Open Space Report 14 June 2020 - conservationalliance.or.ke · Open Space Report 14thJune 2020 Nairobi National Park: How can we ensure the management plan commits to protecting the

Open Space Report14th June 2020

Nairobi National Park: How can we ensure the management plan commits to protecting the unique, immeasurable ecological value and potential of the park for the public in Nairobi and beyond?

1

Contents

Review of existing policies and laws and its implementation. Making the management plan a legal document. Conflict of interest for KWS and its position as a regulator and as a player in conservation............................................................................ 2 Improving the current state of the park in line with correcting the damage already done? ....................................................................................... 4 Inclusion of the communities around the park ........................................ 6 New management and decision making structure of NNP to ensure a good future. ........................................................................................... 8 The corridors ......................................................................................... 9 Proposal by KWS to fence the Park Dispersal Areas .......................... 11 KWS proposal for hotel- what is the impact of this on the environment, wildlife and its habitat? ........................................................................ 14 Barriers preventing more visitors coming to the park ........................... 16 What informs the proposals in the management plan from economic, environment and cultural perspectives? Is it sustainable beyond 50 years? ................................................................................................. 18 Displacing wildlife habitats by development ......................................... 20 Make NNP a world heritage site or an important biosphere site Reinhard............................................................................................................ 22 Find a way of stakeholders holding KWS accountable, how can we do this and what are the stakeholders roles? ............................................ 24 Human factor impact assessment, how the resulting pressure on the abiotic factors influence the sustainability of the biotic factors .............. 26 Postpone the finalization of the NNP planning process until after Covid 19 ........................................................................................................ 28

2

Session: 1/2 Breakout space: Topic:

Review of existing policies and laws and its implementation. Making the management plan a legal document.

Conflict of interest for KWS and its position as a regulator and as a player in conservation. Convener: Steve Itela Who was there? Sarah Valentine Nancy Ogonje Bob Nesta Dr. Kibera Muriuki Wachira Kariuki Larry Kimani Steve Itela Anastacia John Kiptum Mellen Oriri Winnie Maru Faith Kimanzi Main discussion points

• How do we get the community to be involved in the

management and conservation of wildlife?

• Building capacities of stakeholders

• Wildlife should be under the ministry of environment and

forestry and not ministry of wildlife and tourism.

• How members of KWS move to different positions in the ministry

of wildlife.

• Establishment of departments with capacity at the ministry.

3

• Harmonizing and alignment of the different policies and laws

governing KWS and KFS.

• What are the objective of the NNP and what is it protecting?

• Does the management plan give us an opportunity to hold the

KWS responsible

• Auditing the environmental effects of the developments put in

place in the Nairobi National Park.

• How do the policies affect the dispasal areas?

Top 3 recommendations for the plan

• Review of laws and policies and enact regulations regarding development and implementations of management plans

• Revise the protected are planning frame work document particularly the public participation are.

• Strengthening the deparment of wildlife with clearly defined policies of who does what. (review of article 7)

Typed by Faith Kimanzi

4

Session: 1 Breakout space: 7 Topic:

Improving the current state of the park in line with correcting the damage already done? Convener: Elma Kajuju Who was there? Abigail Kamau Tobias Odhacha Nikunj Shah Alex Nasiyo Felix Mutwiri Lori Bergemann Francis Parsimei Gitau Raini Sydney Main discussion points

• How can we cushion the effects of the major projects affecting

the park

• Improving the current situation of the park

• How can management of invasive species in the park be

enhanced

• How can we ensure that all park visitors understand and follow

park rules?

• How can Nairobi national park dispersal areas be protected from

human encroachment through settlements and industrial

developments.

• What are the likely impacts of fencing Nairobi national park?

Would fencing of the park transform it to be a glorified zoo?

5

• Why would KWS be proposing projects that would lead to

destruction of the park.

• The KWS as a government institution should not compete with

private businesses in the hotel industries.

• The Nairobi National park is a natural recreational centre and

introduction of facilities such as swimming pools is not okay.

• What informed the development projects in the Nairobi national

park management plan?

