Join our LinkedIn Group

Access to resources, opportunity and choice, power and voice, peace and conflict influence the evolution of poverty and gender roles in a community. These are further impacted by political and institutional arrangements, violence and insecurity, economic and social status, and environmental health. Planning and utilization of the coastal and seascape are expected to influence poverty outcomes in coastal zones of developing countries. These outcomes should be viewed from a gender lens to determine how the welfare of different gender and groupings, e.g., women, youth, and men in the coastal areas of developing countries, will be affected by coastal and seascape planning. One such marine spatial plan (MSP) is proposed in the coastal regions of Kenya. Once effected, the proposed MSP is likely to exclude the views and aspirations of the communities on planning and utilization of the marine space if views need to be clearly understood and articulated. To guard against the exclusion of the communities in the marine spatial plan, understanding the poverty and gender perspectives of these communities is imperative in determining how they would like the marine space planned and how they are likely to be influenced by the MSP. Using a sample of 452 households from Kwale County in Coastal Kenya, comprising 29% from Lunga Lunga, 23% from Matuga, and 48% from Msambweni sub-counties, primary data were collected to determine the communities’ livelihood sources, their proposals on how best to plan the marine space, and how they are likely to be influenced by proposed MSP. The survey data were supported by focused group discussions (FGDs) from 16 resource user groups. Findings show shared the common resources available in Kwale county include, marine resources, e.g., open waters, beaches, corals, seagrasses, and mangroves while coastal resources include farmlands, forests, settlements, minerals, and urban areas among others. The typical economic activities in the county include formal employment, tourism, fishing and fisheries related activities, crop and animal farming, small and peasantry trade, conservation, etc. Results also show mixed reactions on the abundance of the natural resources that communities depend on for their livelihoods, with some respondents indicating that the resources were dwindling due to extensive harvest. In contrast, others stated that there were fluctuations in the availability of the resources over time. Some respondents indicated that resources are being depleted due to changing climatic patterns, unsustainable fishing, e.g., use of ring nets, ineffective enforcement of existing rules, cutting down of trees along the river to pave the way for farming, etc., while others indicated that fishing was improving in the area. The respondents also indicated that they did not pay any money to access the resources, as the access was open and accessible. In some cases, however, the communities said that the access to the resources was governed by fishing laws.There were mixed reactions on whether women had the same opportunities in the community as men. Most men indicated that they had same opportunities as women, but women refuted the claim indicating that they experienced cultural and traditional barriers. Additionally, the opportunities available to men, in most cases were different from those available to women. For instance, in Gazi, the opportunities available for men included harvesting honey, fishing, and cutting of mangroves (when bans were lifted); while women practiced shrimp sourcing and bee keeping. Opportunities available to both men and women were fish trading, seaweed farming, and crop farming. The communities identified several issues that would prevent men, women, and youth from choosing any livelihood activity they would want to undertake. Some of these issues were delayed gratification/lack of instant benefits from the resources, cultural/traditional hindrances, inability to undertake certain livelihood activities e.g., lack of capital to start business enterprises, women shunning away from group responsibilities where men are involved, women wanting less committal positions with fewer responsibilities, etc. The communities were asked about the changes they were afraid of with the improved exploitation of the coastal areas and indicated that they feared land grabbing and evacuation due to proposed new developments, increase in pollution, uncertainties in benefit sharing when investments are made in the community, and their shrines being taken over by National Museums of Kenya as heritage sites. Others feared the destruction of seagrass beds by fisherfolk loss of employment, and increased poverty due to the lack of fishing boats could access deep sea fishing and enforcement of the gazettement of Diani area as a marine park which will take away their fishing areas. There were also of deterioration or degradation of seaweed farms, an increase in depth of the sea through dredging, which makes fishing harder, and more favorable treatment and permits to modern investors, e.g., Huawen fish processing factory, which has been licenced to use ring nets for anchovies whereas local fishers are not allowed to use the same.The communities in Kwale County have a variety of resource user associations, with the majority comprising of both women and men. In nearly