grouped broadly into the following geomorphological types: 1) Coral limestone cliffed shorelines ii) Beach rock shorelines, iii) Holocene beach terrace shorelines, iv) Sand spit shorelines, v) Sand bank shorelines, vi) Mangrove shorelines.

Types iii) - v) are shorelines with loose sediments. The sediment types vary greatly, from the clay bound sands and gravels probably of Mio-Pliocene age to the far more unconsolidated suites of recent times. These types of shoreline tend to suffer most from erosion because of the offshore bathymetry, the shape of the coastline, the pertinent crustal dynamics and seasonal variations. Plates 1-4 show erosion types and their impacts on coastal infrastructure as observed duFing the survey.

SOCIETAL CONTEXT OF COASTAL EROSION

Based on results of the interviews and responses to the questionnaires nine key issues were identified, as follows: i) community awareness of the problem, ii) observations commonly made by the society, iii) what does the society consider to be the causes of erosion? iv) what are the effects of coastal erosion on the community? v) what are the mitigation attempts that have been made by the individuals? vi) has the community done anything before in terms of construction of structures? vii) which mitigation methods does the community suggest? viii) in the community’s opinion what should be the role of the Government? ix) which alternative economic activities does the community has considering the deteriorating coastal environment?

Specific responses for each of the issues were also selected as shown in Table 1 for the case of local fishermen and local coastal community. Codes used in Table 1 are a modified version of the codes in the respective questionnaires.

Some of the results are summarised in figures 2-7 for each issue by local community and fishermen categories and resion.

43

PLATE 1 & 2

Plate I .4 shoreline showing cliiferosion

Plate 2. Coral removal as a cause of erosion

44

PLATE 3 & 4

Plate 3 A house threatened by eicsicn

Plate 4 A d e n fence 2s a mitipation option

45

Awareness of the Problem

The coastal community showed great awareness of the changes that have taken place in the coast, beach and the sea. Those people living closer to the beach knew more of the changes than those living further inland (above 500m). The same results were shown by fishermen and the old group of the community (above 60 years) especially those who have lived at the coast for at least 30 years. Younger people who are not involved in fishing and housewives not engaging in the industry knew less than the others. Hotel owners who have operated the business for at least 10 years had more knowledge on the changes than those whose business has run for a few years only. Village leaders who have been living at the coast for about 20-30 years knew much about the subject. Only a small number of people who do not know about the problem were encountered in the vicinity of cities and this reflects the mixed nature of the town communities with a lot of people without direct relation to the shoreline. Some people living in areas without mangroves knew a lot about the changes that have taken place in mangrove ecosystems. This is explained by the fact that they were born and lived at the coast for years and therefore could have opportunity to know what is happening in surrounding areas.

Observations M a d e on Shoreline Changes

The observations commonly made by the communities ranged from beach erosion, shoreline erosion, breakage of corals to wave uprooted palms and other trees. The intention of the analysis here was to identify which of the indicators of environmental change were observed more frequently by community type and region and hence their significance. Beach erosion and shoreline erosion appear to be observed most frequently by everybody at the shore. The terms beach erosion and shoreline erosion however, seemed to confuse the respondents but counted together it could be seen that the problems of shoreline recession and loss of the beaches are widely observed.

Wave uprooted palms as a sign of erosion were observed in many places but not everywhere. Where palms are being uprooted, it is an indication of a high rate of erosion because the palms were definitely planted away from the reach of highest waves. Breakage of corals was observed by fishermen on the mainland coast. O n the islands of Zanzibar, only less than 4096 of the fishermen have observed breakage of corals. Dynamite fishing which destroys the corals is not widely practised in Zanzibar.

Other problems which seem to be related to coastal erosion were observed. In the fishing industry, reduced catches were found to be the main change resulting in a rise in fish prices and decrease in fish consumption in homes. Another change on the industry is an increase in fishing pressure. Information gathered indicated that there has been reduction in mangrove forests. Trees grow neither tall nor healthy as in the past. Coral reefs have been broken mainly through bad fishing practices and collection of shells. People used to break corals so as to get valuable shells especially in Nungwi and Zanzibar town. Incidences of salt water intrusion have been reported in several areas. In Zanzibar for instance, at Mkokotoni, rice fields have been abandoned because of the phenomenon and at Nungwi village, water wells have become increasingly saline. A case of flooding has also been reported at Mkokotoni whereby several buildings have been flooded by seawater.

46

Causes of Coastal Erosion

Four potential causes of coastal erosion were examined as to how they are recognised by the community. These were; climatic change and sea level rise, sand mining along beaches, construction of buildings on the shoreline, and destruction of corals and cutting of mangroves. Many people did not think that sand mining on the beaches and construction of buildings too close to the shoreline were causing erosion. Sand mining on the beaches was identified as a cause on Zanzibar whereby the positive responses amounted to more than 50% of both fishermen and the local coastal community. Decision makers equally accept that sand mining should be stopped, Destruction of corals and cutting of mangroves came out to be more significant than the other causes. Climatic change and sea level rise came out strongly among fishing communities in Tanga and Dar es Salaam (100%). In cases where the destruction of coral reefs was observed, destructive fishing methods were to blame.

Impacts of Coastal Erosion on the Coastal Community

The assessment was to see how the expected impacts affect various types of communities and how widespread they could be. The effects were decreased aesthetic value of the beach, destruction of the coastal agricultural land, destruction of fishing grounds and reduction of catches and shoreline instability.

.. The fishinz comrrrrmLtLes an the F y in T T 40% of the fishing community in Dar es Salaam and Coast regions agree that erosion has caused destruction of fishing grounds and reduction of fish catches or destruction of agricultural land. Sixty percent of the fishing community in the Dar es Salaam and Coast regions however, observed decreased beach aesthetic values. Responses from the rest of the community show great variation on whether the effects were the result of erosion or not. Shoreline instability was observed by the majority of the coastal dwellers as an effect of coastal erosion (67 - 100% on the Mainland coast and 42% on Zanzibar islands). Reduced beach aesthetics was largely associated with erosion in the southern regions (67%) but scored less elsewhere (maximum 40% in Tanga). Destruction of agricultural land was agreeable in those communities where farming was possible. There was no concern in Tanga and the southern regions(O% and 3396, respectively) while the opinion was divided in Dar es Salaam and Coast Regions and on the Zanzibar islands (50% and 5896, respectively). The destruction of fishing grounds as an effect of erosion was not accepted by the non-fishing community but when suggested as responsible for decreased catches many agreed (100% and 32% in the southern regions and Zanzibar islands, respectively).

Mitigation Options Employed by Individuals

Assessment of the suggested mitigation options including planting of vegetation along the shoreline or do nothing indicated the following:

47

O n the Mainland coast, planting of vegetation is acceptable and actually in places like Tanga, Mtwara and Lindi, mangrove reforestation programmes are already being implemented. The percentage of people accepting the option, however, may look small (slightly > 50%) owing to the fact that planting of vegetation is just beginning to be popularised. Nevertheless, along the whole coastline there is a large proportion of the communities that feel they need not do anything. But this response was in the absence of better suggestions.

Previous Control Structures Put up by the Community

In any case it seems that very little community effort has been done before. Traditional structures were not constructed in the past. Hoteliers however, have had a wide range of experiences with groins and sea walls.