Top 3 recommendations for the plan • The KWS should support creation of community wildlife

conservancies and cultural centres around the park.

• Incoporate the locals in getting rid of the parthenium.

• Enhanced visitor education on park rules and safety measures

• Efforts should enhance policies protecting National park land from encroachment and development in protecting wildlife.

• The KWS should maximize their resources on wildlife conservation.

• KWS main challenge ought to be how to drive the critical mass into the park.

Typed by: Tobias Odhacha

6

Session: 1 Breakout number: 2 Topic:

Inclusion of the communities around the park Convener: Nase Kelel Who was there? Nase Kelel Akshay Justine Awino Trish Sewe Raini Sydney George Jomo Wendy Wangari Ian Main discussion points

• A lot of human wildlife conflict;

• Community involvement in the management plan; have the

community as stakeholders in decision making as far as the park

is concerned

• Who is the community? Be clear on who is referred to as the

community around the park

• Get a framework for engagement; identify who to engage and

how

• KWS to mark out the dispersal area and have the data in a

registry; know who lives around these dispersal areas

• Identify how far the wildlife migrate and find a way to manage

their movement into the community land

7

• Transparency and engagement at the community level so that

information sharing is unbiased

• Engage both land owners and land occupants

• Enhance seamless co-existence between wildlife and the

community

• Land use and zoning should be involved in planning at county

level

• The decision making should factor in the future

• The park is not for sale

• Inform the community of any changes being planned

• Allow indigenous knowledge to be commercialised

• Return or reposes land lost from the park

• Protect the area of the park

• Control land use

• Have drives around the conservancy and use the money

generated together with the community


• KWS to mark out the dispersal area and its land owners and to compile a comprehensive registry to include this data and use it to identify stakeholders to be involved in consultations along with other stakeholders that have been identified

• KWS to mark out the dispersal area and its land owners and to compile a registry and use the registry to involve the stake holders in discussions with KWS on planning, and with the county governments of Kajiado and Machakos in land use planning

• KWS to partner with communities t make them stewards of the dispersal areas

Typed by; Justine Awino

8


New management and decision making structure of NNP to ensure a good future. Convener: Joanne Kinnear Who was there? Ian Sherine Bett Joanne Kinnear Chantal Esperance Main discussion points

• Transparency; Clarity in the finances other than park entry fees, hotel to generate money, people’s contributions should be well outlined in terms of utilization. This will lead to proper accountability ie through having an accessible link online that outlines grants, income expenditure, maintenance hence avoiding misappropriation of funds.

• Making NNP less reliant on the government (sort of non profit) so as to make it financially independent and not clinged to relying on government.

• Economic concerns overriding environmental and conservation concerns hence affecting neighborhood land use systems. This is visible through wrongful inclusion of titles for land by the ministries of land and fraud in EIA reporting. Amount of land that has been exercised cannot be reclaimed by the park hence it needs compensation.


• Management structure should change to reflect views of stakeholders to be more visible.

• Accountability to a wider group hence making all decision making and policy making processes transparent

• Inclusivity of stakeholders/wider broad representation

9

Typed by: CHANTAL ESPERANCE Session: 1 Breakout space: 5 Topic:

The corridors Convener: Kris Who was there? Schola Nderi Kris Bahola Pete Main discussion points

• Industrialisation; some industries have been put within the

eastern side, they are incompatible to wildlife conservation.

• Highways; the construction of highways like the one leading to

Inland Container Depot is has blocked the wild animals migration

corridors on the eastern side.

• Farms; some areas that forms parts of the nnp to anp has been

converted to agriculture which is not compatible to wildlife

conservation.

• Commercialisation; many areas surrounding the nnp ecosystem

have been commercialised.

• Human settlement; east of Athi River is been subdivided and

fragmented even some being fenced off.


• KWS should bring a legislation to protect migratory corridors

10

• Animals crossing points should be made natural especially where animals cross by allowing continuity of naturalness, overpasses should be included to allow animals movement across.