all the resource user associations, women held leadership positions. In decision-making, the communities felt that women’s opinions were listened to, respected, and seriously considered on all matters. However, there were mixed reactions regarding women’s representation in national and county government administrations. Communities also indicated several challenges facing resource user associations, e.g., mistrust between members, between women and men of the groups/associations, and fishing beyond allocated fishing jurisdictions. The commonly reported conflicts included theft of fish from common project catch, fisherfolk and fish traders overpricing their catch during the recording of fish at landing sites, and some fisherfolk evading or failing to declare their catch. Boat operators were also reported as ferrying tourists belonging to hoteliers without the consent of the hoteliers, there was the sale of land without the consent of all members, corrupt practices in the groups with elections taking long to be conducted, and leaders not involving community members in times of decision making. Other sources of conflict were the removal of buoys serving as boundaries to community conserved area (CCA) by fisherfolk against the consent of the others and funds misappropriation/embezzlement and lack of transparency. The frequency of conflicts in these communities varied from group to group, with those of women in Makongeni and men in Chale occurring more frequently, while the rest took a long time to arise. The communities have devised different ways of resolving conflicts, including seeking the assistance from the County Fisheries department for Beach Management Units (BMUs), using internal group dispute resolution mechanisms, using court processes for land issues, suspending problematic members from associations, and addressing issues through the local administration.Most members of the communities in Kwale County were aware of the rules and regulations governing resource use and extraction, but some were not. The communities felt that there was laxity in enforcing these rules and regulations. They had developed local mechanisms, besides the formal ones by the government, to police the exploitation of the resources, e.g., use identification documents that give them some rights to exploit, and patrols to protect the mangrove forests from illegal extractors. Most people indicated that they knew their rights. Still there were mixed reactions on whether the local authorities, e.g., chiefs, ward representatives, and Members of the County Assembly (MCAs), respect the rights of the people, with the majority of the respondents indicating that local authorities respect their rights. At the same time a few said they do not. All communities indicated that there are different types of conflicts amongst resource users but rarely did the conflicts result in violence amongst individuals or groups. Nearly all communities indicated that they feel secure extracting resources. However, some feared the removal of seaweed farming ropes, theft of resources, and disruption of security by many youths who are into drugs.The communities also indicated that the cost of extraction of the resources has increased over the years. This high cost could be attributed to: resources becoming scarcer due to overexploitation, change in exploitation technologies, e.g., use of motorized boats, changing rainfall patterns and climate change, destruction of fishing habitats, high cost of living, competition (more people accessing of the resources), etc. In Kibwaga, for instance, there has been the destruction of the Kaya Tiwi which has robbed the community of the cultural value of praying in it. There is also drilling for mineral exploration which affected fish habitat such as corals and caused fish to migrate offshore. The communities also indicated some form of taxation by the county or national government on resources extracted. However, there were no extraction fees enforced at the community level. The communities used income from the extracted resources for general household expenditures with limited amounts spent on school fees since the County government had subsidized education and the cost of health for the community.Finally, most of the communities think about the future of the resources as they extract them and are conscious of the sustainability of the environment. At the current rate of resource extraction, the communities felt that the resources would still be available 20 years in the future provided the proper harvesting methods and tools are used. The communities were asked what is to be done to ensure sustainable extraction. Some suggested mangrove planting for carbon credits, seagrass conservation, and planting alternative trees such as Casuarina. In Makongeni and Chale, the communities suggested embracing alternatives, e.g., apiculture and mariculture. The groups in Kibuyuni advocated for the implementation of government-set regulations on resource use, and regulations of unwanted fishing gears e.g., spearguns. They also expressed their willingness to have motorized boats to fish in the deep sea and allow replenishment of the inshore waters. In Vanga, the communities were for awareness creation on resource extraction, community policing/enforcement, and adhering to set regulations e.g., a ban on cutting mangroves.

