Assessment Report on the Extractive Industries for ... · Assessment Report on the Extractive Industries for Sustainable Development in Kenya 4 1.0 Introduction Developing countries

EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN KENYA

FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

September 2014

Prepared by

Dr John Obiri

For

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Nairobi, KENYA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 4

2.1 SYNOPSIS OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................... 4

2.2 SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 5

3.0 OIL AND MINERAL POTENTIAL IN KENYA ................................................................. 5

3.1 HISTORICAL OUTLINE AND POTENTIAL OF OIL AND MINERALS IN KENYA ..................................... 5

4.0 INSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS REGARDING OIL AND

MINERAL EXTRACTION IN KENYA ............................................................................................. 6

4.1 INSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ON OIL EXTRACTION IN KENYA ......................... 6

4.1.1 Legal and Policy Framework on Oil Extraction .......................................................... 6

4.1.2 Institutional Framework on Oil Extraction ........................................................... 76

4.2 INSTITUTIONAL, LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ON MINES AND MINERAL EXTRACTION IN KENYA . 7

4.2.1 Legal and Policy Framework on Mines and Mineral Extraction ............................. 7

4.2.2 Institutional Framework on Mineral Extraction ..................................................... 8

4.2.3 Issues Regarding Provision of Mining Rights.......................................................... 8

4.3 ANCILLARY POLICIES ASSOCIATED WITH OIL AND MINERAL EXTRACTION ..................................... 8

4.3.1 The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) 1999 .................... 9

4.3.2 The Water Act, 2002 ............................................................................................... 9

4.3.3 The Public Health Act.............................................................................................. 9

4.3.4 The Land Planning Act ............................................................................................ 9

4.3.5 Physical Planning Act, 1999 .................................................................................. 10

5.0 METHODOLOGY AND FIELD WORK SURVEY APPROACHES .............................. 10

5.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 10

5.1.1 Baseline studies on natural resources. ................................................................. 10

5.1.2 Conflict analysis on existing nature resource. ...................................................... 10

5.1.3 Stakeholder analysis to profile critical actors in the natural resource-based conflicts............................................................................................................................. 11

5.1.4 Documenting conflict prevention strategies and peace building ......................... 11

Baseline studies on natural resources. ............................................................................. 11

5.2 FIELD WORK SURVEYS ................................................................................................. 1211

6.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 12

6.1 LAYOUT OF RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 12

6.2 EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES AND NATURE OF CONFLICTS IN TURKANA COUNTY .............................. 12

6.2.1 Current Conflicts in Turkana County ..................................................................... 13

6.2.2 Causes of the Conflicts ...................................................................................... 1615

6.2.3 Conflict Timelines and stakeholders in Turkana County .................................. 1716

6.2.4 Initiatives / Interventions undertaken to Prevent Conflicts Turkana County ... 1716

6.2.5 Strategies of managing the conflicts ................................................................ 1817 6.2.5.1 Future / Anticipated Conflicts in Turkana County..................................................................................... 1817

Assessment Report on the Extractive Industries for Sustainable Development in Kenya

2

6.3 EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES AND NATURE OF CONFLICTS IN KITUI COUNTY ................................ 1918

6.3.1 Current Conflicts in Kitui County ....................................................................... 2019

6.3.2 Causes of the Conflicts ...................................................................................... 2120

6.3.3 Conflict timelines in Kitui County ...................................................................... 2221

6.3.4 Initiatives / Interventions undertaken to Prevent Conflicts in Kitui County ..... 2322

6.3.5 Strategies of managing the conflicts ................................................................ 2322 6.3.5.1 Future / Anticipated Conflicts in Kitui County ................................................................................. 2422

6.4 EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES AND NATURE OF CONFLICTS IN TAITA TAVETA COUNTY .................... 2523

6.4.1 Current Conflicts in Taita Taveta County .......................................................... 2624

6.4.2 Causes of Conflicts ............................................................................................ 2725

6.4.3 Conflict Timeline in Taita Taveta County .......................................................... 2826

6.4.4 Initiatives / Interventions Undertaken to Prevent Conflict in Taita Taveta County 2927

6.4.5 Strategies of Managing Conflicts in Taita Taveta County ................................ 2927 6.4.5.1 Future / anticipated conflicts in Taita Taveta County ...................................................................... 2927

6.5 EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES AND NATURE OF CONFLICTS IN KWALE COUNTY .............................. 3028

6.5.1 Current Conflicts in Taita Taveta County .......................................................... 3129

6.5.2 Causes of Conflicts ............................................................................................ 3230

6.5.3 Conflict Timeline in Kwale County .................................................................... 3331

6.5.4 Initiatives / Interventions Undertaken to Prevent Conflict in Kwale County .... 3331

6.5.5 Strategies of Managing Conflicts in Kwale County .......................................... 3331 6.5.5.1 Future / Anticipated Conflicts in Kwale County ............................................................................... 3533

7.0 STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS, CRITICAL ACTORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP

3634

8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................. 3937

9.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 4038

APPENDIX 1: THE EXISTING OIL BASINS IN KENYA ........................................................ 4139

APPENDIX 2: THE OIL EXPLORATION BLOCKS IN KENYA ........................................... 4240

APPENDIX 3 - INTERVIEWED KEY PERSONS, ORGANISATIONS AND COMMUNITIES

........................................................................................................................................................... 4341

APPENDIX 4: THE MINERAL RICH MOZAMBIQUE BELT STRETCHING FROM

SOUTHERN TO EASTERN AFRICA ......................................................................................... 4644


3

ABBREVIATIONS

CANCO Community Action for Nature Conservation

CLOs Community Liaison Officers

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMCA Environmental Management Coordination Act

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GIS Geographical Information System

KCSPOG Kenya Civil Society Platform on Oil and Gas

KOGA Kenya Oil and Gas Association

MCA Member of County Assembly

MEWNR Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources

MOEP Ministry of Energy and Petroleum

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MTP2 Mid Term Plan II

NAFFAC National Fossil Fuels Advisory Committee

NEMA National Environmental Management Authority

NGO Non Governmental Organisation

NLC National Lands Commission

NOCK National Oil Corporation of Kenya

PIEA Petroleum Institute of East Africa

PSCs Production Sharing Contracts

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

RCA Rapid Conflict Analysis

SRM Stakeholder Relationship Map

SWOT Strengths Weakness Opportunities and Treats

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

http://www.cancokenya.org/

https://twitter.com/KCSPOG

http://www.petroleum.co.ke/


4

1.0 Introduction

Developing countries face a major challenge in the management of land and natural resources.