• KWS should come into agreements with private land owners and provide them with incentives to allow wild animals passage from and to nnp

Typed by: Bahola

11

Session: 1 Breakout space:1 Topic:

Proposal by KWS to fence the Park Dispersal Areas Convener: Ed Who was there? Fazeela Patita Anselm Davinder Risper Kisinga Diana Daniel Suyianka Main discussion points

• The park is already, with further developments the park could

become a zoo

• Loss of species due to confinement as a result of closing

dispersal areas

• Fencing will lead to genetic loss because of inbreeding

• HWC (Human Wildlife Conflicts)- Baboons and monkeys are

the most common species involved and thus their movement

cannot be limited by fencing- that is a lame excuse to erect a

fence

• Land use changes: create some restrictions on the human

activities around the park like initiate 5km eco-zone

• Multiple government agencies are contradicting the land use

activities, roles of each institution should be clearly stated

• Fencing will not stop HWC,change the way of lives of

communities living around the park.

12

• The park is not sufficient for wildlife especially the migratory

species. Fencing will worsen the current situation which is

restricted movements of wildlife

• Dispersal areas should be left open, Nairobi National Park to be

left as an open ecosystem according to the vision2030 in order

for wildlife to continue to flourish, fencing will distract the food

chain.

• The fencing process is controversial

• Clear compensation measures for victims of HWC

• Fencing will prevent the communities from benefits sharing

• Loss of livelihoods by the communities

• According to the map ,the Mombasa road side there is

infrastructure all over the park has been totally eaten away . The

community side is still intact so the problem is on the government

side and not the community


• No fence of the NNP wildlife dispersal areas because it will lead to loss of genetic diversity among species especially migratory species (inbreeding)and loss of specific species like lions, wilderbeests and zebras

• Resume compensation programme that pays for livestock losses to predators, Support local communities in NNP wildlife dispersal areas with revenue generated by the park tourism.

• KWS should support community projects like LIONLIGHTS and Community Ranger Programs instead of fencing this will enhance protection of species outside the park

OPTIONS TO FENCING:

1. Support community projects like Lion Lights and Community Ranger Programs

13

2. Development of NNP Park APP- security as well monitoring the ecosystem

3. development of conservancies – support narutunoi conservancy and expand it to 20,000 acres

4. KWS to stop encroachment of squatters and secure land outside NNP

Typed by Risper Asembo

14


KWS proposal for hotel- what is the impact of this on the environment, wildlife and its habitat? Convener: FRANCIS PARSIMEI Who was there? Francis Parsimei Jonathan Kola Violet Kemunto Dekit Kimani Ashikoye Okoko Archy Kamau gachie Main discussion points

• Displacement of animals from their natural habitat (natural

habitat loss)

• KWS have they considered the environmental impacts of

building the hotels?

• The human- wildlife conflicts that will arise from displaced

animals .

• The purpose of the park (picnic site)

• Engagement of KWS with the existing hotels.

• The pressure created on endangered species and potential of

poachers posing as tourists staying in the hotels to be built.

• Destruction of environmental resources on which tourism itself

depends on.

• Land grabbing

• Pollution of the environment

• Waste management.

• Traffic within the park.

15


• KWS to give a Cost factor analysis, Estimated revenue from the proposed project , EIA Report as well as the impact of the project on the adjacent communities.

• KWS to engage the already existing hotels, partner with them

rather than building more hotels.

• Let the park serve its purpose (picnic site, for game drives)

Typed by: VIOLET KEMUNTO

16


Barriers preventing more visitors coming to the park Convener: Akshay Who was there? Akshay Tobias O Peter Kiboi Ian Sarah Velentine Chantal Esperance Main discussion points

• Most Kenyans have not been connected to their wildlife in appreciating their wildlife and its value.

• There is need for the youths and the public to fall in love with nature to take action in wildlife conservation. Lack of information among the locals; they expect to spend a fortune when making a trip to NNP

• Change attitude for people that the money they have can be used to take part in enjoying nature, wildlife and natural resources. Convince the public that visiting the park is actually worth the cost.

• Attracting people through after sales services during the visit to the parks ie through marketing, advertising to steer the urge for people to make repeat visits.

• Increasing the quality of experience through having social media platforms; using technology to share knowledge widely.