Mitigation Methods Suggested by the Communities

The majority of people along the mainland coast disagree with erection of sea walls (approx. 80%) while on Zanzibar there is a divided opinion on the issue. Asked whether establishing of set back lines was a good solution, the responses are interest-driven. Whereas in Tanga and Dar es Salaam areas the majority especially fishermen agree with set back lines, people on Zanzibar and a large section in the southern regions disagree. Land scarcity on Zanzibar does not favour the idea of set back lines. The same is true of the southern regions. Introduction of legislation was only acceptable in Dar es Salaam area but dismissed as a solution in the rest of the coastline. Many people however, are of the opinion that the government should take care of the situation, except in the southern regions.

The Role of the Government

Fishermen in all the regions support the proposal that the Government should implement legislation against destruction of corals. The rest of the community with the exception of Dar es Salaam and Coast regions were of the opinion that the measure was not necessary. Policing of the beaches and corals therefore, followed a similar pattern. The fishermen were also supportive of government controlling cutting of mangroves except on Zanzibar where the views were divided almost equally. For the rest of the community however, it was only in Tanga and southern regions where controlling of mangrove cutting was recommended. Control of building lines in coastal areas was recommended in Tanga and Dar es salaam and Coast Regions by the fishing communities.

Alternative Economic Activities

It was important to know the opinion of the communities on which alternative economic activities they think they could engage in-when their environment has been destroyed and the activities they have been doing are no longer feasible.

48

The fishing communities and those engaged in the industry in the Dar es Salaam and Coah Regions see small scdle enterprises as alternative economic activity (60%). Nobody in Tanga region is interested in small scale enterprises while the interest in the southern regions and Zanzibar islands is minimal (22% and 35%, respectively). The majority of the rest of the community do not favour the idea of going into small scale enterprises except in the southern regions (83%). The decision makers, however, agree with small scale enterprises as a feasible option. Agricultural production as an alternative is acceptable in Tanga region (67%) while, in the other regions the percentage ranged from 20% in Dare es Salaam and Coast regions, 22% in the southern regions to 23% on the Zanzibar Islands. The opinion of the rest of the community is divided equally on the Zanzibar Islands and the southern regions while it is negative in Tanga and Dar es Salaam and Coast regions (0% and 2596, respectively). Seaweed farming is a new industry which is very useful to women, especially on Zanzibar Islands. Whereas the non-fishing community in the southern regions think that they could engage themselves in seaweed farming (80%) only a small proportion of the fishermen (22%) think it is a feasible alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

The survey has shown that coastal erosion in Tanzania is a serious and alarming problem, affecting virtually all types of shorelines. Coastal erosion is a phenomenon that the majority of the people interviewed are well aware of, are concerned about and in some cases they have attempted to address. There is no denial by stakeholders of its existence, nor of its current effects and its anticipated impacts.

Most of the people interviewed mentioned breakage of corals, indiscriminate cutting of mangroves and destructive fishing methods as main causes of coastal erosion in their respective areas, in addition to natural causes. ~~.

The stakeholders strongly propose that the government should play a more active role in addressing the problems of coastal erosion. This provides the government with an opportunity of developing acceptable strategies for community response to erosion.

Because the livelihood of the coastal communities depends largely on the coastal and marine resources, they are not willing to migrate to other areas that are not affected by erosion.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Beaches are very dynamic geomorphic features, hence construction of anything, be it industries, building any infrastructure, should take that into consideration. Consequently, there is a need of changing the base on which the current applied setback line is set. The existing setback is 60m from the high water mark as per Government Notice of 1992. The setback line should be site specific taking into consideration, among others; slope, altitude and sensiiivity of the area.

49

Mangrove forests provide a good protection against erosion. Mangroves should be replanted in areas where they can thrive well. Since people living along the coast, particularly on the islands, depend upon lime made from corals, as a cheap building material, there is need to explore alternative equally cheap building materials or designing a method of removing impurities from fossilised limestone. Darwall, et al., (1995) proposed the use of sun dried and pressed mud bricks as an alternative building material for the Mafia Island, instead of live corals. There is need to intensify campaigns to raise public awareness on the anthropogenic causes of coastal erosion.

In order tci come up with appropriate mitigation options, it is necessary that detailed studies and monitoring of the coastal erosion problems, as well as effectiveness of the mitigation options, are undertaken.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to extend their sincere thanks to the UNESCO, Nairobi Office, particularly Dr G. Kitaka, for providing financial support to undertake this study. Thanks and appreciation to all residents of towns and villages along the Mainland Coast as well as Zanzibar Islands who willingly responded to the questionnaires

REFERENCES

Darwall, W.R.T., Edward, J. And Kabado, D. 1995. Sun dried pressed mud bricks-an alternative to the use of mined live coral on Mafia: Results of a feasibility study. Frontier-Tanzania, 60 pp.

Ives, S.M. and Furuseth, O.J. 1988. Community response to coastal erosion: The view from two North Carolina Beach Areas. Ocean and Shoreline Management. Vol. 11, 177-193.

50

Table 1. Specific Responses, Their Codes and DeFnitions

51

I10

Fig.2 I'crccol response or people . Cornrnunilics in the lour Rcgions

Fig.4 I'crrenl rcsponsc 01 p p l c . Curnrnunitics in the lour Kegions

I zu I 10 IO0

90

i! 00 70

60 8 50 30 ?U

IO

0

g 40

I

Grasbl U O M D LwlD

169h m- Owan-]

Fig. 3 Percent response 01 people - Communities in llie lour Rcgions

I

Fig3 Percent rnponse or peuple. Fishermen in the lour Rcgioiis

Fig.6 I'erccnl response 01 people . Fislicrnicn in llic lour Regions Fip.7 I'crcent response 01 people . Fislicrmcn in the

four Regions

52

INTEGRATED COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT

STRATEGY TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN KENYA

Bm Am J m Mwandotto, PhDm RESEARCH, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

MANAGER COAST DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

P.0. BOX 1322, MOMBASA TEL. 011 - 224406/311119

FAX. 011 - 224411 E-MAIL: CDA@users.africaOnline.co. ke

ABSTRACT

A multi-institutional planning team headed by Coast Development Authority (CDA) in Kenya initiated an Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) process in 1994 on a pilot study site of Nyali- Bamburi-Shanzu area in Mombasa with an objective of providing a starting point for addressing urgent coastal issues facing the area and enriching the dialogue on how to address increasing urgent coastal management problems nationwide. The pertinent coastal issues that were profiled in a participatory and interactive study area were urbanization, decline in fisheries production and in water quality, erosion of the shoreline, degradations of coastal ecosystems and resource use conflicts. These issues were further crystallized in a series of stakeholder consultations with the planning team from which management objectives and strategies to address the issues have evolved. These proposed strategies by the team are being implemented by institutions already in place in Kenya and will be overseen by the National Coastal Management Steering Committee that was formulated in a National workshop. It is envisaged that the implementation process of the initiative will go along with further profiling and generation of research information that will solidify the evolution of a national Coastal Resources Management Programme. It is also envisaged that this programme becomes part of the other national efforts in the Eastern and Southern Africa region and the Island states. Some of the recommendations emanating from the ICAM experience should to implemented in the region.