More often than not, exploitation of resources such as oil, gas and minerals has led to conflicts.

Such conflicts largely arise over issues such as who should have access and control of these

resources, who can influence decisions regarding their allocation etc.. These factors are

particularly important in Kenya today as the country has recently made several discoveries in

oil and minerals. Alongside this, Kenya ushered in a new constitution whose implementation

touches on many challenges such as citizenry participation in national issues, equity in resource

participation and development that enhances social livelihoods.

If the natural resources of Kenya are well managed, this will adequately address the Mid Term

Plan II (MTP2) of 2013-2017 that aims to transform its pathway to devolution, socio-economic

development, equity and national cohension. Ultimately this will strongly boost the long term

plan of Vision 2030. Alternatively, if the resources are poorly managed, Kenya could follow

the unfortunate resource abuse that has plagued many developing countries. In order to prevent

the latter, UNDP under its Corporate Strategic Plan of 2014-2017, seeks to ensure that the

natural endowments of Kenya benefit all Kenyans in terms of inclusivity and sustained socio-

economic development.

In this regard, this inception report seeks to:

Collect relevant data on the status of natural resources (Oil, gas and other minerals) and

conflicts (actual or potential, real or perceived) in Kenya

Assess the nature and extent of natural resources based disputes and conflicts in selected

localities / counties in Kenya

Interact and profile critical actors (communities, multi-national and local corporations,

Government, activists, CSOs etc) in the natural resources-based conflicts, the powers

and influences

Understand and document various local and national level initiatives, strategies, plans

etc. for preventing natural resources driven conflicts (mediation, negotiations, peace

committees etc) and peace building in conflict regions.

2.0 Purpose and Scope of the Assessment

2.1 Synopsis of the Terms of Reference

In order to meet the above objectives, the consultant, in conjunction with UNDP guidance will

perform the following tasks:

Undertake a desk review of background information, literature and data on natural

resources in Kenya focusing on extractive industry

Collect relevant data on the status of natural resources (Oil, gas and other minerals) and

conflicts ( actual or potential, real or perceived) in the country

Embark on field studies to assess the nature and extent of natural resources based

disputes and conflicts in selected localities / counties in Kenya.

Undertake stakeholder-analysis in the extractives industry and in the conflict prevention

and peace building sector i.e. identify, interact with and profile the goals, powers and

influences of critical actors (communities, multi-national and local corporations,

Government, activists, CSOs etc)

Understand and document various local and national level initiatives, strategies, plans

toward prevention of natural resources driven conflicts (mediation, negotiations, peace

committees etc) and peace building in those particular regions.

Present the research findings to UNDP management and critical stakeholders

Submit a final report on the status of natural resources and conflicts in Kenya


5

2.2 Scope of the Assessment

The assignment will take a total of 30 days. This assignment will be covered in various areas

in four counties in Kenya: Turkana, Kitui, Taveta and Kwale. These are rural counties that are

plagued with poverty, limited and almost neglected development in the past. The assessment

will be based on the natural non-renewable sources. The field work will be augmented with

meetings and presentations in the UNDP Gigiri Office in Nairobi.

3.0 Oil and Mineral Potential in Kenya

Revenue from mining activities in Kenya currently contributes about one per cent of GDP.

However in the near future this will drastically increase as new vast reserves of oil, coal, natural

gas and other minerals are discovered and explorations extended. The country is endowed with

over 120 types of minerals that are categorized into seven groups as outlined in the First

Schedule of the Mineral Bill 2014. These are;

construction and industrial minerals (53),

precious stones (5),

precious metals group (8),

semi-precious stone group (22),

base and rare metal group (35),

gaseous mineral (3),

fuel mineral group 3 (e.g. coal and uranium).

The petroleum potential is enormous and best depicted by the existing reserves in four large-

sized sedimentary basins that span the country. These are the Lamu, Anza, Mandera, and

Tertiary Rift basins (see Appendix 1). The latter is comprised of the Turkana and Lokichar

Basins that have yielded positive amounts of exploitable oil reserves. Similarly a large potential

exist with coal and natural gas. These form a major part of the plan by the Ministry of Energy

and Petroleum (MOEP) to increase power generation from the current 1,660MW to 5,000MW

by 2016.

3.1 Historical Outline and Potential of Oil and Minerals in Kenya

Historically, the earliest forms of exploitation in the extractive industry were minerals, largely

gold. Until recently, mineral extraction and regulation was under the Department of Mines and

Geology that started its work in 1930s through the Mining Ordinance of 1933. The current

Mining Act commenced in October 1940 and was revised twice in 1972 and 1987. This has

now evolved into the Mining Bill of 2014 which is currently being reviewed in Parliament. The first oil exploration in Kenya started in the 1950’s with British Petroleum (BP) and Shell

exploring along the Lamu coast in 1954. Although many wells were drilled, they were not fully

evaluated or completed for production despite several indications of oil staining and untested

zones showing gas. Over the next fifty years, following the 1950s initial explorations, many

companies e.g. Chevron, Esso, Amoco, Total, Petro-Canada undertook numerous tests in all

the oil basins without much success.

In 1986, the petroleum exploration and production legislation in Kenya was revised to provide

suitable incentives and flexibility to attract international exploration interest in the country. This

spurred more exploration in the late 1980s into the 1990s. Although fluorescence and gas were

reported in some wells, none of these wells encountered commercial reserves. Biostratigraphic

studies suggest that these wells may not have penetrated deep to test the Neocomian-Lower

Albian sediments which comprise the source reservoir.

In 1991, National Oil Corporation initiated a new long-term strategy to re-evaluate the existing

geological, geophysical and geochemical data on the the sedimentary basins in Kenya. This


6

initiative invigorated oil exploration into the early 2000s that led to the signing of new

Production Sharing Contracts in numerous blocks particularly the Lamu Basin.

In August 2000 the Corporation commissioned the Tertiary Rift Study, which was completed

in March 2001. Tertiary rift study led to quantification of potential oil resource and reservoir

rock units in the study area as well as the petroleum system at play in the sub-basins. In 2012,

commercially exploitable quantities of oil were found in the Tertiary Rift Basin around the

Lokichar and Turkana Basin and this has spurred the current oil interests in Kenya. Inevitably

these interests carry along with them both positive and negative factors of significance to the

Kenyan society. Among the negative factors are conflicts on equity distribution of the oil

resource and re-allocation of pastoralist communities from traditional grazing lands. While

these conflicts may not be critical currently, it is prudent to proactively anticipate them and plan

ahead in case of their emergence.