• Rule breaking, crowding and not getting the right information isn’t available through the weekend(people not going in for the right reasons) whilst weekdays are generally busy for most people – penalizing offenders or policing of rules for crimes within the park would help.

• Perceived militarization of the KWS rangers who are termed to be rowdy and tough pauses as a barrier to the neighboring communities or people living in adjacent areas. This hinders locals from enjoying privilege of having the park.

• Using influencers and trend setters to create interest.

17


• KWS is encouraged to conduct/undertake more marketing and advertising of NNP to the nationals and local communities through citizen assisted marketing ie. Social media.

• KWS to develop a quality education experience for the youth and

school children which included curriculum development ie. Through the ministry of education, immersive experiences in the park, classes in the park, certification guides for teachers and educational guides, online live game drives and subsidized visits to the park which include the use of informed guides and appropriate learning materials.

• KWS to partner with Friends of Nairobi National Park(FONNAP) to promote responsible visitor behavior including by dissemination by information on sittings, partnering to ensure monitoring in visitor behaviors to promote self regulation on visitor behavior

Typed by: CHANTAL ESPERANCE

18


What informs the proposals in the management plan from economic, environment and cultural perspectives? Is it sustainable beyond 50 years? Convener: Kennedy Who was there? Kiptoo Kennedy John Bahola, Scola Steve Francis Anastacia Main discussion points

• The different cultural groups and practices relating to wildlife

conservation around nnp

• The general environmental background of nnp

• The main economic activities around the nnp

• The communication barrier breakdown between policy makers

and the community


• KWS should consider having the park as natural as possible to accommodate wildlife, instead of thinking of making it more friendly to tourists.

• KWS should collaborate with other stakeholders in managing the park which include the community to promote public participation especially for people residing areas neighbouring nnp

• KWS should improve its marketing strategies, come up with ease ways of access and put in place friendly entrance fees for locals.

19

• KWS to partner with other stakeholders in order to improve their service delivery.

• KWS should come up with a rationale in terms of the tourist numbers to make sure that vehicle traffic is not detrimental the wildlife.

Typed by; Bahola

20


Displacing wildlife habitats by development Convener: Ed Who was there? Trish Sewe Wachira Kariuki Naseyian Kelel Francis Parsimei Main discussion points

• Expanding of the orphanage by 10 acres

• Building o f luxury hotel- loss of giraffe and black rhino populations…….

• Board walks- will eliminate wildlife habitats, destroy dams

• What value can we put on NNP per year. Economic value vs ecosystem

services value

• Mitigate impacts of current development to the park

• Further developments will lead to further decline of wildlife

• What’s development?, is it bricks and mortar?

• Destroying wildlife which attracts tourists then there will be no tourism in

future when all wildlife is gone

• Hotel will not generate much revenue for instance looking at the current

COVID -19 situation

• KWS to rethink their services like customer care, should stop on

cannibalizing on the hotels around concentrate on wildlife and habitat

conservation which is its co- mandate

• Nairobi has so many hotels for tourists; there is no value addition to

development of a new hotel in the park. Its going to degrade the park

• What’s the site identified for hotel building?, shouldn’t be within/along the

river ecosystem or wildlife corridor

• Are conserving for money?, why not focus on the ecosystem services of the

park?. What if visitors stop coming?

• Any development that takes away wildlife habitat should not be approved..

21

• What was the original functional purpose of NNP?. Accruing revenue can

never be compared to biological role of NNP

• Focus on driving local tourism. Taking into consideration virtual tourism

• Upgrading of existing infrastructure

• Tented(eco) camps management-involve the local community

• Assessment of impacts of the current infrastructure to the park like the

SGR

• wildlife conservation should be the main thing consevationfor a healthy

ecosystem cannot be quantified to money. KWS should be not be driven

by revenue generation

• why is NNP considered a protected area?, because it has to be protected

from encroachment and developments

• more developments will increase pollution

• Tourism is taking a centre stage while wildlife conservation is taking a

backstage

• Why do we have a habit of carrying out developments in protected areas? Is

there a balance between development and conservation in Kenya?