Poverty and gender perspectives in marine spatial planning: lessons from Kwale County in coastal Kenya

Resource Key: E6UBPSDK

Document Type: Report

Creator:

Author:

  • UNESCO
  • SwAM

Creators Name: {mb_resource_zotero_creatorsname}

Place:

Institution: UNESCO & Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM)

Date: 2024

Language: en

Access to resources, opportunity and choice, power and voice, peace and conflict influence the evolution of poverty and gender roles in a community. These are further impacted by political and institutional arrangements, violence and insecurity, economic and social status, and environmental health. Planning and utilization of the coastal and seascape are expected to influence poverty outcomes in coastal zones of developing countries. These outcomes should be viewed from a gender lens to determine how the welfare of different gender and groupings, e.g., women, youth, and men in the coastal areas of developing countries, will be affected by coastal and seascape planning. One such marine spatial plan (MSP) is proposed in the coastal regions of Kenya. Once effected, the proposed MSP is likely to exclude the views and aspirations of the communities on planning and utilization of the marine space if views need to be clearly understood and articulated. To guard against the exclusion of the communities in the marine spatial plan, understanding the poverty and gender perspectives of these communities is imperative in determining how they would like the marine space planned and how they are likely to be influenced by the MSP. Using a sample of 452 households from Kwale County in Coastal Kenya, comprising 29% from Lunga Lunga, 23% from Matuga, and 48% from Msambweni sub-counties, primary data were collected to determine the communities’ livelihood sources, their proposals on how best to plan the marine space, and how they are likely to be influenced by proposed MSP. The survey data were supported by focused group discussions (FGDs) from 16 resource user groups. Findings show shared the common resources available in Kwale county include, marine resources, e.g., open waters, beaches, corals, seagrasses, and mangroves while coastal resources include farmlands, forests, settlements, minerals, and urban areas among others. The typical economic activities in the county include formal employment, tourism, fishing and fisheries related activities, crop and animal farming, small and peasantry trade, conservation, etc. Results also show mixed reactions on the abundance of the natural resources that communities depend on for their livelihoods, with some respondents indicating that the resources were dwindling due to extensive harvest. In contrast, others stated that there were fluctuations in the availability of the resources over time. Some respondents indicated that resources are being depleted due to changing climatic patterns, unsustainable fishing, e.g., use of ring nets, ineffective enforcement of existing rules, cutting down of trees along the river to pave the way for farming, etc., while others indicated that fishing was improving in the area. The respondents also indicated that they did not pay any money to access the resources, as the access was open and accessible. In some cases, however, the communities said that the access to the resources was governed by fishing laws.There were mixed reactions on whether women had the same opportunities in the community as men. Most men indicated that they had same opportunities as women, but women refuted the claim indicating that they experienced cultural and traditional barriers. Additionally, the opportunities available to men, in most cases were different from those available to women. For instance, in Gazi, the opportunities available for men included harvesting honey, fishing, and cutting of mangroves (when bans were lifted); while women practiced shrimp sourcing and bee keeping. Opportunities available to both men and women were fish trading, seaweed farming, and crop farming. The communities identified several issues that would prevent men, women, and youth from choosing any livelihood activity they would want to undertake. Some of these issues were delayed gratification/lack of instant benefits from the resources, cultural/traditional hindrances, inability to undertake certain livelihood activities e.g., lack of capital to start business enterprises, women shunning away from group responsibilities where men are involved, women wanting less committal positions with fewer responsibilities, etc. The communities were asked about the changes they were afraid of with the improved exploitation of the coastal areas and indicated that they feared land grabbing and evacuation due to proposed new developments, increase in pollution, uncertainties in benefit sharing when investments are made in the community, and their shrines being taken over by National Museums of Kenya as heritage sites. Others feared the destruction of seagrass beds by fisherfolk loss of employment, and increased poverty due to the lack of fishing boats could access deep sea fishing and enforcement of the gazettement of Diani area as a marine park which will take away their fishing areas. There were also of deterioration or degradation of seaweed farms, an increase in depth of the sea through dredging, which makes fishing harder, and more favorable treatment and permits to modern investors, e.g., Huawen fish processing factory, which has been licenced to use ring nets for anchovies whereas local fishers are not allowed