4.0 Institutional, Legal and Policy Frameworks Regarding Oil and Mineral

Extraction in Kenya

The recent decade has seen a huge interest in the oil, gas and mineral mining industry in Kenya.

For instance the mining bill of 2013 is the first major review of the 1940 mining Act. This bill

has inbuilt stipulations that aim at safeguarding the interest of Kenyan citizens1. Further, the

bill has been drafted after months of strong lobbying pitting local mining interests against the

foreign interests. Similar interests are in the oil industry whose policies regarding exploitation

continues to undergo drastic changes particularly since Tullow Oil, Africa Oil and Centric

Energy announced oil discoveries in 2012.

4.1 Institutional, Legal and Policy Framework on Oil Extraction in Kenya

4.1.1 Legal and Policy Framework on Oil Extraction

The legal framework for oil and gas in Kenya is currently the Petroleum (Exploration and

Production) Act CAP 308 of 1986. This is currently being reviewed to be replaced by the

Petroleum Bill 2014. The bill will upgrade the old Petroleum Act of 1986 to meet the ideals of

the new constitution. For instance it will review the distribution of oil, gas and coal proceeds

between the national Government, county Government and the local communities which have

tentatively been placed at 80%, 15% and 5% respectively. Despite the goodwill of this 5% share

addressing local needs in terms of their economic expectations, it could also be a bone of

contention if distribution within the community is not done equitably. Furthermore, the new bill

will determine exactly how the local communities are to be paid this fund, and how its use will

differ from the similar fund also given to the county goverment - that the same communities

live in.

A draft Energy Policy and draft Energy Bill have also been prepared that will in due course

replace parts of the existing energy framework with regards to downstream petroleum issues,

electric power generation, renewable energies and coal fuel. Currently the Ministry of Energy

and Petroleum (MOEP) offers the grants and rights on the exploration and production of oil.

Under the exisiting Petroleum Act (1986), the Cabinet Secretary (CS) grants non-exclusive

exploration permits to carry out geological and geophysical surveys in respect to any open

block. The CS may grant more than one exploration permit for any block.

1 However some stakeholders like the Kenya African Miners Association still feel it does not adequately cover the

local interests


7

4.1.2 Institutional Framework on Oil Extraction

The Ministry of Energy and Petroleum (MOEP) is the main institution regulating both upstream

oil and gas, downstream petroleum, electric power (including renewable energy and

geothermal), as well as the coal sector. MOEP’s powers include establishing agreements on

petroleum exploration and production with companies on behalf of the Government. These

agreements largely involve Producting Sharing Contracts (PSCs)2 that the Ministry administers

through competitive bidding process or through bilateral negotiations.

Closely linked to MOEP is the National Oil Corporation of Kenya (NOCK) which acts as an

instrument of Government policy in matters related to oil and gas and gives advice to Kenyan

energy policymakers. It is also involved in oil exploration and currently explores 3 of the 46

oil blocks (Appendix 2) in Kenya. In addition it compiles national energy data, runs petroleum

laboratories and leads efforts in the development of alternative fuels. There has been an inter-

ministerial body known as the National Fossil Fuels Advisory Committee (NAFFAC) that used

to oversee the oil and gas sector. This has been the licensing review body for oil and gas in

Kenya that advises the Cabinet Secretary on matters of oil and coal operations. However,

NAFFAC has been restructured to fit within the new Petroleum Bill.

Other institutions in the oil industry include the Petroleum Institute of East Africa (PIEA) which

has been the main professional body for the oil industry in the region. PIEA runs School of

Petroleum Studies. More recently, the Kenya Oil and Gas Association (KOGA) has been

established to support private sector interests specifically in the upstream sector. With regards

to civil society, the Community Action for Nature Conservation (CANCO) has pioneered oil

and gas community, stakeholder engagement and advocacy since 2009. More recently the

Kenya Civil Society Platform on Oil and Gas (KCSPOG) has been formed to support awareness

and advocacy among CSOs in oil-affected regions. These civil organizations have raised

various disputes and conflicts, with regards to the extractive industry, which will be reviewed

in this assignment.

4.2 Institutional, Legal and Policy Framework on Mines and Mineral Extraction in Kenya

4.2.1 Legal and Policy Framework on Mines and Mineral Extraction

Until recently mining activities in the country were handled by the Ministry of Environment,

Water and Natural Resources (MEWNR) through the Department of Mines and Geology. The

latter started on 1st January, 1933 through the Mining Ordinance of 1933. For over a long,

period mining was controlled under the Mining Act of 1940. This Act was only revised on two

occasions 1972 and 1987 but recently it was replaced by the Mining Bill 2014. In its preamble,

the Mining Bill 2014 declares that all minerals within the Kenyan territory are the property of

the Republic of Kenya and vested in the Government in trust for the people of Kenya. The

Cabinet Secretary administers this act with regards to provision of licenses, setting agreements

between the Government and miners etc. The Mining Bill 2014 deals with the minerals

indicated in the first schedule and also recognises different types of licenses and permits. These

include the prospecting license, retention license and mining license for large scale miners with

prospecting permits and mining permits offered to small-scale operators. The 2014 Bill makes

two recommendations with regards to capital outlay in mining. First, it puts the royalty charges

2 PSC is an agreement between the Government and the oil exploration contractor stating the conditions of oil

exploration and production and particularly how the profits from the oil will be shared between the parties. Under

the Kenya Petroleum Act, a PSC has an implied term that the contractor will give preference to the employment

and training of Kenyan nationals in petroleum operations and give preference to the use of products, equipment

and services locally available. This is one strategy that helps to handle local expectations in the resource and hence

remove any tension or conflicts.

http://www.energy.go.ke/

http://www.petroleum.co.ke/

http://www.cancokenya.org/

https://twitter.com/KCSPOG


8

on mining companies between 5-11% depending on the type of mineral extracted. Secondly it

puts a mandatory Kenya Government holding in mining companies at 35%. These two articles

in the bill are a current contention to the mining companies including the Kenya Chamber of

Mines who contest the percentage figures charged are high and need to be lowered. Further to

this, the bill proposes that the division of financial resources from minerals be divided in the

ratios of 75%, 20% and 5% for the National Government, County Government and the local

communities.