HOTEL IS NOT A PRIORITY! Top 3 recommendations for the plan

• No development in NNP that will result to more habitat loss, the hotel and the director’s house and around water points has no value to wildlife management.

• Tourists coming in should not be a priority but instead KWS should focus on conservation instead of development projects and the government should fully fund KWS just like other government bodies for instance the Kenya Police they don’t generate any income but they are still funded.

• The park needs an environmental audit to establish areas that needs to be restored which have been previously damaged

Typed by Risper Asembo

22


Make NNP a world heritage site or an important biosphere site Reinhard Convener: Reinherd Bonke Who was there? Reinherd Bonke Violet Kemunto Anastacia Steve Itela Janet Kavutha Main discussion points

• History of the park, its iconic value means it should be protected

and listed as the world heritage site.

• Continued development activities is the main challenges facing

the park leading to lose of habitat.

• Education centre what activities to be included and supporting

community programmes.

• Greening economy in the NNP e.g recycling sewers, recycling

waste, in a sustainable manner.

• Tree planting along the southern bypass to cub air pollution.

• Criteria review on the world heritage listing of the park. Restoring

degraded areas will contribute positively in the listing.

• First initiatives that KWS should start with is the grass burning

which will contribute to ecological restoration of the park.

• The next step should be setting up a team to survey the

suitability or status or status of the park and match the outcome

23

with the criteria of being listed as a world heritage site or a

biosphere reserve.

• Strategically approach the reopening of NNPs migration corridors

though the National Wildlife Corridor and Dispersal Areas report

to meet an important criterion for being listed.


• Deliberate actions on restoring what was lost, rebuilding the degraded ecosystem, freshly mapping the migration corridors, protecting breeding areas for animals that are outside the park, capturing the historical maasai and somali culture associated with the park.

• Putting priority in declaring the park a world heritage site of biosphere reserve, in association with UNESCO, which will bring public ownership especially for the leaders.it will indicate an inspiration, legacy or point of reference and identity for the park by the virtue of its uniqueness and will help relevant stakeholders focus on rebuilding any damage caused to ecosystem and habitat.

• Protection of upstream river sources to ensure clean water, adopt cleaner greening technology e.g recycling in a sustainable manner.

• Value addition of way of life to complement their pastoral way of life

Typed by: Janet Kavutha

24


Find a way of stakeholders holding KWS accountable, how can we do this and what are the stakeholders roles? Convener: Nancy_Ogonje Who was there? Maurice Abondo Wangui Kaburi Mellen Oriri Winnie Maru Diana Faith kimanzi Main discussion points • Does Kws have the freedom to perform certain activities and how

can it limit the interference of politics. How we as stakeholders can

ensure there is no political interference? And passing the right

legislations. So that KWS can go about with its work without fear of

interference from ministries that can have political influence.

• Develop a mechanism in which the general public will be involved

and not only the institutional stakeholders to keep the KWS

accountable and not only take part in management plan

• How many of the public would want to own up to wildlife and

conservation and stop seeing it as a thing for foreign people but also

as their responsibility.

• Who checks to show that public participation takes place

25

Top 3 recommendations for the plan • KWS reaches out to local communities at the grassroot levels

because they are technologically disadvantaged.

• KWS should do public participation at the national level.

• Create awareness among the Kenyans to hold KWS accountable.

• Demand KWS to involve communities around them and show community participation.

Typed by: Faith Kimanzi

26


Human factor impact assessment, how the resulting pressure on the abiotic factors influence the sustainability of the biotic factors Convener: Pete / Ngari Muriuki Who was there? Elma Kajuju Pete Wamae Francisca Kasuku Main discussion points

• Development of infrastructure i.e. SGR, setting up new

buildings, new road and (building of cement factories within the

Athi-Kapiti ecosystem) -industries which affect or will affect the

NNP ecosystem.

• Apartments set up near the park causing pollution affecting

e.g. Hyena Dam leading to lose of birdlife.

• Lose of dispersal routes or wildlife corridors - creating a

glorified zoo. Wildlife is supposed to be free roaming and not

enclosed.

