Policy Implications in the Management of Kenya s Marine Protected Areas

Policy Implications in the Management of Kenya s Marine Protected Areas Sam Weru Abstract Coral reefs exist along most of Kenya s coast as coral flats, lagoons, reef platforms and fringing reefs. The total area of coral reef is estimated at 50 000 ha. Currently, a total of 183 species of stony corals belonging to 59 genera have been identified on these reefs. In general, the reef communities are similar to other parts of the Western Indian Ocean. They are dominated by Porites spp. assemblages in calm waters and Acropora spp. assemblages in high energy environments. The Kenyan government recognized in Session Paper No. 3 of 1975, Statement of Future Wildlife Management in Kenya, the need to manage and conserve the country s natural resources. Accordingly, the Fish Industry Act and the Wildlife (Management and Conservation) Act were enacted by Parliament in 1968 and 1976, respectively. With this legislation, Kenya set a precedent for the rest of Africa. In 1968, the government declared the first marine protected area, and, subsequently, it continued to put other coral reef areas under a two-tier conservation system that is recognized by law. As a result of this differential management system, coral reefs in Kenya exhibit significant differences in ecological health. These differences are related to the degree of protection afforded the reef. However, despite delivering benefits in terms of reef health, reef protection measures sometimes impose serious socioeconomic costs on fishers forced to relocate or change their lifestyles. Recent moves to develop management plans on the basis of community consultation are demonstrating the potential for less costly, but nevertheless, effective conservation measures. Introduction The Kenyan coastline, approximately 500 km long, stretches from 1 0 42 S to 4 0 40 S, and borders Somalia in the north and Tanzania in the south. The continental shelf covers an area of about 19 120 km 2 (UNEP 1998). Well-developed fringing reef systems are present all along the coastline except where major rivers (the Tana and the Athi/ Sabaki) discharge into the Indian Ocean. Patch reefs occur around Malindi and Kiunga in the north, and around Shimoni in the south. Seagrass beds are usually associated with reef systems growing in shallow lagoons, creeks and bays. Nine species of mangroves are found in Kenya, protecting the coral reef community from landbased effluents and nutrients. The coral reefs existing along most of the Kenya coast occur as coral flats, lagoons, reef platforms, and fringing reefs. The total area of coral reef is estimated at 50 000 ha. Currently, 183 species of stony corals belonging to 59 genera have been identified on these reefs. Other important reefbuilding organisms, including soft corals, coralline red algae and calcareous algae, exist but have received less attention. In general, the reef communities are similar to those in other parts of the Western Indian Ocean. They are dominated by Porites spp. assemblages in calm waters and Acropora spp. assemblages in high energy environments. In Session Paper No. 3 of 1975, Statement of Future Wildlife Management in Kenya, the Kenyan government recognized the need to manage and conserve the country s natural 192 WorldFish Center Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs

resources. Accordingly, it enacted the Fish Industry Act (1968) and the Wildlife (Management and Conservation) Act (1976) (Laws of Kenya 1983; 1977). With this legislation, Kenya led the way for the rest of Africa. In 1968, the government established the first marine protected area (MPA). Since then, other coral reef areas have continued to be put under a two-tier conservation system that is recognized by law. Government policies The Fish Industry Act was established to provide for the reorganization, development and regulation of the fish industry, to make provision for the protection of fish and for the purposes connected therewith. Through this act, the Fisheries Department (FiD) was established. This department, in cooperation with other appropriate agencies and other departments of Government, promotes the development of traditional and industrial fisheries. It does this by providing extension and training services, conducting research and surveys, promoting cooperation among fishers, promoting arrangements for the orderly marketing of fish, providing infrastructure, stocking waters with fish, and supplying fish for stocking. In the course of fisheries management, the FiD may use legislative measures to: Declare closed seasons for designated areas, species of fish or methods of fishing; Prohibit fishing areas for all or designated species of fish or methods of fishing; Place limits on fishing gear, including mesh sizes of nets that may be used for fishing; Limit the amount, size, age, species or composition of species of the fish that may be caught, landed or traded; Regulate the landings of fish and provisions for the management of fish landing areas; Control the introduction into or harvesting or removal from any Kenya fishery waters of any aquatic plant. The Wildlife (Management and Conservation) Act was established to consolidate and amend the law relating to the protection, conservation and management of wildlife in Kenya; and for purposes connected therewith and incidental thereto. These powers were placed in a consolidated service, the prime objective of which should be to ensure that wildlife is managed and conserved so as to yield to the nation in general and to individual areas in particular, optimum returns in terms of cultural, aesthetic and scientific gains as well as such economic gains as are incidental to proper wildlife management and conservation and which may be secured without prejudice to such proper management and conservation. The Wildlife (Management and Conservation) Act recognizes the need to balance wildlife conservation and management with the varied forms of land use. By way of a 1989 amendment, the Wildlife Act established the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), a state corporate body with the above objectives and the following functions: I. Formulation of policies regarding the conservation, management and utilization of all types of fauna (not being domestic animals) and flora; II. Advising the government on the establishment of National Parks, National Reserves and other protected wildlife sanctuaries; III. Management of National Parks and National Reserves; IV. Sustenance of wildlife to meet conservation and management goals; V. Conduct and coordinate research activities in the fields of wildlife conservation and management; VI. Provision of advice to the government, local authorities and landowners on the best methods of wildlife conservation and management and to act as the principal instrument of the government in pursuit of such ecological appraisals or controls outside urban areas as are necessary for human survival; and VII. Administration and coordination of international protocols, conventions and treaties regarding wildlife in all its aspects. It is worth noting that all these policy and legal statements are quite ambiguous and do not refer specifically to coral reefs and marine life protection and management. However, the powers vested in the KWS, and its predecessor the Wildlife Conservation and Management Department (WCMD), by the Wildlife Act has led to the recognition of the value of coral reefs and resulted in the gazettal of four fully protected marine areas, namely Marine National Parks, and six partially protected marine areas (Marine National Reserves). In one of the management plans, marine protected areas (MPAs) are defined as areas set aside by law to protect and conserve Policy Implications in the Management of Kenya s Marine Protected Areas 193