4.2.2 Institutional Framework on Mineral Extraction

The Ministry of Mines has two directorates that regulate mines and mining activities: the

Directorate of Mining and the Directorate of Geological Surveys. The Constitution provides for

the establishment of the National Mining Corporation3 which is the investment arm of the

Government in respect to minerals. To be established also is the Minerals and Metals

Commodity Exchange that shall facilitate efficiency and security in mineral trade transactions.

An important part of this act with regards to conflict resolution is the establishment of the

Mining tribunal that will act on ad hoc basis to hear and determine matters regarding mining

rights.

4.2.3 Issues Regarding Provision of Mining Rights

The Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Mines may grant, deny or revoke a mineral right.

Rights may be offered via licenses or permits in the form of certificates. Prospecting and

retention licenses last 3 years while mining licenses for 25 years. Small scale operators are

offered prospecting permits that last for 5 year and mining permits extend to 10 years. These

time allocations have been sources of contention to the various stakeholders and issues

regarding this will be covered in draft assessment report of this assignment.

In addition to obtaining the mining rights, prospective miners need to seek the consent of the

National Land Commission (NLC4) and the relevant state agencies in regions or areas where

the mines are found. They include the County Governments, Ministry of Environmental and

Natural Resources, the Wildlife and Forestry conservation bodies. In this regard compliance

with the Wildlife Act, Forests Act 2007, Water Act 2002, and the Environmental Management

Coordination Act (EMCA5) of 1999 have to be met. These acts are outlined in detail under the

next section.

Mineral rights on private and community lands cannot be granted without the express consent

of the private owner or community. Owners of private land or the community (or NLC for weak

communities that need presentation) may enter into agreement with the Government and

applicants of mineral rights with regards to compensation payments.

4.3 Ancillary Policies Associated with Oil and Mineral Extraction

These are policies that provide necessary support to the Petroleum Act, the Energy Bill (2013)

and Mineral Bill (2014) by ensuring that the extractive activities are undertaken in a sound

manner that does not impinge the environment but strengthens sustainable development. The

policies are largely stipulated in the following Acts:

3 This is akin to the National Oil Corporation of Kenya under the oil industry 4 The National Land Commission of Kenya is an independent Government commission established under the

Constitution of Kenya to manage public land on behalf of the national and county Governments. 5 The EMCA 1999 act stipulates that no prospecting may proceed before a mineral right applicant obtains an EIA

report, a social heritage assessment report and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which ensure that the

environment is not compromised by the mining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Kenya


9

4.3.1 The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) 1999

The act provides a coordination mechanism for various sectoral laws dealing with elements of

the environment. Section 58 of the Act provides for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

for all projects, programmes or policies likely to have adverse environmental impact. The

projects that must undergo a mandatory EIA as outlined in the second schedule of the Act. This

is the case with all the project activities of the extractive industry starting from prospecting,

exploration, mining to the actual downstream production of the refined natural resource. Under

the EMCA 1999:

A project proponent shall not implement a project likely to have negative environmental

impact, or for which an EIA is required, unless an EIA has been concluded and approved

in accordance with the law.

No licensing authority under any law in Kenya shall issue a trading, commercial or

development permit or license for any project for which an EIA is required unless the

applicant produces an EIA license issued by the National Environmental Management

Authority (NEMA).

The Act also deals with pollution prevention and waste management both whichare associated

with the extractive industry as it generates different categories of waste during operation. These

waste is often a bone of contention and source of conflict in communities; and these will be

investigated in this assignment.

4.3.2 The Water Act, 2002

This Act is concerned with sustainable management of water resources. It prohibits activities

that may cause pollution of water sources for domestic, industrial, agricultural or recreational

use. Water polluted from mining, and particularly gold, has frequently resulted to disputes

between miners and downstream water users in Kenya. Section 25 of the Act requires a permit

to be obtained for any individual drawing large amounts of water from a water resource or

discharging any form of pollutant in a water resource.

4.3.3 The Public Health Act

This Act seeks to secure and maintain public health. Some of its provisions relevant to the

extractive industry include prohibition of destructive activities such as oil spillage, dust and air

pollution or any other condition deemed injurious or dangerous to human health. According to

Part IX Section 115, no person will be allowed to cause any nuisance or condition liable to be

injurious or dangerous to human health. Section 116 requires local authorities to take all lawful,

necessary and reasonably practicable measures to maintain their jurisdictions clean and sanitary

to prevent conflicts that may lead to any injurious condition to human health.

4.3.4 The Land Planning Act

This Act is the overall planning law for land on both agricultural and constructed environments.

Under this Act, all development or changes to land use must be approved by a planning

authority. Increasingly, this is anticipated in Kenya as vast amounts of pastoral grazing lands

are converted to mining zones particularly in Kwale, Turkana and Kitui Counties. Section 9 of

the subsidiary legislation (the development and use of land legislation 1961) stipulates that

before any plans are submitted to the Cabinet Secretary for approval, steps should be taken to

acquaint the owners of any land affected by such plans and that public views should be obtained

and considered in decision making. This is meant to reduce conflict between or among

competing interests.


10

4.3.5 Physical Planning Act, 1999

This act provides for the preparation of a physical development plan for the purpose of

improving the land and providing proper physical development of the land. It also includes

other necessities such as ideal transportation, public utilities, commercial, industrial, residential

and recreational areas, including parks. It also makes provision for future land use for buildings

or any other purposes. The Physical Planning Act provides for the control of development and

use of land in particular areas, especially where a project may involve sub-divisions or

amalgamations of land parcels or located in an area otherwise reserved for other use. In other

words, this Act renders harmony in land use issues so as to avoid any type of conflict. This Act

will come into play in all the four counties where heavy mining and oil extraction is envisaged

as these counties are rural based, with little previous development, and therefore will require

substantial physical planning.

5.0 Methodology and field work survey approaches

The assessment was conducted through four main tasks linked to the TOR objectives and each

with its set of methods as outlined below.

5.1 Methodology

Different methodological designs were employed across the four key tasks that were

investigated in this assignment.

5.1.1 Baseline studies on natural resources.

This involved compiling relevant baseline information on extractive natural resources. Kenya

is endowed with oil, gas and numerous minerals whose current status with regard to quantity

was investigated. These natural resources include gold, coal, titanium, iron ore, zircon, niobium,

chromate, silica sand, gemstones, manganese, diatomite gypsum and fluorspar. Desk top

literature reviews particularly online portals on issues concerning the natural resource base, the

resource area, extraction potential and conflict issues was explored.