• Was an EIA done? Is there a policy of protecting the wildlife

corridor that connects the wildlife in NNP with the populations

outside NNP? If the policies are there, are they being

enforced? Who is ensuring that is done?

• There is a gap between tourism and conservation. Tourism

and conservation needs to go hand in hand. If not then, the

KWS needs to be moved from the Ministry of Tourism to

Ministry of Environment or an independent ministry all the

same.

27

• Ministry of Environment focuses on forestry and not all parks

have forests. As a ministry it serves a wide range of activities

and my not be able to focus so much on wildlife conservation

issues.


• KWS needs to be placed in an independent ministry that focuses on the conservation of wildlife and all biodiversity.

• The E.I.A should be shared with the general public and public participation should be taken into action and not individual stakeholder institutions.

• The government should not only focus on economic development – building roads passing through parks, encroaching into lands, but think about the richness of the biodiversity and our heritage for the future generations.

Typed by Francisca Kasuku

28


Postpone the finalization of the NNP planning process until after Covid 19 Who was there? Davina Dobie Dr. Paula Kahumbu George Jomo Rani Sydney Kibera Muriuki Wendy Wangari Lori Bergemann Justine Kamau Gachie Davinder Sikand Abigail Kamau Bob Nesta Ngamumu Patita Abigail Kamau Main discussion points

This public participation OST is revealing that we are missing

points, we need more time and more structure to do this well.

Process needs to be put on hold for some time because the

deadline is 30th of June, most people will be locked out due to

technology difficulties and no face to face meetings.

Feedback to KWS may not be strong enough until we do this.

We need more engagement and KWS is missing from most of

these meetings and discussions.

Many people who wanted to attend are missing from these

conversations due to technology eg community.

29

Maasai in the Kitengela area were very interested in being part of

this but were not able to get on

How can we get the process delayed/postponed until adequate

public participation is held?

We should ask for the deadline to be extended to 3 months after

the COVID crisis is normalized and public meetings are allowed

again. It’s a 10 year plan so a few months late will not be a big

issue.

The pandemic and the impact on the economy have diverted

attention.

In rural areas the chiefs must be used to access community.

KWS responded to the Conservancy request for a meeting to explain what is happening with the management plan, but there has been no KWS convened community participation meeting on the ground as claimed in the draft plan. On the ground there is no concrete information, just rumours

about intentions, plans and contracts. Basically there is confused

information and no transparency with the community.

When conservancy members asked for the management plan,

KWS said there was no plan ready yet it was issued a week

later. So there is also distrust.

To date there has been no community engagement in the

process and they have had no access to the plan.

KWS is already operating in contravention to several laws and

most information requested by the communities have not been

made available. Letters to KWS asking for information have gone

unanswered.

Lack of transparency is against human rights. How can the

government continue with this process despite COVID19?

30

If KWS moves forward without satisfying public participation take

the issue to the CAJ (Commission of Administrative Justice)

Top 3 recommendations for the plan 1. Concerned individuals and organizations to write a petition to

Parliament and Attorney General and cc CS, PS, and KWS stating clearly that this process needs to be put on hold due to the challenges of having proper public participation and deadline extended to 3 months after public meetings are permitted, & signed or endorsed by the local chiefs and/or elders indicating the lack of public participation. Invite parliamentary committee to visit the ground. Failing that we take legal action (eg. go to the CAJ, NET and Land and Environment Court under certificate of urgency as class action suit).

2. KWS to hold a series of local community meetings organized by the local Chiefs with the relevant communities and to make sure that the draft plan and any other information requested is availed to the communities ahead of any of those meetings. Proof of process being held properly to be confirmed by a report by an appropriate oversight body such as the Environmental committee of Parliament.

3. Community and concerned individuals to immediately start exposing the problem publicly by bringing the issue of lack of community consultation into the mainstream media through articles, national and international news programs etc.

Typed by Paula Kahumbu

Documents

Open Space Report 14 June 2020 - conservationalliance.or.ke · Open Space Report 14thJune 2020 Nairobi National Park: How can we ensure the management plan commits to protecting the