53

INTRODUCTION

Kenya is signatory to the Arusha Resolution of 1993 on Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) in Eastern Africa including the Island States. From this policy document, individual countries addressed were asked to evolve their national I C A M programmes for sustainable utilization of their coastal resources. Earlier, the Government of Kenya had established the Coast Development Authority (CDA) in 1990 to be responsible for planning, initiating, coordinating and integrating development activities in the administrative coastal areas of Kenya including its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Rising to one of its mandates, CDA undertook, in collaboration with the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, the Fisheries Departmeht, the Kenya Wildlife Services and the Mombasa Municipal Council and Kenya Association of Hotelkeepers and Caterers, to initiate the ICAM activities in Mombasa to demonstrate to and educate various stakeholders on the value of I C A M both on short and long term basis as it pertains to sustainable exploitation and use of coastal resources. Other private sector managers, Moi University’s School of Environmental Education and the University of Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Centre (CRC) were also included in the planning team that embarked on the I C A M process in Kenya.

THE ICAM INITIATIVE

In September, 1994 an ICAM process was initiated in the Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu area of the Kenyan Coast to start dialogue on how the Government, in equal partnership with local communities and the private sector, can carry out integrated planning and management for coastal resources. The project had the objective of: 0 Providing a starting point for addressing the urgent coastal issues facing the study

area. It is hoped that the strategy document developed through an open and participatory process of stakeholders will provide a sound basis for avoiding and resolving problems at the site. Informing and enriching the dialogue on how to address increasing urgent coastal management problems nationwide. It is also hoped that the study area can serve as a model for other areas at the coast and help the country move forward on a national approach to coastal management. The evolution of a national I C A M for Kenyan Coastline is the goal of the initiative.

0

THE STUDY SITE

The Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu study area was chosen apriori as the issues that exist in the area are representative of the national coastal issues - tourism replacing traditional economic uses such as fishing and mangrove harvesting, water pollution, urbanization, increasing degradation and over exploitation of coastal resources and increased user conflicts. The area has easy communication access and a good depository of research and historical information apart from being one of the pioneer establishments of industrial processing and hotel industries.

54

THE ISSUES

After the on-ground survey by the appraisal planning team and consultation with village residents, resource users, Non-governmental organizations, hoteliers, local and national agencies, the coastal management issues and possible causes were profiled as indicated in Table 1.

CONSENSUS

To further confirm the pertinent issues to the area, two stakeholers’ workshops were held in June 1995. Through this process, consensus was finally established as to the management objectives and strategies that address the issues. In these interactive meetings and in other informal reviews and consultations by the team and other key stakeholder groups, draft strategies were evolved that were planned to be implemented by identified lead and collaborating relevant institutions that are already capable or have potential of executing coastal management activities. The final consensus on the proposed implementation strategies were established in a National workshop when the strategies were discussed with policy makers, private sector and the national stakeholders. Proposed in the final strategy document is the National Coastal Management Steering Committee (CMSC) that has been put in place (Table 2) to oversee and execute the implementation process of the strategies. The committee executes it’s functions through an administrative secretariat and technical working groups that will carry out the proposed activities pertaining to individual issues.

THE COAST MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE (CMSC) AGENDA

The CMSC, through its secretarial, is now geared to demonstrate to stakeholders the value of ICAM as a tool for good management of coastal resources by providing logistical and technical support to the various planned activities thus:

0 0

0

0

0 0

0 0

Complete identified demonstration activities Circulate extensively the ICAM strategy document among national government, private sector and NGO groups. Pursue public media programmes and newspaper articles, to highlight coastal management issues in the study area and actions being taken to solve them. Publicise the strategy document through presentations at national and international workshops, seminars and other international fora Conduct public awareness meetings for various user groups Develop and distribute promotional items - posters, brochures, bags etc, on specific and general ICAM issues. Initiate the formation of working groups. Monitor implementation of the strategy and periodically report back to stakeholders on progress being made.

55

0 0

0

Solicit and secure resources for the successful implementation of the strategies. Ensure that' working group activities are coordinated and carried out in an integrated manner. Share the implementation experience with other interested parties. Participate in the development of a national ICAM policy and institutional arrangements for its implementation.

Demonstration Projects

To immediately solicit public confidence and support, the I C A M planning team has planned 4 demonstration projects that would show the management conservation of resources:

0

Installing mooring buoys in the Mombasa Marine Park. Producing brochures and posters on coral reefs and mangroves. Demonstrating water conservation measures in public institutions and hotels. Developing and rehabilitating the facilities at Kenyatta Public Beach.

Both of these demonstration projects have implications of the coastal erosion. Mooring buoys will guide the park users on where to go to view the natural resources while promoting their conservations e.g., corals. Proper management of mangroves will ensure stability of their ecosystem. Efficient utilization of water, management of run-off including extensive capture and use of rain water for domestic purposes will minimize erosion at the outlet points and structural utilization of facilities at the public beach(es) will minimize trampling and erosion due to high human activity. It is envisaged that effecting these demonstration activities will buy in many stakeholders into the ICAM process and lay the basal line for future activities.

Technical Working Groups

Based on the issues that were identified in Table 1 the following working groups composed of varied stakeholders have been instituted to plan and effect short and long term activities that will help resolve the respective issues:

0 Coastal Erosion Water Quality

0 Marine Habitats 0 Fisheries 0 Infrastructure and public services.

The lead institutions in these groups are based on the experience in matters related to the relevant issue, their mandate and/or level of expertise available in the respective institution.

56

The soil erosion working group is the one that is leading in addressing the many plans and strategies it has set for itself in some of the erosion areas (Fig. 1). It has successfully addressed the issue of sand mining, sea-walling, controlling of beach operators to minimise beach pollution and erosion, utilization of research information for management and has developed the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements for setting up new coastal structures that is intended to be part of the environmental policy that is currently being developed by government. Members of that sub-group were also very instrumental in organizing the present workshop. The group is headed by the Coast Provincial Director of Tourism. One clear challenge facing the group is to create awareness among the stakeholder community as to what is going on in coastal erosion and that the community is/becomes part and parcel of the future collaborative effort in instituting the necessary solutions.

57

Fig. 1

N

I 0 1 2 3 4

Scale: 1:90,000

Kilometers KEY

0 Erosion prone areas

Fig 1. Erosion prone areas around Mombasa

58

Capacity Building

Four officers from the planning team have received training on ICAM programme development at the University of Rhode Island, Thailand and in Canada. One team member participated in development of I C A M initiative in Mozambique. This national and regional development process will continue in future in order to develop a critical mass of coastal management practitioners for the country. One team member is also in the executive committee of the National Oceanographic Committee which was recently formed under the auspices of the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO.

DISCUSSION

In a period of about three (3) years, a local multi-institutional team has planned and initiated an ICAM process based on a pilot site in Mombasa that has elucidated the pertinent coastal resource management issues, and their possible causes. Continuous interaction of the team with stakeholders has further crystallized the issues and has made it possible to evolve some management strategies that were ratified in a national technical consensus forum. Critical in the process has been the establishment of a steering committee with a secretariat that oversees the execution and implementation of the ratified strategies and issue-driven technical working groups that undertake various activities. This effort involves the sensitization of and demonstration to the government and the public about the need for I C A M , prioritization of planned implementation activities, developing a national I C A M strategy, playing an integrating role between institutions charged with various implementation tasks, soliciting for resources for I C A M activities and periodically sharing the experience learnt with the public while updating the strategies. The experience so far acquired is based on a study site that was strategically chosen to give the initial ICAM process in Kenya ample information and momentum for implementation of selected strategies. However, given the long coastline and the land - ocean interactions that exist, there is need for further issue profiling and management strategy planning in order to develop a sound ICAM project for the whole of the Kenyan coast. Some of the issues and the pertinent management strategies so far identified will also require further indepth research information that will take time and other resources to develop.