5.1.2 Conflict analysis on existing nature resource.

This involved identifying and describing the conflict, its boundaries and interrelationships. The

tasks included determining:

(1) Conflict timeline the origins or history and chronology of events. This was done using the

Focus Group Discussions and. unstructuredinterviews . The history of a conflict was examined

to enahnce understanding of the sequence of events that led to the conflict and the envisaged

solutions.

(2) The types of issues of conflict were investigated using Rapid Conflict Assessment (RCA)

tool alongside a open-ended questionaire and an analysis strategy design table developed.

(3) The causes and effects of conflicts was be explored via the Conflict tree and Root Cause

Analysis technique in conjunction with a closed-ended questionaire.

(4) Mapping conflict over resource use. To map geographically the natural resources and the

conflict over resource use that exist or may exist in the future. This was be done using

Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques in conjunction with research tools (e.g.

sketch maps, transect profiles) literature review, key informant interviews and existing

Government reports.

A literature review of various case studies, Government reports on mines and social livelihoods

was also conducted. In addition field studies that used rural appraisal methods with tools such

as web diagrams, time lines, various mapping, techniques and matrices were employed.


11

5.1.3 Stakeholder analysis to profile critical actors in the natural resource-based conflicts.

This process involved an analysis to determine:

(a) the stakeholders

(b) the relationship amongst the stakeholders (stakeholder matrix and stakeholder

relationship map),

(c) stakeholders’ positions and interests,

(d) an analysis of the 3Rs and production of a 3Rs matrix,

(e) power and influence analysis.

The proposed methods in stakeholder analysis involved research tools that included; venn

diagrams, sketch maps, conflict time lines and role plays, drawing up simple lists and analysing

other activities that outlined the causes of the conflict.

5.1.4 Documenting conflict prevention strategies and peace building

The existence of any initiative or strategies of conflict prevention was documented. Among the

common strategies that were checked included:

(a) the use of force and coercion to obtain certain interests over others,

(b) withdrawal or avoidance of conflict,

(c) accommodating the interest of others over self interests,

(d) compromising and making sacrifices to arrive at a mutually agreeable outcome and

(e) collaboration that seeks a solution of mutual gain.

These involved the use of research via tools such as conflict time lines, focus group discussion,

key informant interviews and questionaires administering.

Table 1: Summary of methodology showing the research design and data collection tool used

for the set tasks

Task/Activity Research Design Data collection tool

Baseline studies on

natural resources.

Evaluation /

Descriptive

Literature reviews

(various reports e.g.

international, national

& County CSOs.)

Conflict analysis on

existing nature

resource

Evaluation /

Descriptive

Questionnaires, FGD,

Field survey

Stakeholder

analysis to profile

critical actors in the

natural resource-

based conflicts.

Participatory, Cross

sectional surveys and

Correlation designs

PRA6, Key informants,

Questionnaires, FGD,

Field survey

Documenting

conflict prevention

strategies and peace

building

Evaluation,

Participatory designs

Questionnaires,

SWOT7, FGD, Field

survey

6 PRA – Participatory Rural Appraisal methods 7 SWOT – Strengths Weakness Opportunities and Threats analysis


12

5.2 Field work surveys

Reconnaissance surveys were done in various locations in the four designated counties studied.

In Turkana, field survey covered regions with the Turkana and Lokichar basins and include the

communities close to the wells at Ngamia, Ekales and Twiga. Mui Basin in Kitui County

visited; particularly the areas of Zombe and Tseikuru in Mwingi. In Taveta County the areas

included Mwatate, Kishushe and Wanjala. During the field survey questionnaires were

administered, focus group discussions held including key informant interviews. The conflict

actors and their affiliations are interviewed are indicated in Appendix 3. The work done by

County Peace Committees was also be examined with regard to natural resource use, their

resolution of past conflicts and role in future nature-based conflicts.

6.0 Results

6.1 Layout of Results

This section represents the analysis of data from baseline survey, field survey, and questionnaire

interviews including those from key informants. The results are divided into four broad sections

categorised by the four counties of Turkana, Kitui, Taveta and Kwale. For each county the

results outline the nature of conflicts, their causes, the interventions undertaken and the

strategies of managing them. This first draft assessment report gives an in-depth analysis of two

Counties - Turkana and Kitui. The entire analysis of the four counties will be given in the final

assessment report.

6.2 Extractive Industries and Nature of Conflicts in Turkana County

Turkana County is endowed with both oil and mineral ores. The minerals include gold, copper,

zinc, mercury, rubies and green gemstones. The geographical positions of these resources are

indicated in Figure 1 below.


13

Figure 1: Extractive natural resources and their distribution in Turkana County

6.2.1 Current Conflict in Turkana County

All stakeholders in the oil industry stated a total of 19 conflict issues that were linked to the oil

exploration and exploitation in Turkana. These conflict issues and their ranking, in terms of the

percentage of stakeholders who identified them as a issue of concern or problem, are indicated

in Figure 2. The most mentioned issue is the disagreement between communities and Tullow

Oil company. This disagreement was mentioned by 87% of the stakeholders who largely stated

that there is limited information given to the locals by the Tullow Oil company. As such the

locals feel neglected / ignored or undermined. Another conflict of importance is land disputes

between individuals. This conflict was mentioned by 70% of the stakeholders who stated that

the oil exploration activities had attracted many people from other counties to whom the local

Turkana villagers (and clan elders) had sold land and later reclaimed the same land from the

buyers on the premise that they (the locals) did not know the consequences of the selling. This

is a serious issue that is escalating and is particularly prevalent in Lokichar area where the area

Member of County Assembly (MCA) alluded to weekly new cases on land conflict. Most of

the land under conflict, is the land runing alongside the main road between Lodwar and

Lokichar where in many places plots have been marked. A further key conflict, mentioned by

52% of the stakeholders, is the lack of security in the villages. Most security personel have been

deployed in the oil fields. This has posed a serious security risk to the local communities


14

because they have been left vulnerable to outside raiders and criminals in general. Similarly

52% of stakeholders stated that the declining grazing land is an issue of conflict since livestock

are now confined to smaller regions that cannot meet the normadic spread. A map indicating

declined grazing areas particularly in south Turkana is shown in Figure 3

There were six other conflict issues each of which was mentioned by less than 20% of the

stakeholders. These issues include declining fishing ground along the lake shores, child labour

in comunities around oil fields, blocked migration of livestock and air pollution. Although these

are currently considered a minor problem, in future, they are likely to increase or escalate as

exploration increases and moves to production.