to use the same.The communities in Kwale County have a variety of resource user associations, with the majority comprising of both women and men. In nearly all the resource user associations, women held leadership positions. In decision-making, the communities felt that women’s opinions were listened to, respected, and seriously considered on all matters. However, there were mixed reactions regarding women’s representation in national and county government administrations. Communities also indicated several challenges facing resource user associations, e.g., mistrust between members, between women and men of the groups/associations, and fishing beyond allocated fishing jurisdictions. The commonly reported conflicts included theft of fish from common project catch, fisherfolk and fish traders overpricing their catch during the recording of fish at landing sites, and some fisherfolk evading or failing to declare their catch. Boat operators were also reported as ferrying tourists belonging to hoteliers without the consent of the hoteliers, there was the sale of land without the consent of all members, corrupt practices in the groups with elections taking long to be conducted, and leaders not involving community members in times of decision making. Other sources of conflict were the removal of buoys serving as boundaries to community conserved area (CCA) by fisherfolk against the consent of the others and funds misappropriation/embezzlement and lack of transparency. The frequency of conflicts in these communities varied from group to group, with those of women in Makongeni and men in Chale occurring more frequently, while the rest took a long time to arise. The communities have devised different ways of resolving conflicts, including seeking the assistance from the County Fisheries department for Beach Management Units (BMUs), using internal group dispute resolution mechanisms, using court processes for land issues, suspending problematic members from associations, and addressing issues through the local administration.Most members of the communities in Kwale County were aware of the rules and regulations governing resource use and extraction, but some were not. The communities felt that there was laxity in enforcing these rules and regulations. They had developed local mechanisms, besides the formal ones by the government, to police the exploitation of the resources, e.g., use identification documents that give them some rights to exploit, and patrols to protect the mangrove forests from illegal extractors. Most people indicated that they knew their rights. Still there were mixed reactions on whether the local authorities, e.g., chiefs, ward representatives, and Members of the County Assembly (MCAs), respect the rights of the people, with the majority of the respondents indicating that local authorities respect their rights. At the same time a few said they do not. All communities indicated that there are different types of conflicts amongst resource users but rarely did the conflicts result in violence amongst individuals or groups. Nearly all communities indicated that they feel secure extracting resources. However, some feared the removal of seaweed farming ropes, theft of resources, and disruption of security by many youths who are into drugs.The communities also indicated that the cost of extraction of the resources has increased over the years. This high cost could be attributed to: resources becoming scarcer due to overexploitation, change in exploitation technologies, e.g., use of motorized boats, changing rainfall patterns and climate change, destruction of fishing habitats, high cost of living, competition (more people accessing of the resources), etc. In Kibwaga, for instance, there has been the destruction of the Kaya Tiwi which has robbed the community of the cultural value of praying in it. There is also drilling for mineral exploration which affected fish habitat such as corals and caused fish to migrate offshore. The communities also indicated some form of taxation by the county or national government on resources extracted. However, there were no extraction fees enforced at the community level. The communities used income from the extracted resources for general household expenditures with limited amounts spent on school fees since the County government had subsidized education and the cost of health for the community.Finally, most of the communities think about the future of the resources as they extract them and are conscious of the sustainability of the environment. At the current rate of resource extraction, the communities felt that the resources would still be available 20 years in the future provided the proper harvesting methods and tools are used. The communities were asked what is to be done to ensure sustainable extraction. Some suggested mangrove planting for carbon credits, seagrass conservation, and planting alternative trees such as Casuarina. In Makongeni and Chale, the communities suggested embracing alternatives, e.g., apiculture and mariculture. The groups in Kibuyuni advocated for the implementation of government-set regulations on resource use, and regulations of unwanted fishing gears e.g., spearguns. They also expressed their willingness to have motorized boats to fish in the deep sea and allow replenishment of the inshore waters. In Vanga, the communities were for awareness creation on resource extraction, community policing/enforcement, and adhering to set regulations e.g., a ban on cutting mangroves.

Download Document