The ICAM process that has been initiated is therefore a start of a long term national strategy that will be refined as the implementation processes get along. The process also builds on other activities that are also in progress like the development of coastal resources atlas and the development of the Geographical Information System(G1S). Integration of all these efforts will ensure adequate and wide understanding of the coastal resources and their economic exploitation mechanism that will guarantee their sustainable use. It is also envisaged that this experience becomes pdrt of similar national efforts in other Eastern and Southern African region so that a regional ICAM programme of the Western Indian Ocean and the Island States is put in place in the spirit of the earlier referred to Arusha resolution.

59

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above experience so far, I would make the following recommendations:

That the ICAM process that has seeded in M o m b a s a be expanded to a full National programme with an appropriate policy framework so that the issue of coastal erosion can be tackled nationally. Capacity building be continued in coastal erosion research and ICAM process for sustainable development. National awareness campaigns be effected that involve the local stakeholders to be part and parcel of the effort to profile coastal erosion problems and the evolution of respective solutions. Based on the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements that have been developed, CDA should be mandated to guide and vet upcoming development structures in the coastal area to eliminate construction regulation violations that, among other things, exacerbate coastal erosion.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is being conducted within the framework of the "Protection and Management of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the Eastern African Region" (EAF/S) Action Plan under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme's (UNEP) Regional Seas Programme. Funding for this project has been provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNEP, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Regional Economic Development Services Office for East and Southern Africa (REDSO/ESA) and the US AID Global Environment Center (G/ENV/CTR). Technical assistance has been provided to the national team by the University of Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Center (CRC), FAO and UNEP's Priority Actions Programme/Regional Activity Centre (PAPRAC).

REFERENCES

The following documents were consulted in the preparation of this paper: 0 The Arusha Resolution on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Eastern African

including Island States, 1993. Afrisco Ltd., (1994). Lake Chala Water Resources Development project. (Phase one) - Project Evaluation Report.

0 CDA et. al. (1996): Towards Integrated Management and Sustainable Development of Kenya's coasts-Initial Findings and Recommendations for an Action Strategy in the Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu Area. The Coast Development Authority Act Laws of Kenya Cap. 449 KARI (1997): The Agricultural Diagnostic Survey of Mombasa, KARI-Mtwapa.

60

Table 1: Bamburi-NyPli-Shanzu Site Coastal Management Issues and Possible Causes

ISSUES CAUSES

Urbanization:

* +

inadequate public services (water eupply, waste disporrrl) encroachment of touriam and industry

+ lack of public access to shorefront.

Decline in fisheries production:

lack of boat and gear ownership by fishermen + +

relocation of Original fishing villages distance between fishing villages and shorefront distance between Landing sites and fishing grounds availability of more lucrative, tourism-relaced

government rentrictions on gear and catch size employment opportunities.

* + lack of offshore fishery + habitat degradation.

Decline in water quality:

* contamination from sewage, stormwater runoff, solid waste, industrial effluent, seawater intrusion, and sporadic oil spills.

+ limestone geology exacerbates seepage + illegal dumping of sludge + absence of any regulations on septic system design and standards, and discharges of industrial and

wastewater effluenta into public water bodies. discharge of waste water from hotels to reef area

Erosion of the shoreline:

+ +

seawall and individual protection works construction lack of protection due to reef damage

sand and beach vegetation removal + accelerated sea level rise

+ lack of beach nourishment + natural causes.

+

Degradation of coastal ecosystems

* + + + +

dumping of seawage, toxic wastes, and oil spills contribute to mangrove loss over-harvesting and clear-cutting of mangroves poor farming techniques encourage soil erosion leading to sediment buildup in mangrove stands improper oyster harvesting may result in mangrove mots being cut. overfishing and excessive sea urchin population, siltation from dredge spoils, damage from tourists and

loss of sea tude nesting areas on beaches due to tourism encroachment. boats, and land-based sources of pollution all contribute to reef degradation.

+

Use conflicts:

+ displacement of traditional users due to:

harassment of tourists by service providers cultural differences between tourists and local community competition between hotel-based and independent boat operators.

lack of public access on-water recreation activities.

+ + +

61

Table 2: Members for the Coastal Management Steering Committee (CMSc)

Coast Development Authority Kenya Wildlife Service Kenya Marine Fisheries and Research Institute Fisheries Department Mombasa Municipal Council Provincial Administration National Environmental Secretariat

Baobab Trust East African Wildlife Society Kenya Power and Lighting Company National Water Conservation and Pipeline Corporation Kenya Ports Authority Kenya Post Office and Telecommunication Corporation Forest Department Representative of the Boat Operators Association Representative of the Fishermen's Association Representative from the Mombasa Coast Tourism Association

' Tourism Department

62

SUSTAINABLE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH INTEGRATED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT: Efforts by the Government of Kenya in Coastal Zone

Management

A Mohamed and David Kinyanjui National Environment a1 Secretariat P, 0, Box 67839, NAIROBI.

Tel. (02) - 229261

INTRODUCTION

The government of Kenya attaches great importance to the coastal environment which contributes significantly to the national economy. The marine and coastal environments comprise highly productive and biologically diverse ecosystems which are in need of protection due as much to their intrinsic value as to their economic value.

Coastal ecosystems including coral reefs, mangroves, seagrasses, and estuarine environments provide the economic and cultural basis for many of the coastal communities. These resources also form the basis for an expanding tourism industry, which in addition to contributing to the generation of foreign exchange and employment, results in variable degrees of environmental degradation, intensifying competition and resource use conflicts. The expansion of economic activities in the coastal zone and the resultant conflicts among different users has heightened interests in the proper management of the coastal environment.

Coastal erosion in particular, is a serious problem with long-term economic and social consequences. Various degrees of erosion are being experienced along the country’s 680 km long coastline. Developed areas are threatened with the potential loss of millions of shillings in property damage and even possible loss of life. Coastal erosion also threatens fragile and economically important ecosystems. At present, our understanding of the processes leading to coastal erosion is rudimentary. Consequently, prediction of erosion caused through either natural processes or human activities is difficult, if not impossible.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, AND PROTOCOLS

Kenya is party to a number of international treaties, conventions, and protocols which confer special obligations and responsibilities relating to the management and conservation of coastal and marine r esour ces .

63

The 1982, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which came into force in November 1994 and in which Kenya provided a leadership role for Africa, reinforces the responsibility of countries towards rational use, protection and conservation of ocean resources and the environment. Similarly, Kenya participated in the formulation of Agenda 22 (UNCED 1992) whose Chapter 17 commits coastal states to "integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdiction.

At the regional level, the country has ratified the 1985 Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region. The convention which brings together Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Comoros Islands, and La Reunion (France), and which came into force on 30th May 1996 emphasizes sustainable development of the coastal resources. The Nairobi Convention is further reinforced by the 1993 Arusha Resolution on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Eastern Africa which further commits participating states to among other things, develop and implement programmes to address environmental degradation.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT POLICY

Besides the requirement to fulfill international obligations, the resources of the coastal zone have come under severe pressure from expanding economic activities. The region continue to be targeted for tourism, residential, industrial and agricultural development. Coastal attractions account for up to 80 percent of the $500 million tourism industry. The increasing opportunities of the region have attracted heavy migration into the province which currently supports about nine per cent of the country's population. The rapid growth in population continues to place tremendous pressure on the coastal environment necessitating implementation of appropriate actions to ensure healthy environment.