The 19 areas of conflict can be categorised into three key issues: substantitve issues,

relationship issues and procedural issues as as indictated in Figure 4. The substantive issues are

driven by differences in the use, distribution or accessibility to the natural resources. This is

further coupled with divergent interests or needs. Procedural issues are largely about the way

decisions are made such that they cause poor stakeholder consultantion (leading to resentment),

poor / inadequate information sharing (that results in mistrust) and limited cross-sectoral

planning/coordination which results to overlapping roles and competing goals. Relationship

issues are about status, power and influence coupled with distorted perception and negative

attitudes to other parties. Of particular interest is the relationship between the Turkana and local

investors from outside Turkana County – particularly the neighbouring Pokot; that between the

Tullow Oil and the county Government and also the future intra-Turkana conflict (based on the

South – North Turkana alignments).

Figure 2: The conflict issues and the percentages of stakeholders concerned with the issues.

0102030405060708090

100

Co

mm

vs

Tullo

w O

il…

Lan

d d

isp

ute

s

Po

or

secu

rity

Re

du

ced

gra

zin

g la

nd

Turk

ana

vs P

oko

t

Ch

iefs

& C

LO v

s C

om

m

Nat

. Go

vt v

s C

ou

nty

…

Low

Jo

b q

uo

tas

at T

O

Lan

dle

ssn

ess

Po

or

po

licie

s an

d la

ws

Intr

a-Tu

rkan

a

Loss

of

cust

om

& t

rad

s.

Un

fair

TO

pro

cure

me

nt

Fish

erie

s lo

ss

Fam

ily b

reak

/Pro

sti.

Ch

ild la

bo

ur

TO v

s C

ou

nty

Go

vt

Blo

cked

mig

rati

on

Po

lluti

on

%o

f re

spo

nd

ants

Types of Conflicts

What are the current conflicts in Turkana County?


15

Figure 3: Turkana County showing areas under oil exploration that subsequently limit grazing

land.


16

Figure 4: The oil based issues in Turkana as catergorised along substantial, relational and

procedural issues.

6.2.2 Causes of the Conflicts

A total of nine factors were mentioned as the causes of conflict. The two key factors mentioned

by the stakeholders were the lack of community participation in the initial deliberations on the

matter regarding the oil resource (stated by 76% of the stakeholders) and misinformation

reaching the local communities as stated by 47% of the stakeholders. An outline of the entire

causes is indicated in Figure 5.

Substantive Issues

land dispute

Declining grazing land / landlessness

Low job offers &Unfair procurement for locals

Insecurity

Child labour

Blocked animal migration

Pollution

Procedural Issues

Poor policy & law

Tullow Oil's poor transparency to communities

Poor coordinatin of Chiefs , CLOs and Communities

dsdsd

Relationship Issues

Turkana Vs Pokot

South vs North (Intra-Turkana),

National vs County Gov

Family breaks/Prostitution

Tullow Oil vs County Gov


17

Figure 5: The causes of oil-based conflicts in Turkana County

6.2.3 Conflict Timelines and stakeholders in Turkana County

Over 80% of the stakeholders stated that the oil-based conflicts in Turkana began as soon as

Tullow Oil started their exploration work in 2010. Since then other events have increased the

conflicts either directly or indirectly. A conflict timeline outlining the significant times when

key confict or conflict driving issues occurred is indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: Conflict timeline indicating the key periods of conflict or events triggering conflicts

6.2.4 Initiatives / Interventions undertaken to Prevent Conflicts Turkana County

Conflict prevention initiatives in natural resource extraction in Turkana are not as yet fully

explored. 55% of the stakeholders stated that they were aware of conflict prevention initiatives.

01020304050607080

Co

mm

no

t in

volv

ed

Loca

ls n

ot

info

rmed

/mis

info

rmed

Infl

ux

of

no

n lo

cals

Loca

ls ig

no

red

by

TO

No

Tit

le d

eed

s

Un

fullf

illed

Pro

mis

es

Fore

ign

ers

we

re f

irst

use

d

Cla

ns

clai

m s

om

e la

nd

Co

mm

un

itie

s in

sin

cere

% o

f R

esp

on

dan

ts

Causes of conflicts

What are the causes of conflicts in Turkana County?

Year / Time Key Event Linked to Conflict or Conflict Trigger

2010 Jan-June Mine exploration begins

2010 Jul- Dec Oil exploration mast erected and local expectations rise

2011 Jan-June Land sales start around Lokichar

region

2012 March President Kibaki announces oil discovery in Ngamia 1 expectations heighten

2012 Jul- Dec Land plot demarcation along Lodwar - Lokichar road increase

2013 October Communities block roads protesting against Tullow Oil for

missing out on jobs & tenders

2013 Jul- Dec Community Liasion Officers

established

2014 Jan-June First Intra-Turkana divergence (North vs South variations)

2014 Jul-Dec Local demand for more information and participation in oil

issues


18

For instance at the onset of oil exploration there was no office dealing with community issues

however a community liaison office was set up in Lodwar. This was followed by employment

of Community Liaison Officers (CLOs) to deal with community grievances. Even though 55%

of the stakeholders were aware of conflict prevention initiatives, 95% were not happy with these

initiatives.

Figure 6: Different types of conflict prevention initiatives and percentages of stakeholders

suggesting the initiatives

6.2.5 Strategies of managing the conflicts

Most of the stakeholders were not satisfied with the interventions of conflict prevention and

suggested other interventions that are outlined in Figure 6. Most of them emphasised

enhancement of community participation in the oil resource deliberations and increasing clarity

on the decisions undertaken, particularly those on oil sharing.

6.2.5.1 Future / Anticipated Conflicts in Turkana County

Stakeholders had various views regarding the future conflicts in the oil industry in Turkana

County. Current conflicts such as land and resource distribution are envisaged to continue in

the future. In future, conflict most foreseen by most stakeholders, is that of a displaced Turkana

community with space scarcity and degraded pastoral-cultural norms. Other new conflicts such

as pollution, armed oil cartels, intra-Turkana class issues, environmental degradation including

terrorism are also envisaged as outlined in Figure 7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Incr

eas

e C

om

m.

