Quantitative measures for these objectives are notably difficult to come by, particularly where linkages between health or economic development and environment are not well understood and therefore assessed. This was the case in this assessment as well. The Guidelines note that in this case, recent studies and expert opinions may need to be relied on. This ranking was done by considering key informant views and recent quantitative assessments of the status of each environmental sector.
Annex 3 is therefore an index – adapted from the Guidelines – that presents a visual comparison and ranking of each environmental sector in relation to the general frequency of "degrading events" occurring in recent years, and the potential consequences to the achievement of USAID's objectives.
Ranking. All sectors are estimated to have potentially negative health, ecosystem, and economic/social impacts. Among the environmental sectors covered in this assessment, there are none experiencing "negligible" threats; all are facing more severe dangers. For health – land, water, urban, and to some extent forests are likely to have the most severe consequences and/or to pose the gravest threat to the Kenyan people. For ecosystems – land, forests, and aquatic systems face potentially "catastrophic" threats if swift remedial action is not implemented; wildlife and biodiversity faces critical consequences if changes are not enacted. For economic/social issues – wildlife, land, and forests pose the most severe problems for Kenya and its people.
6. Key opportunities
Although opportunities for USAID/Kenya to consider in its planning and implementation were not the primary focus of this report, suggestions from key informants and recent studies were collected as a normal part of the interviews and research. The ideas are more broad than what the Mission or any one donor or government agency can accomplish; however, the Mission may use them in identifying possibilities for new efforts when needed.
Some of these approaches are already being planned or implemented on a limited scale by various government agencies, donors, NGOs, or local groups. The Mission supported a study in 1999 to identify areas where other donors already operate; this document should inform the Mission's choices as to the opportunities presented below. Many approaches were identified in the 1994 Kenya National Environmental Action Plan. Nevertheless they stood out as issues that need further examination and action. These ideas are closely linked to the trends, threats and constraints identified in the above sections, but presented together in this section for ease of reference.
6.1. Cross-cutting opportunities
Changing attitudes about the roles and benefits of natural resources, including wildlife.
A key issue is the need to build on KWS' increased visibility at the community level and the acceptance the agency has gained in certain communities where wildlife management is a concern. Similarly, there is an excellent opportunity to build on increased media and public attention on NRM issues and governance, through social marketing research and environmental education campaign in support of program goals: adoption of available technologies, advocacy on environmental issues, etc. From the other side of the coin, KWS has also gained its own new perspective on the validity of community resources management and there is now a useful "window" of opportunity to build on. In the past, their support was limited to supplying funds. David Western pointed out that Kenyans as a nation know and appreciate their wildlife heritage much more than the people of many other nations, due to the educational role played over the decades by their wildlife clubs. This knowledge and awareness may make forward movement with adequate additional education much easier, if done properly.
Integrated land use planning.
Kara PagePage 3010/23/2006