The government has undertaken several initiatives to introduce a shift towards integration and sustainable coastal development. The government has through various policy statements, sessional papers, and development plans promoted proper environmental management since independence. These efforts have however, not translated into change in the patterns of decision-making at the local level and effective environmental management is still constrained by weaknesses in existing policy, legislation and institutional arrangement.

There are about 77 statutes which have provisions relating to the management and conservation of the environment. Several of these including the Maritime Zones Act, the Territorial Waters Act, and the Coast Development Authority Act refer specifically to the coastal and marine environments. None however, recognizes the complexities and the multi-sectoral nature of the coastal zone. These statutes are generally uncoordinated and sector specific.

The Coast Development Authority Act brings into focus issues of the coastal zone. Despite the inadequacy of environmental requirements in the Act, its mandate over development issues in coastal province could be used to direct its attention from the present land and fresh water focus to treating the coast as an ecologically linked zone of interaction between the oceans and the land.

64

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS

@islation

The institutional mechanisms in Kenya relating to environmental management are generally not well developed and indicate sectoral differentiation. 'Effective coastal zone management is hampered by the lack of a framework that examines the legislative responsibilities and interests of all government agencies affecting the coastal zone.

Environmental issues fall into the purview of a wide range of ministries and departments each empowered by specific pieces of legislation. Each governmental agency concentrates on matters of direct operational interest to it. It is therefore often confusing to determine which department has jurisdiction over what aspect of the environment. In most instances, the jurisdictional question creates an adversarial climate which militates against proper environmental management.

Since no single department has the resources, capacity or mandate to ensure conservation and protection programmes that are adequate to meet the goals of sustainable development, there are clear opportunities to rationalize the delivery of government services and programmes. The complex nature of the marine environment, the number and variety of resource activities in the coastal zone combine to produce excellent opportunities for cooperation.

Institutional Framework

Some of the important institutions in the environment sector include the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENR), the Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, the Permanent Presidential Commission on Soil Conservation and Afforestation, Kenya Wildlife Services, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, the National Museums, and several other line ministries.

Under the MENR, there is the National Environmental Secretariat (NES). Created in 1974 through a Presidential decree, NES facilitates environmental planning and coordination through the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Environment (IMCE). The department however lacks the legal basis to implement its mandate.

The Permanent Presidential Commission on Soil Conservation and Afforestation was originally established in 1981 to focus on strategies for soil and water catchment conservation and to review existing legislation relating to the same. It has nevertheless an open-ended mandate and can therefore respond to changing environmental problems without requiring amendments to its objectives.

The Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS) is the national agency responsible for wildlife management and conservation in Kenya's protected areas and private lands. KWS is also responsible for the declaration, zoning and management of marine parks based on the multiple-use principle. Attempts are being made to introduce zoning strategies which provides a way of legally separating conflicting uses and result in a balanced use and protection of a valued resource.

The Fisheries department, is responsible for the management of coastal fisheries resources. The department has the instruments-for controlling destructive fishing practices that are a major cause of environmental degradation in the coastal zone.

65

The lack of coherent policy and regulations specifically relating to the coastal zone has probably partially contributed to the degradation and destruction of coastal resources. Demands for waterfront land, coupled with increased population has led to increased impacts of resource extraction particularly of sand and coral limestone mining for use in the construction industry and cement manufacture.

It is nevertheless encouraging to report that, despite these difficulties, a number of positive actions have taken place with direct bearing on the coastal zone.

The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) Process

The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) report was adopted by the Kenya Government as a broad Strategy Framework for Environmental Conservation and Management. The process has two-fold objectives vis: developing a national strategy for achieving sustainable development and translating Agenda 21 into a national agenda. It also addresses environmental issues in a cross-sectoral and in an integrated manner. It is being widely used as a reference document for integration of environmental matters into the various sectors. Donors are also using it as a basis for drawing up overall strategy for future development assistance in the field of environment and natural resource management.

INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

The government has also actively encouraged the development of Integrated Coastal Zone Management action plan both at the national and regional level.

In 1996, following extensive consultation between government departments, private sector, N G O s and community groups, an Integrated Coastal Area Management Action Strategy for the Nyali-Bamburi- Shanzu are was released. As an initial step towards the development of a comprehensive national plan, a decision was taken to focus on a specific part. The Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu area was identified as one of the best candidates for the case study, due to the intense conflicts generated by multiple uses to which the area is subjected. The document deals with the significance of the area, sets goals and presents management objectives and implementation strategies for integrated management. Although specifically responsive to conditions in the study area, its recommendations are generally applicable to the entire coastal zone.

The Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu action strategy was developed under the auspices of the Regional Seas Programme of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Several other projects have been accomplished under the same programme. Under UNEP’s EAF/6 project, an assessment and control of marine pollution has been undertaken. The survey has revealed heavy loading of organic matter from domestic and other sources. Similarly, under the EAF/14 project, mapping of the existing coastal resources has been completed. The coastal resources geographic information system (GIS) database is now fully operational at the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, providing a vital tool for the management of coastal resources.

66

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION BILL

The Government has approved a National Policy Paper on Environment and Development. The Sessional Paper on the same is also ready for tabling in Parliament. The Sessional Paper “sets out comprehensive policy guidelines towards achieving sustainable development. The policy covers a wide range of environmental issues including marine and coastal resources. It sets out its overall goal as the integration of economic, ecological and equity issues into the national development process. Regarding the marine and coastal environment, the paper recognizes the inadequacy in policy and legal instruments and asserts the government’s declared intention to “develop an integrated coastal and marine management plan.

The sessional paper reflects the provisions of the Draft Environmental Management and Coordination Bill of 1996 which will, if enacted, override all other laws relating to the environment. It allows for the establishment of a supreme body-the National Environmental Council which will be responsible for the setting of broad policy issues as well as goals and targets.

The draft also calls for the establishment of a National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) with the function of coordinating environmental issues. Both the council and the authority will act as inter-sectoral co-ordinating bodies with private sector and NGO representation. The bill sets strict environmental quality standards and introduces requirements for environmental impact assessment, and environmental inspection and auditing. The draft bill establishes environmental management and restoration funds, aiming to fund the NEMA and set in place activities to mitigate the effects of environmental destruction and degradation. It also institutes an environmental tribunal, outlining environmental offences, their penalties and punishments.

If approved, this detailed act will no doubt revolutionalise environmental management in the country and play an important part in the long-term attainment of the sustainable development goals. It embraces innovative and modem concepts, such as the precautionary-and-polluter-pays principles, as well as allowing for public input into the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process.

CONCLUSION

Given the significance of the coastal zone and the pressures upon it, the government has taken seriously its role in protecting and managing the coastal and marine environments. The enthusiasm to develop tourism and the accompanying urban expansion has highlighted the problems of delivering effective coastal zone planning and management. The exploding population and the economic desperation that accompanies it further complicates management issues. Consequently, coastal erosion has become a serious threat to both the national and the local economies. The situation is exacerbated by destructive fishing practices, sand dredging, and lime and coral mining. Deforestation and poor agricultural practices upstream also contribute significantly towards coastal erosion.