Invo

lve

me

nt

Cla

rity

/Op

en

ess(

Pu

blic

Bar

aza)

Cla

rity

on

Oil

ben

efit

shar

ing

Sen

siti

zati

on

Be

tter

MO

U/C

SR

Co

mm

on

Pro

per

tyR

eso

urc

e M

gmt.

Pro

per

Oil

Exp

loit

atio

nP

olic

y

Enac

t C

om

mu

nit

y La

nd

Law

% R

esp

on

se

Types of resolutions

How can the conflicts in Turkana County be resolved?


19

Figure 7: Oil-based conflicts envisaged in the future of Turkana County

6.3 Extractive Industries and Nature of Conflicts in Kitui County

Two main extractive natural resources occur in vast quantities in Kitui County – limestone and

coal (Figure 8). Over 180 km2 of land is endowed with limestone particularly areas like Ngaaie

in Mwingi North. An even larger area covering over 500km2 is known to have coal deposits

particularly in the Mui Basin. The latter was originally subdivided into four blocks (A, B, C

and D) for exploration purpose. Two of these blocks (C and D) have been extensively explored

and there is an estimated 400 million tonnes of coal reserves valued at KShs 3.5Trillion ($40

billion). A further 31 new blocks have been created that are expected to have even greater

deposits and higher value coal.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dis

pla

ced

co

mm

Lan

d C

on

flic

ts

Po

lluti

on

Spac

e s

carc

ity

Cu

ltu

r/Tr

ad lo

ss

Agg

ress

ion

to

go

vt.

Arm

ed lo

cal o

il C

arte

ls

Incr

eas

e v

uln

erab

ility

/p

ove

rty

Be

nef

it s

har

ing

issu

es

Intr

a-Tu

rkan

a cl

ass

con

flic

ts

Terr

ori

sm

ille

gal a

rms

& c

on

flic

t

Bio

div

ersi

ty d

egr

ad.


20

Figure 8: Kitui County and the positions of the key minerals

6.3.1 Current Conflicts in Kitui County

A total of ten conflicts were identified in Kitui County, the most mentioned (67%) being

conflicts resulting from poor or lack of land compensation for communities removed from areas

having coal (Figure 9). This was followed by the conflict resulting from poor resettlement of

people, which was mentioned by 58% of stakeholders. Another 50% of the stakeholders felt the

Chinese Fenxi Mining Industry Company (that is to mine the coal) was secretive about their

deals and ignored community participation in their mining activities.


21

Figure 9: Coal-based conflict issues in Kitui County and the percentages of responses raised

per conflict issues

6.3.2 Causes of the Conflicts

Six main reasons were given as the cause of conflicts. The main one given by 63% of the

stakeholders was lack of proper compensation for the displaced communities. Non or poor

involvement of the communities was mentioned by 50 % of stakeholders while the poor land

adjudication and lack of title deeds was by 50% stakeholders. Other causes were unclear benefit

sharing formula, lack of proper communication with communities, poor sensitization including

politics and differences among various interests in the County as outlined in Figure 10.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Co

mp

ensa

tio

n

Re

sett

lem

ent

Lan

d

Co

mm

vs

Fen

xi

Be

nef

it s

har

ing

Fen

xi -

Job

Nat

. vs

Co

un

ty

Lan

dle

ssn

ess

Po

or

infr

astr

uct

ure

Envi

ron

men

t D

egra

dat

ion

Lack

of

po

licy

fram

ewo

rk

% o

f re

spo

nd

ants

pe

r co

nfl

ict

Types of Conflicts

What are the current conflicts in Kitui County?


22

Figure 10: The causes of coal-based conflicts in Kitui County

6.3.3 Conflict timelines in Kitui County

Coal based conflicts in Kitui County can be traced to the early 2000 after the first confirmation

of vast deposit in the then Kitui and Mwingi Districts. Although the conflict was initially among

politicians, these conflict issues have gradually filtered into the local communities and been

bolstered by non-governmental organisations particularly those dealing with civil rights. A

conflict timeline outlining the significant times when key conflict or conflict driving issues

occurred is indicated in Table 2.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Po

or

com

pe

nsa

tio

n

Co

mm

no

t in

volv

ed

No

lan

d a

dju

dic

atio

n

Un

clea

r B

en

efi

t sh

arin

g

No

se

nsi

tiza

tio

n

Po

litic

s

% o

f re

spo

nd

ent

per

co

nfl

ict

Type of Conflict

What are the causes of conflict in coal mining in Kitui County


23

Table 2: Conflict timeline indicating the key periods of conflict or events triggering conflicts in

Kitui County


1999 Jan –

June

Coal exploration starts in Mwingi and Kitui Districts covering around

500km2

1999 July- Dec Mui Basin was divided into four coal blocks, A, B, C and D; political

interests and jostling starts

2000 Coal presence is ascertained and local expectations for boom income

begin

2008

September

The Government speeds up exploration in the Mui basin and contracts a

private company (Foundation Piling Ltd) to assess commercial viability

of coal deposits

2008 Oct - Dec Commercial viability of coal confirmed and local expectations rise

2010 Jan - June Government decides to concession all four blocks in Kitui to private

companies through a competitive international bidding process. Political

interests rise

2010 July Dec Seven companies submit bids and China’s Fenxi Mining Group wins the

rights to develop coal mines for block C and block D. Local feel left out

in this decision making that affects their land.

2013 December Chinese Fenxi Companies contract is signed. Locals complain and go to

court stating the contract inadequately addresses their interests prompting

selection of a technical committee to re-look it and propose amendments.

2014 June July An agreement between the community, Fenxi Company, the national and

county Governments amends the original contract. Fenxi adopts more

than 90 per cent of the proposed amendments.

2014 August Fenxi contracts a consultant to start local resettlement plan and strategic

environment assessment however, without the notification of the

community. Suspicions of mistrust rise again

6.3.4 Initiatives / Interventions undertaken to Prevent Conflicts in Kitui County

Like in Turkana County, conflict prevention initiatives in natural resource extraction in Kitui

County remain unexplored. A half or 50% of the stakeholders said they were aware of conflict

prevention interventions. Despite half of the stakeholders being aware of these conflict

prevention initiatives, 90% were not happy with them. The next section discusses some

initiatives as suggested by stakeholders.

