INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIES AS AN INCENTIVE FOR BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION IN MOMBASA CITY.

Introduction

Mombasa is Kenya's second largest city, located on the South Eastern coast of the country, along

the Indian Ocean and has approximately 939,370 people (KNBS, 2009 Census). The population

is growing rapidly, thus, exerting a lot of pressure on the existing natural environment. As a

result, the city has a history of disasters related to climate extremes including floods, which

cause serious damage nearly every year and, often, loss of life. The majority of the population

does not have formal education and is therefore not in formal employment. This leads to

dependence on natural resources as a source of livelihood, which obviously impacts negatively

on the city‟s biodiversity leading to loss of natural capital.

This study aims at analyzing the possibility of reversing this trend, through alternative income

generation activities, as exemplified elsewhere. The case study approach will be used in this

analysis. Can alternative income generation activities be an incentive for nature and biodiversity

conservation in Mombasa city? This is the question that this analysis seeks to answer.

Key environmental challenges in Mombasa city and possible interventions

According to an EEIU report on Mombasa city, the city faces a number of environmental

challenges, which pose a threat to its urban nature and biodiversity. The challenges include that

of informal/unplanned settlements, which have negative impacts on the environment such as lack

of drainage systems, back to back developments leading to over-concentration; poor building

materials and technology leading to a dirty and heavily polluted environment. Land degradation

is also evident due to quarrying, salt works and extraction of sand and building stones in some

parts of the city. Other large extraction industries like stone quarrying have recorded horrendous

effects on plant biodiversity in their vicinity.

Coastal erosion and destruction of marine ecosystem due to uncontrolled development at the

beaches and unchecked exploitation of coastal resources e.g. destruction of mangrove forests;

poor salt harvesting methods and poor fishing methods have affected the city‟s biodiversity

negatively. The unsustainable exploitation of fish resources and other marine life undermines the

use of these resources for present and future generations.

The above scenario calls for immediate intervention, to create and enhance sustainability in the

exploitation of natural resources, and at the same time provide a means of livelihood to host

communities and ensure meaningful economic development. Conventional approaches to

economic development, often produce enormous amounts of pollution and consume huge

quantities of energy and materials in the quest for ever higher rates of economic growth, often

fail to deliver one of the most important products of any economy -enough jobs. The dilemma is

that achieving anything near full employment would, under such circumstances, require even

higher and practically unsustainable, levels of growth. This predicament is severe for developing

countries, since the resource-intensive industries on which they depend are likely to decline. It is

clear therefore, that it is imperative to prioritize environmental concerns in the quest for

economic development, and be creative enough to ensure high levels of employment and

economic growth in a sustainable environment.

According to Prof. Kinne's third thesis of eco-ethics, (Quoted in the EEIU report) 'Nature

evolves through harsh conflicts. Human societies must avoid harsh conflicts. To keep our

complex societies intact requires the wisdom of conflict reduction and the will to reconcile

economy and ecology. Both are different sides of the same coin and both must be measured

against moral principles. In order to achieve that, we have to define what is beneficial, good and

what is detrimental, bad, for the development of our economic systems and their ecological

bases. And we have to decide how we can best enhance such good and reduce such bad' (Kinne

2002, p. 4). From this argument, it is clear therefore that if environmental degradation is not to

become irreversible, fundamental changes in the way goods are produced, used, and disposed of

are unavoidable.

The intervention measures should uplift the standards of the local people, maintain ecological

balance and ensure survival of the varied fauna and flora of this ecosystem. No serious attempt

has been made in this direction. It would however be unfair to say that nothing has been done so

far. The EEIU report further details a number of interventions, in a collaborative manner, by

NGOs specifically working along the coastline. These interventions are however one sided in the

sense that they focus only on sustainable exploitation of marine resources, and neglects other

sustainability concerns. The interventions also do not address the twin issues of economy and

ecology. Different NGOs working in the area are to focus on various aspects of conservation

including educating local communities, awareness creation, conservation (activities not listed)

and research.

From my point of view, a more holistic approach needs to be adopted if any tangible results are

to be achieved. The threats based approach, used by USAID is proposed. This approach seeks to

link threats to specific elements of biodiversity, with conservation actions in a logical and direct

way. With conservation targets agreed upon, a careful analysis of threats and opportunities

provides some indication of relevant activities that can be undertaken to move toward

achievement of stated goals.

According to USAID‟s biodiversity guide, “direct threats to a particular element of biodiversity

must be mitigated in order to conserve that component of biodiversity, whether it is a species,

ecological process, or whole ecosystem. A threats based approach to conservation emphasizes

the development of a logical plan for determining what the threats are, which threats will be

addressed, and how. The plan must clearly identify the linkages between threats and proposed

activities.”

In the case of Mombasa city, threats include informal settlements due to population pressure,

poverty, unsustainable exploitation of marine resources and inefficient waste disposal and

management. Income generating activities can be designed by policy makers to address each of

the above threats. For instance, urban planning authorities can designate places for residential

buildings outside the city (in the outskirts). If developers start developing these residential

places, many income generating activities will result both directly and indirectly. On the issue of

waste disposal, a recycling industry has the potential for massive growth since raw materials are

readily available, labour is readily available and the market for its products is unexploited. This

would also enhance biodiversity conservation to a very great extent. Unsustainable extraction of

resources in the region without doubt can be addressed by availing alternative income generating

activities.