As the country moves towards industrialization, it is encouraging to note that the government has adopted remedial as well as precautionary measures to ensure proper environmental management. Through the Sessional Paper on Environment and Development, and the Draft Environmental Management and Co- ordination Bill (1996), the government is promoting new strategies focussing on partnerships, and incentive-based approaches in which communities affected assume the lead in shaping a responsible and equitable relationship with their resources. In this regard it is encouraging to note that local and international N G O s are increasingly playing important roles in coastal and other conservation issues in the country. Meaningful co-operation among all the stakeholders remains the sure way forward in addressing the complex issues of the coastal zone including the pressing coastal erosion problem.

BIBILOGRAPHY

Coast Development Authority, et. al. (1996): Towards Integrated Management and Siustainable Development of Kenya’s Coast. University of Rhodes Island’s Coastal Resources Center.

Government of Kenya (1990): The Coast Development Act 1990. Government Printers, Nairobi.

(1993): Statistical Abstracts. Government Printers, Nairobi.

(1994): The Development Plan 1994-1996. Government Printers, Nairobi.

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (1994): The Kenya National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP). Government Printers, Nairobi.

Mwaguni, S. and Nguta, C. (1995): National Profile for Waste Management and Marine Pollution Prevention in Kenya. Unpublished.

Schoorl, J. and Visser, N. (1991): Toards Sustainable Coastal Tourism: Environmental Impacts of Tourism on the Kenyan Coast. Management and Fisheries.

Nairobi: Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature

UNEP (1982): Environmental Problems of the East African Region. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 12. Nairobi.

UNEP (1990): State of the Marine Environment in the Eastern African Region. UNEP Regioal Seas Reports and Studues No. 113. UNEP, FAO & IOC. Nairobi.

STATUES RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENT

TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI TI

E CONSTITUTION OF KENYA E PENAL CODE CAP. 63 E CHIEF’S AUTHORITY ACT CAP. 128 E PUBLIC HEALTH ACT, CAP. 242 E RADIATION PROTECTION ACT, CAP. 243 E LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, CAP. 265 E TRUST LAND ACT, CAP. 288 E LAND PLANNING ACT, CAP. 303 E MINING ACT, CAP. 306 E PETROLEUM (EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION) ACT, CAP. 308 E AGRICULTURE ACT, CAP. 318 E WATER ACT, CAP. 372 E WILDLIFE (CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT) ACT, CAP. 376 ,E TOURISM INDUSTRY ACT, CAP. 375 ,E FORESTS ACT, CAP. 385 ,E MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, CAP. 389 [E TRAFFIC ACT, CAP. 403 E TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACT, CAP. 382 ,E KERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, CAP. 441 E LAKE BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, CAP. 442

68

THE TANA AND ATHI RIVERS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, CAP. 443 THE FACTORIES ACT, CAP. 514 THE COAST DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, NO. 20 OF 1990 THE FISHERIES ACT NO. 5 OF 1989 THE MARITIME ZONES ACT, CAP. 371 THE NATIONAL WATER CONSERVATION AND PIPPELINE CORPORATION ACT

L/NO. 270/1988. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, CAP. 392 THE TIMBER ACT, CAP. 386 THE GOVERNMENT LANDS ACT, CAP. 280 THE REGISTRATION OF TITLES ACT, CAP. 281 THE LAND TITLES ACT, CAP. 282 THE LAND CONSOLODATION ACT, CAP. 283 THE LAND ADJUDICATION ACT CAP. 244 REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS ACT, CAP. 285 LAND (GROUP REPRESENTATIVES) ACT, CAP. 287 MAZRUI LAND TRUSTS ACT, CAP. 288 EQUITABLE MORTGAGES ACT, CAP. 291 WAY LEAVES ACT, CAP. 292 DISTERSS FOR RENT ACT, CAP. 293 LAND ACQUISITION ACT, CAP. 295 RENT RESTRICTION ACT, CAP. 296 SURVEY ACT, CAP. 299 REGISTERED LAND ACT, CAP. 300 LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT, 301 LAND CONTROL ACT, CAP. 302 MORTGAGES (SPECIAL) ACT, CAP. 304 LAKES AND RIVERS ACT, CAP. 409 GRASSFIRES ACT, CAP. 327 CROP PRODUCTION AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ACT, CAP. 321 LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RECOVERY OF POSSWESSION OF PROPERTY) ANTIGUITIES AND MONUMENTS ACT, CAP. 215 OCFUPIERS LIABILITY ACT, CAP. 34 PLANT PROTECTION ACT, CAP. 324 SEEDS AND PLANT VARIETIES ACT, CAP. 326 FERTILIZERS AND ANIMAL FOODSTUFFS ACT, CAP. 345 TOWN PLANNING ACT, CAP. 134 (1948) FIRE INQUIRY ACT, CAP. 103 WAKF COMMISSIONERS ACT, CAP. 108 EXPLOSIVES ACT, CAP. 115 PETROLEUM ACT, CAP. 116 HOUSING ACT, CAP. 117 METHYLATED SPIRIT ACT, CAP. 120 MALARIA PREVENSION ACT, CAP. 246 USE OF POISONOUS SUBSTANCES ACT, CAP. 247 FOOD, DRUGS AND CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES ACT, CAP. 254 LOCAL AUTHORITIES SERVICES CHARGE ACT, CAP. 274 CONTINENTAL SHELF ACT, CAP. 312 SUPPRESSION OF NOXIOUS WEEDS ACT, CAP. 325 COCONUT PRESERVATION ACT. CAP. 332

69

PESTS CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT, CAP. 346 MINERAL OIL ACT, CAP. 307 IRRIGATION ACT, CAP. 347 TERRITORIAL WATERS ACT, CAP. 371 EWASO NG’IRO SOUTH RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, CAP. 447 EWASO NG’IRO NORTH RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, CAP. 448 THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ACT, CAP. 250 THE NATIONAL MUSEUMS ACT, CAP. 216

70

ANNEX IV

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

COAST PROVINCE:

PROVINCIA. COMMISSIONER 5 OFFICE:

Mr. H. M. Haji Personal assistant to the Provincial Commissioner P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa Tel. (254-1 1) 3 1 1201

Ms. C. M. Katee Administrative Officer, PC’s Office P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. Miron Provincial Director of Agriculture P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. J. L. Mumba Asst. Provincial Director of Education P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. Martin M. Heya Provincial Geologist P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. Thomas M. Lonzi Asst. Provincial Forest Officer P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. Ndune Provincial Director of Tourism P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. Biwot Provincial Water Engineer P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. R. Cheruiyot Provincial Commissioner of Social Services P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mrs. Karim Provincial Director of Education P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Dr. Gichuhi Provincial Veterinary Officer P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mrs. J.R. Mbendo Provincial Fisheries Officer P.O. Box 90424 Mombasa

Mr. Justus K. Keesi Provincial Information officer P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. Simon Tarus PC’s Office P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

DISTRICTS:

MOMBASA

Mr. P. P. Olando District Commissioner P.O. Box 90430, Mombasa Tel. (254-11) 312515