the marine and coastal biodiversity and the related ecotones for posterity by enhancing the regeneration and ecological integrity of the mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass beds, sand beaches and their associated resources which are vital for sustainable development through scientific research, education, recreation and other compatible resource utilization (Weru et al. 2001). In this plan, the overall objectives for management of MPAs are outlined below: Preservation and conservation of the marine biodiversity for posterity To protect a representative sample of the coral reef and seagrass ecosystems on the Kenyan coast. To restore and rehabilitate the damaged marine ecosystems. Provision for ecologically sustainable use of the marine resources for cultural and economic benefits To ensure that activities within the marine protected areas are controlled and conform to the management regulations for ecological sustainability. To enable the stakeholders to participate in a wide range of eco-friendly recreational activities. To implement zoning as a management tool in the marine protected area in order to eliminate conflicts between user groups. To enhance management-oriented research for optimum resource use. Promotion of applied research for educational awareness, community participation and capacity building To ensure information flows to stakeholders so that they are in a better position to understand management decisions. To enable young and upcoming researchers to investigate their theories and hypotheses developed at tertiary institutions of learning. To provide an information base for education and awareness programs for local communities. Implications of these policies Ecological implications As a result of these policies, coral reefs in Kenya can be categorized into three management regimes. 1. Fully protected: These are contained within a Marine National Park, of which there are four (see Table 1). The park is usually the core area consisting of a reef lagoon, reef flat, reef edge and/or slope, in a (usually) larger reserve. Within these parks, no extractive use is allowed, with or without a license, and the Wildlife Act takes precedence over other policies or legislation. For purposes of research and education, samples may be collected with the authority of the Office of the President in collaboration with the KWS. 2. Partially protected: These are otherwise referred to as Marine National Reserves, of which there are six (see Table 1). These reefs act as buffer zones to marine parks and as multiple use areas. Harvesting, in terms of fishing and collection of other marine organisms, is allowed, albeit with a license from FiD. Only traditional harvesting techniques (mostly fishing traps made from coconut palm fronds and straw, locally known as madema and uzio) as well as the universally known hook-and-line are permitted. Collection of sea cucumber and aquarium fish species is also allowed under license. Tourism activities, such as sport fishing, scuba diving and other water sports are allowed at a nominal fee. Both Acts relating to fisheries and wildlife proscribe the use of destructive harvesting methods, such as dynamite fishing, seine netting and coral mining. 3. No protection: This category applies to coral reefs outside the designated conservation areas. However, even in these areas, the Fish Table 1. Marine protected areas in Kenya Name of MPA Park size (km 2) Reserve size (km 2 ) Year established Status Mombasa 10 200 1986 Operational Kisite/Mpunguti 28 (combined) 11 1978 Operational Malindi/Watamu 16 (combined) 245 1968 Operational Kiunga 0 250 1979 Semi-operational Diani 0 250 1995 Not operational 194 WorldFish Center Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs

Industry Act applies and is enforced by the FiD. Although no formal management is in place, destructive methods such as dynamiting and coral mining are proscribed. The FiD may enlist the support of the KWS, the police or the Kenyan navy in the enforcement of the Act. Nevertheless, due to the lack of control over how and by whom the unprotected resources will be used, there is gross over-exploitation. As a result, these reefs are the most degraded. In addition to their undisputed value in attracting tourists, Kenya s coral reefs are also important for fisheries, with the tourism industry as one of the main markets for fish products. The tourism industry has also created demand for other reef resources, such as corals and shells. Many species are probably being over-exploited and careless collection methods have led to serious habitat damage (UNEP 1998). The fisheries resources of the Kenyan coast are estimated at 6 000 to 9 000 metric tonnes (UNEP 1998). Approximately 80 per cent of the marine fish catch is demersal, mainly from shallow coastal waters and reefs. An estimated 4 000 to 4 500 artisanal fishers, using different types of gear including trap, hook and line, seining, gill netting spear fishing and gleaning, are involved. They catch mainly finfish of the families Lethrinidae, Siganidae (rabbit fish) Scaridae (parrot fish) and Lutjanidae (snappers). Crustaceans, including crabs, lobsters and prawns, as well as octopus are commonly collected from reefs, seagrass beds or mangroves during low tides. Commercial trawling activities take place off the reefs in deeper waters. A series of studies conducted in the 1990s (McClanahan 1994; McClanahan 1997; Weru 1994) indicates major differences between protected and unprotected coral reefs in terms of fish diversity, fish biomass, topographic complexity, coral cover and sea urchin predation. According to these studies, fish biomass was higher in protected than unprotected reefs. This is particularly true for fish in the families Balistidae, Lutjanidae, Lethrinidae, Pomacanthidae, Acanthuridae and Scaridae. However, some typical coral reef fish (such as Pomacentridae and Labridae) did not show significant differences in terms of diversity. In fact, they seem to prefer highly disturbed areas (snorkeling and diving sites). Fish density within the marine parks is 900 to 1 200 kg/ha, much higher than the fish density in reserves (500 kg/ha) and unprotected areas of reef (100 kg/ha). Parks, therefore, act as a refuge and breeding ground for many fish species. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the density and diversity of eight families of fish on reefs with different levels of protection. The removal by fishing of large species of predatory fish has resulted in sea urchin density being higher in both unprotected and partially protected areas than in protected areas (parks). Figure 1. Variation of density (number of fish/500 m 2 ) with different levels of reef protection (Adapted from McClanahan 1994) Policy Implications in the Management of Kenya s Marine Protected Areas 195

Figure 2. Diversity of fish (eight families) in areas with different levels of protection (Adapted from McClanahan 1994) Coral cover and topographic complexity were also much lower in unprotected areas (McClanahan 1994; McClanahan 1997). Stony coral cover was found to average between 30 per cent and 40 per cent (McClanahan 1994; McClanahan 1997). However, the 1997-98 El Nino event caused extensive bleaching that resulted in local mortality of up to 95 per cent. The reefs have a high topographic complexity that creates habitats for numerous other reef species, including 350 species of fish, 135 species of gastropods, at least 200 species of algae, and 12 species of echinoids. Socioeconomic implications In order to create and manage coral reefs as conservation areas, certain economic activities had to be discontinued in the designated areas. Fishers, who previously had had unlimited access and use of the marine resources, had to seek other livelihoods and/or locations. A number of the younger ones were able to convert their boats so that they could be used to ferry tourists interested in snorkeling and sailing to the newly protected areas. Those who could not adapt this way simply had to move away and compete with others at unprotected sites. The immediate reaction to this was strong opposition to the conservation movement. Even those who could adapt had to conform to certain standards in order to be licensed to carry tourists into the parks. These standards relate to safety equipment, such as life jackets and/or rings and fire extinguishers; insurance; and certificates of sea worthiness. In addition, crews had to pay park entry fees. Lack of managerial skills and shortage of funding often prevented individuals meeting these standards and hence doing business. Most of those who were able to comply and operate were actually foreigners or had foreign connections in tourist hotels. This increased the opposition to marine conservation areas by local stakeholders, and clashes with government policy were inevitable. Even within the government, there was conflict between the wildlife and fisheries policies, with the FiD licensing fishers and the KWS managing for conservation. This conflict was particularly apparent in the marine reserves, where both wildlife and fisheries law are implemented. About 30 years after the first MPA was established the KWS embarked on a serious exercise to develop management plans for the operational MPAs. The planning process was consultative, and collated views on management issues from as many stakeholders as possible. Although the conflicts are far from resolved, the KWS and FiD have realized the need to consult widely before rather than after the establishment of MPAs. They have also realized the potential for community-managed conservation areas. Educating the fishers on the value of MPAs as nursery grounds for fish has also resulted in some of them supporting the conservation movement. In conclusion, it is paramount to underscore the fact that, if not well researched, policy imple- 196 WorldFish Center Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs

mentation, although designed for positive gains, may have far reaching psychosocio, socioeconomic and ecological impacts. Conservation is about changing people s behavior positively and using resources wisely for the benefit of mankind in the present and for posterity. References Laws of Kenya. 1977. The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act: CAP 376. Government Printer, Nairobi, Kenya. Laws of Kenya. 1983. The Fish Industry Act: CAP 378. Government Printer, Nairobi, Kenya. McClanahan, T. R. 1994. Kenyan coral reef lagoon fish: effects of fishing, substrate complexity and sea urchins. Coral Reefs 13:231-241. McClanahan, T. R. 1997. Effects of fishing and reef structure on East African coral reefs. Proceedings of the 8 th International Coral Reef Symposium, 24-29 June 1996, Panama City. Coral Reefs 2:1533-1538. UNEP. 1998. Eastern Africa atlas of coastal resources 1. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. Weru, S. 1994. Optimum coral reef resource use: Case study of a marine protected area. University of Nairobi, Kenya. M.S. Thesis. Weru, S., G. Amboga, E. Verheij, A. Koyo, N. Muthiga, B. Kavu, J. Kareko and M. Litoro. 2001. In T. van t Hof. (ed.). Management plan: Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve. Kenya Wildlife Service, Mombasa, Kenya. Policy Implications in the Management of Kenya s Marine Protected Areas 197