People who earn a living from the extraction of these resources, can only stop such extraction if

they have alternatives to generate income. Activities such as nurturing tree nurseries for

afforestation of degraded areas and for sale can generate incomes to this group.

The USAID guide gives insight on how poverty can be addressed in the quest for conservation.

”In the first case, while poverty may indeed be a root cause of biodiversity loss, a better

understanding of how poverty is having direct effects on biodiversity is needed to develop

appropriate interventions. For example, poor coastal populations may be fishing in or near

protected areas in order to meet their household food security needs (women in some cases)

while also trying to generate cash from the sale of fish and other marine products (men in some

cases). Both the rate of off-take and the specific techniques used to gather resources may be

negatively impacting local fish populations. In this case, appropriately designed conservation

interventions might focus on limiting the rate of off-take, improving the specific fishing

techniques used by men and/or women, developing non-marine based alternative livelihood

options, improving the processing of products to generate more cash per unit sold, or some

combination of the above.”

These holistic interventions have been used elsewhere to address a similar situation. A case in

point is in the eco-development and biodiversity conservation project at the Great Himalayan

National Park, India. Low investment income generation activities were started for local groups,

for instance, poor villagers participated in income generation programmes, which have very little

investment, very low level of technological inputs and ready markets for the sale of produce,

such as production of vermicompost by Women Savings and Credit Groups (WSCGs) which was

readily bought by the Park management. The WSCGs show a preference for such medicinal

plants which fetch more incomes and easy to grow. The diverse income generation activities in

WSCGs provide the members with more security. Because it is their own savings that the women

are loaning for „production activities‟, the recovery of such small loans is almost 100%. In the

long run, such WSCGs are going to be sustainable and will contribute to the conservation of the

biodiversity of the Park.

Another example is the alternative livelihood example on dive tag fees in Kubulau, Fiji. The

communities of Kubulau district in southwestern Vanua Levu, Fiji‟s second largest island,

created a network of 13 Marine Managed Areas (MMAs), anchored by the Namena Marine

Reserve. The site is one of the best diving areas in Fiji, but it is threatened by poachers from

nearby villages as well as more distant urban centers. Together with Moody‟s Namena Resort,

the Kubulau communities enforce no-take areas against poaching to protect important dive sites,

using a surveillance system involving community fish wardens. The system is financed through

dive tag fees paid by dive-tourism operators to the Kubulau Resource Management Committee

(KRMC), and the funds are used for community development, tertiary scholarships, operational

costs such as patrolling and mooring maintenance, and other management expenses. Strong

community ownership of the project is made possible by recognition of customary fishing rights

under Fijian law and is strengthened through extensive technical support from NGO partners

such as Wildlife Conservation Society and Coral Reef Alliance.

For these initiatives to bear fruit however, there is need for stakeholder cooperation, so that

policy can match the realities on the ground and suit the objectives of biodiversity conservation

as well as a balance between economy and ecology as discussed earlier. The initiatives need to

be low cost, and funding for implementation readily available. There is also need for awareness

creation and educating the community on the need for conservation of nature, and thus the need

for these interventions.

Conclusion

Urban nature and biodiversity is constantly under threat, largely due to human activity. If cities,

Mombasa in this case, are to continue offering ecosystem services to their inhabitants, there is

need to think and plan strategically on interventions to reverse the damage that has been done

and enhance sustainable development in future. There is need for not only continuous

stakeholder engagement and learning from other experiences, but also for contextualizing

experiences learned elsewhere to suit the specific needs of each city. Most interventions in the

past have focused on Protected Areas and majorly in rural contexts. These success stories need to

be adopted and modified to suit the urban context.

It is clear that it is possible to reverse damages that have been done in Mombasa city. The

Himalayan Park and the Kubulau examples are good low cost interventions that can be

implemented by poor urban communities. There is however need to facilitate these groups by

providing training on various issues that will help the groups operate effectively in Mombasa

city. Some of these aspects include financial management, need for environmental conservation

and sustainable use of resources.

References

1. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: A GUIDE 34 FOR USAID STAFF AND

PARTNERS (pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE258.pdf)

2. Eco-Ethics International Union-Kenya (Mombasa) Chapter; 2006 Report

(www.eeiu.rog/chapters/kenya.html)

3. National Population and Housing Census 2009; Kenya national Bureau of Statistics

(www.knbs.or.ke/Census%20Results/KNBS%20Brochure.pdf)

4. Niesten, E. and H. Gjertsen. 2010. Economic,Incentives for Marine Conservation.

Science and Knowledge Division, Conservation International,Arlington, Virginia, USA.

(www.science2action.org/files/s2a/economicincentivesguidebook.pdf)

5. Sanjeeva P. (2007), Linking ecodevelopment and biodiversity conservation at the Great

Himalayan National Park, India: lessons learned; Springer Science+Business Media B.V

(www.springerlink.com/index/g370g45875m5v163.pdf)

Article by Antony Karanja Ndirangu

District Development officer - Likoni (Kenya)

+254 725 848 394

antondirangu07@yahoo.com

Presented to the Weitz Centre for Development Studies (Rehovot-Israel)

During Leveraging Urban Nature and Biodiversity for Local Development Course (28th

Nov

2011-22nd

December 2011)