Mrs. Phoebe A. Odhiambo District Agriculture Officer P.O. Box 97962, Mombasa

Mr. I. Muindi District Forest Officer P.O. Box 80078, Mobasa

Mr. A. K. Masinde District Physical Planning Officer P.O. Box 82876, Mombasa

Mr. M. Twahir District Education Officer P.O. Box 90381, Mombasa

71

Mr. J. A. Ojwang District Trade Development Officer P.O. Box82154, Mombasa

Mr. Mayore District Social Development Officer P.O. Box 8723 1, .Mombasa

Mr. J. W. Kariuki Assistant Director of Fisheries P.O. Box 90424, Mombasa

Mr. Leli Mbaruk Senior Chief Community Representative P.O. Box 90430, Mombasa

Mr. Salim S. Muhale Fisherman Community Representative P.O. Box 90432, Mombasa

Mrs. Martha Mukira District Fisheries Officer P.O. Box 90432, Mombasa

Ms. Mary Mwabaya District Livestoke Development Officer P.O. Box 90432, Mombasa

Mr. Simon Tarus Asst. District Environmental Officer P.O. Box 90430 Mombasa

Mr. J. M. Omenge Asst. District Geologist P.O. Box 85420 Mombasa

Mr. Njuguna Mutonya, Journalist The Nation Newspaper P.O. 80708 Mombasa

Mr. Athman Amran, Journalist The East African Standard P.O. Box 90210, Mombasa

Mr. George Sunguh, Journalist The East African Newspaper P.O. Mombasa

Mr. Mutesa Videotronics, Mombasa

Mr. Asman Videotronics, Mombasa

KENYA WILDLIFE SERVICE

Mr. Benjamin W. Kavu Regional Assistant Director, Coast P.O. Box 82144, Mombasa Tel. (254-1 1) 31274415 Fax: (254-1 1) 227774

Mr. John Muhrri Regional Tourism Coordinator P.O. Box 82144, Mombasa Tel. & Fax: as above

Dr. EIS E. Martens Consultant/Advisor P.O. Box 82144, Mombasa Tel. & Fax: As above

Mr. John Kareko P.O. Box 82144, Mombasa Tel. & Fax: As above

COAST DEVELOPMErJT AUlHORITY

Dr. B. A. J. Mwandotto Research, Planning & Development Manager P.O. Box 1322, Mombasa Tel. (254-1 1) 2244(K,/3 1 1 1 19/3 1 1277 Fax: (254-1 1) 22441 1

Ms. Juliet Mwero Community Programmes Officer P.O. Box 1322, Mombasa Tel. & Fax: As above

72

KENYA W h ? E & FISHERIES RES. INSi7TLI7E

Dr. Ezekiel Okemwa Director (KEMFRI) P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa Tel. (254-1 1) 475151/3/7 Fax. 472215

Mr. Kuria K. Kairu Senior Research officer P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. Patrick Gwada Senior Research Wicer P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mrs. Pamela Abuodha Senior Research Officer P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. J. Janga Meteorologist, K.M.F.R.I. P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. J. G. Kairu Mangrove Specialist P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. H. Ong’anda Resource D-base Specialist P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. J. Ochiewo Social Economist P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Ms. Pamella Ochieng

P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa Secretary

Ms. Alice Kazungu Secretary P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Ms. Josephine Jidei Secretary P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Ms. Phyllis Mutere Secretary P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Ms. Maria Omulimia Secretary P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. Stephen Wanjau Messenger P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. Morris Munene P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. J. U. Kitheka P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

Mr. E. N. Kimani P.O. Box 81651, Mombasa

KIWFI DISTRICT

Mr. Lucas K. Kosilbet District Commissioner P.O. Box 29, Kilifi Tel. (254-0 1292727)

Mr. Alex Mwangolo District Agricultural Offker P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Martin M. Wandabwa Assit. District Forest Officer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Reuben Kori Kituri Geologist (Water) P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Ms. Roselyn Mideva Mugita District Physical Planning Offcer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Abdalla Kugula District Education Officer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

73

Mr. Charles M. Kibocha District Social Development Officer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Kenneth Mwaita District Lands officer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Sammy Baya District-Fisheries officer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Henry M. Mung’asia District Environment Officer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Edward Kahindi Education officer P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

Mr. Aleck Nyinge Chief, Junju Location P.O. Box 29, Kilifi

LAMU DISTRICT

Mr. Daudi Ekuam District Commissioner P.O. Box 41, Lamu Tel. (254-012 1)3 193

Mr. Yusuf Mbuno District Development Officer P.O. Box 41, Lamu

Mr. S. K. Angore District Agriculture Officer P.O. Box 40, Lamu

Mr. Kahindi District Forestry Officer P.O. Box 7, Mokowe

Mr. S. Mathenge District Water Office P.O. Box 185 Lamu

Mr. Loka District Physical Planning Officer P.O. box 108, Lamu

Mr. Shaaban M. Digo District Education officer P.O. Box 75 Lamu

Mr. I. A. Odhiambo District Trade officer P.O. Box 103, Lamu

Mr. Mohamed M. Mwahuri District Veterinary Officer P.O. Box 40, Lamu

Mr. S. 0. Islam District Land Adjudicator & Settlement Officer P.O. Box 57, Lamu

Mr. Jamal M. Fankupi Chief, Kiunga Location c/o DC’s M i c e P.O. Box 41, Lamu

Mrs. Amina Faris Women’s Leader C/o DC’s Office P.O. Box 41, Lamu

Mr. M. M. Mohammed Capt. Fisherman C/o DC’s Office P.O. Box 41, Lamu

W N D I DISTRICT

Ms. Claire A. Omolo District Commissioner P.O. Box 1, Malindi Tel. (254-0123) 20840

Mr. Joash 0. Owiro District Agriculture Officer P.O. Box 545, Malindi

Mr. Bernard 0. Orinda District Forest Officer P.O. Box 1, Malindi

Mr. Nelson G. Makori District Tourism officer P.O. Box 521, Malindi

Mr. N M i Munyingi District Trade Develdpment officer P.O. Box 671, Malindi

Dr. Asoka Itur District Veterinary officer P.O. Box 1, Malindi

Ms. Christine Kambi Ag. District Social Development officer P.O. Box 1, Malindi

Mr. Godffey Monor District Fisheries Officer P.O. Box 12, Malindi

Mr. M. T. E Mbuni Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), Coast Province P.O. Malindi

Mr. Salim Ali Aded Fisherman P.O. Box 1, Malindi

Mrs. Robertson, Chairperson Malindi Museum Society P.O. Malindi

Mr. Yusuf Abubakar Yusuf Businessman P.O. Box 1, Malindi

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF M U W I

Mr. Edward M. D. Karani Town Clerk P.O. Box 371, Malindi Tel. 20855

Mr. Fred K. Dindi Town Engineer P.O. Box 371, Malindi Tel. 20855

Mr. Disterius Ondieki District Physical Planning officer P.O. Box 31, Malindi Tel. 20855

TANA RIVER DISlRlCT

J. C. L. Litunda District Commissioner Box 1, Hola Tel. (2544124) 2234

Mr. F. I. Munge Asst. District Agricultural officer Box 10, Hola

Mr. K. Pakia District Education officer Box 13, Hola

Mr. Mutua Mutisya District Physical Planning officer Box 187, Hola

Mr. C. A. Nyangweso District Trade Development Officer Box 117, Hola

Mr. S. N. Njau District Fisheries Officer Box 138, Hola

Mr. J. N. Munguti Asst. District Development officer Box 157, Hola

Mr. S. G. Wanjagi District Forest Officer Box 18, Hola

Mr. P. M. Murigu Asst. Dist. Social Development Officer Box 7, Hola

Ibrahim Guyole Chief Box 1, Tarasaa

Mr. T. Dullu District Veterinary Officer Box 116, Hola

Mr. E. N. Kithumbu District Land Adjudicator & settlement m c e r Box 187, Hola

75

Mr. C. W. Njabara Community Representative Kipini Location.

KWAlE DISZRICT

Mr. David M. Jakait District Commissioner P.O. Box 1 Kwale Tel. (254-0 127)4 104 Mr. David M. Mululu Asst. District Agricultural Officer P.O. Box 2, Kwale

Mr. Salim Jabu District Physical Planning Officer P.O. Box 4, Kwale

Mr. J. K. Gachigi District Social Development Officer P.O. Box 27, Kwale

Mr. P. M. Matseshe Kwale Water & Sanitation Project P.O. Box 128, Kwale

Mr. J. M. Ogola District Trade Development Officer P.O. Box 98, Kwale

Ms. Janet Kaleha Kenya Wildlife Services P.O. Box 30, Kwale

Mr. Hamad Mwafrika Senior Chief, Diani Location P.O. Box 33, Diani

Mr. J. K. Kitala District Development Officer P.O. Box 280, Kwale.

KWALE COUNTY COUNCIL

Counc. Nassoro Juma Mwadzikomba Chairman P.O. Box 4, Kwale Tel. (254-0 127)402 1.

BEACH HOTELS:

NEPTUNE GROUP HOTELS

Mr. J. P. Mutua Neptune Beach P.O. Box 83125, Mombasa4 Tel. (254- 1 1)48570 1 Fa. (254-1 1)485705.

M U BEACH HOTEL

Mr. Elias Nyendwe Food & Beverage Manager P.O. Box 90581, Mombasa Tel. (254-11)471567/471551 Fa: (254-1 1)471987

Ms. Victor M. Shitakha Exrc. Asst. Manager P.O. Box 90581, Mombasa Tel. & Fax as above.

FARWAYS SAFARKENllE LlQ

Mr. Noorudin Tejpar Managing Director P.O. Box 87815, Mombasa,

LEISURE LODGE

Andrew D’Souza Chief Engineer P.O. Box 84383, Mombasa Tel, Diani Beach (254-0 127)2620/2011/4/2272 Tlx. 21 184, Fax: (254-0127)2046.

AUJANCE HOTELS

Mr. Timothy Kagambi Assistant Group General Manager P.O. Box 49839, Nairobi Tel. (254-2)337501/337508/332825 Fa. (254-2)219212.

76

TOUWSAFARI OPERATORS: INDUSTRIES

Mr. Kenneth Ang'iro Tour Leader P.O. Box 40484, Mombasa Tel. (254- 1 1)227838/9 Fax. (254-1 1)227839

Ms. Esther Nderito Sales & Marketing P.O. Box 40484, Mombasa.

POLLMAN'S TOURS & SAFARIS LID.

Mr. Philip Kimeu Public Relations & Marketing Coordinator P.O. Box 84198, Mombasa; Tel. (254- 1 1)3 12565/6/7.

SAFARI EXPELMTIONS L7D.

Miss Yasmin Ebrahim General Manager P.O. Box 10173, Bamburi, Mombasa Te1.(254-11)48744 Fax (254-1 1)48744.

ACROSS AFRICQ SAFARI (MSA) LTD.

Ms. Jackie Nyangala P.O. Box 82139, Mombasa Te1.(254-11)3 143993 15360 Fax. (254- 1 1)22 1308.

UARQJANI TOURS LID.

Mr. Lucas Mwanu, Operations Manager P.O. Box 86103, Mombasa Tel.(254-11)221008/3 15446.

Mr. Frederick Ngonzi SALT MANUFACTURERS KENYA LTD. P.O. Box 81665, Mombasa Tel. (254-1 1)433710/1 lO/W; Fax.(254-11)433719.

NAIROBUELDORET:

MlMSllPIES

Mr. D. N. Kinyanjui Deputy Director National Environment Secretariat (NES) Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources P.O. ox 67839, Nairobi Tel. (254-2)22926 1

Mr . Justus Amaya Assistant Director Ministry of Local Government P.O. Box 30004, Nairobi Tel. (254-2)2 19733

Mr. J. E. Ekirapa Deputy secretary, Provincial Administration & Internal Security Oftice of the President P.O. Box 30510, Nairobi Tel. (254-2)227411 Ext. 22377

Dr. John S. K. Mbaya Assistant Secretary National Council for Science & Technology Ministry of Research, Technical Training & Technology P.O. Box 30568, Nairobi Tel. (254-2) 336173

Mr. Arthur W. K. Busaka Assistant Director of Tourism Ministry of Tourism & Wildlife P.O. Box 54666, Nairobi Tel. (254-2)33 1030 Fax. (254-2)2 17604

77

Mr. James Mwaura Journalist Radio Programme Producer Min. of Information & Broadcasting P.O. Box 8053, Nairobi.

UMVERSIl7ES

Prof. Justin Irina Vice-Chancellor Moi University P.O. Box 3900, Eldoret el. (254-032 1 )43620 Fax. (254-032 1)43047

Prof. Kenneth Mavuti Chairman, Dept. of Zoology University of Nairobi P.O. Box 30197, Nairobi

Prof. Eric 0. Odada Dept. of Geology University of Nairobi P.O. Box 30197, Nairobi Tel. (254-2p.47740 Fax. (254-2)449539

Dr. Justus Inonda Mwanje Director, Centre for Environmental Research and Extension (CERE) Kenyatta University P.O. Box 43844, Nairobi Tel. 810910 EXT. 57216

Mr. Marifa A. Mwakumanya Student Moi University P.O. Box 3900, Eldoret.

PARASTA TALs/NGOs:

Dr. Rashid A. Aman Director of Research & Scientific Affa'irs National Museums of Kenya P.O. Box 40658, Nairobi Tel.(254-2)744233; Fax.(254-2)740122

Mr. Macharia Gathuku Director Society for Protection of Environment (SPEK) P.O. Box 60125, Nairobi Tel. (254-2)2463 17 Fax: (254-2)23030.

UN1 TED NA TIONS AGENCIES:

UNESCO

Dr. Paul B. Vitta Director UNESCO Nairobi Office P.O. Box 30592, Nairobi; Tel. (254-2)622353 Fax. (254-2)2 1599 1

Mr. George E. Kitaka (Seminar organizer) Programme Specialist for Marine Sciences UNESCO Nairobi Office P.O. Box 30592, Nairobi; Tel. (254-2)622364 Fax. as above

UNCHS (HABITAT)

Mr. Brian Williams Human settlement Officer P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi Tel. (254-2)62 1234 Fax. (254-2)520855

TANZANIA:

MINISTRIES

Mr. Humson S. Makundi Director of Planning Ministry of Natural Resources & Tourism P.O. BOX 9372, Dar-es-Sal~~~~ Fax.(255-51)114659.

78

UNNERTITY OF DAR-ES-SALAAM

Ms. Flower E. Msuya Research Associate Institute of Marihe Sciences OMS) P.O. Box 668, Zanzibar Tel. (255-54)3074 1 /32 128 Fax. (255-54)33050

Dr. N. Nyandwi Senior Research Officer Institute of Marine Sciences OMS) P.O. Box 668, Zanzibar Tel. & Fax: as above

NGOs

Mr. Julius Kimende Marine Action Conservation Tanzania (MACT)

Tanzania. P.O. Box 32301, Dar-~~-Salaam

79