6.3.5 Strategies of managing the conflicts

Interventions for managing conflicts that were suggested by stakeholders are indicated in Figure

11. Most of these rotate around increased community involvement and sensitization on the coal

mining activities. Solving land issues particularly issuance of title deeds was mentioned as an

important factor in conflict resolution. Also mentioned was setting up a future investment fund

that the communities would turn to after the coal mines run out. A percentage of the revenue

from the mining would be deposited into this fund akin to the Norwegian sovereign investment

fund raised from oil exploration.


24

Figure 11: The types of conflict prevention initiatives in Kitui coal mining and percentages of

stakeholders suggesting the initiatives

6.3.5.1 Future / Anticipated Conflicts in Kitui County

The stakeholders envisage nine key conflict issues in future with the most being space or land

scarcity following large land area surrendered for mining as mentioned by 64% of stakeholders.

Coupled with this is increased land degradation and land conflict that was mentioned by 45%

and 36% of the stakeholders respectively. Stakeholders also envisage loss of culture and

traditons, displaced communities and increased water and air pollution from the mines as shown

in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Coal-based conflicts envisaged in the future of Kitui County

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Co

mm

un

ity

Invo

lve

me

nt-

Jo

bs

Co

al b

en

efi

t sh

arin

g

Sen

siti

zati

on

Lan

d A

dju

nd

icat

ion

Co

mm

Lia

sio

nC

om

mit

tees

Set

Futu

reIn

vest

men

t fu

nd

(P

ost

coal

) Be

tter

CSR

What are the solutions to the conflicts of Kitui coal mining?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Spac

e s

carc

ity

Cu

ltu

re/T

rad

itio

nal

loss

De

grad

eden

viro

nm

en

t

Lan

d C

on

flic

ts

Dis

pla

ced

com

mu

nit

y

Incr

eas

evu

lne

rab

ility

/p

ove

rty

Air

& w

ate

r P

ollu

tio

n

Be

nef

it s

har

ing

issu

es

Agg

ress

ion

to

go

vt.

Future coal mining conflict issues envisaged in Kitui County


25

6.4 Extractive Industries and Nature of Conflicts in Taita Taveta County

Taita Taveta County is endowed with mineral deposits whose origin is geologically linked to

the rich proterozoic rocks forming the Mozambique Belt that runs from south to eastern Africa

region (Appendix 4). Minerals found here are both gemstones and industrial minerals that

include iron ore and building sand. Recent exploration has also indicated the presence of copper,

cobalt and manganese. The precious gemstones include ruby, tsavorite sapphire, emerald,

tourmalines and many types of garnets that are mined in areas such as Voi, Mwatate, Kasighau,

Kishushe, Bura, Chungaunga, Kamtonga, Wanjala and other parts of Taita (Figure 13). These

minerals are of enormous wealth. The mining prospectors and investors in the area are currently

estimated at over 100.

Figure 13: Map of Taita Taveta showing the key mining areas


26

6.4.1 Current Conflicts in Taita Taveta County

Respondents indicated a total of 12 conflict arenas in Taita Taveta County. The three most

mentioned were conflicts between large and smaller miners (67%), conflict between miners and

communities (67%) and a poor mining policy / law framework (58%) (See Figure 14). Poor

working conditions in the mines were mentioned (by 50% respondents) as a conflict issue that

compromised workers health and safety standards. This has drawn the interest of the federation

of workers union and human rights groups who are interested in improving the collective

bargaining agreements of miners. However, such groups are viewed by mining companies as

an impediment to their operations. A common feature in Taita Taveta mines are people known

as Mazurura. These people (mentioned by 42% of respondents) have no legal mining licenses

and many are vagabonds with no homes in the county but move from mine to another mine

looking for gemstones and often involved in mineral thefts. Mazurura are comprised of various

ethnic groups of Kenya and many are people who have escaped prison or the justice system to

look for quick money while taking refuge in the vast wilderness of Taita Taveta County. Their

mineral scavenging activities put them in conflict with the mine owners since they deal with

gemstones stolen from mines. Furthermore, they are at odds with the Government authorities

as they deal in goods worth thousands of shillings yet they don’t pay any form of tax.

Boundaries in mining areas are constant issues mentioned by 42% of the respondents. Among

the recent conflict issue that occurred in mid 2014 between the Kishushe Cooperative Society

and the Wanjala Mining Company was because of boundaries. Mining as a livelihood is in

conflict (as mentioned by 33% stakeholders) with other livelihoods such as irrigation

agriculture, ecotourism, ranching etc. because people wholly depend on, and want to be

engaged in mining activities only to the chagrin of the other livelihoods. Thus, this conflict

subjects the communities to economic vulnerability. Although mentioned by only 25% of the

respondents, environmental degradation and low Government tax / revenue charged by

Government were seen as conflicts. Improperly done Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)

has affected,for instance, the elephant migratory patterns. These meansthat mine workers

occasionally clash with wildlife and many plants are also destroyed without restoration being

done. The low taxes charged encourage conflict of interest as some Government workers, who

despite being the overseers of mining, get involved in mining activities. This is largely due to

the ease of entering into the business and the small prospecting fees charged in comparison to

the profits raked in billions of shillings.


27

Figure 14: Causes of conflicts in Taita Taveta County

6.4.2 Causes of Conflicts

Conflicts in Taita Taveta were associated with six factors as indicated in Figure 15. The three

key factors are lack of title deeds, lack of mine boundaries and poor policies on land and mining.

Illegal mining, politics and heavy dependence on mining economy were other triggers of

conflicts.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Larg

e v

s sm

all s

cale

min

ers

Min

ers

vs

com

mu

nit

y

Lack

of

po

licy

fram

ewo

rk

Co

mm

ign

ore

d /

dis

em

po

we

red

Po

or

wo

rkin

g co

nd

itio

n (

cam

ps)

Ille

gal m

ine

rs-

maz

uru

ra

Bo

un

dar

y is

sue

s

Lan

dle

ssn

ess

Min

ing

neg

ate

s o

ther

live

liho

od

s

Po

litic

s e.

g. li

cen

sin

g &

pe

rmit

s

Envi

ron

men

t D

egra

dat

ion

(Wild

life

)

Tax-

Go

v re

ven

ue

low

% o

f re

spo

nd

an

tsp

er c

on

flic

t

Types of Conflicts

What are the current conflicts in Taita Taveta County?


28

Figure 15: The causes of conflicts in Taita Taveta County

6.4.3 Conflict Timeline in Taita Taveta County

Table 3: Conflict timeline indicating the key conflict or events triggering conflicts in Taita

Taveta County


1960s

1990s

Mid 2000s

23 Oct 2010

Between 2000

and 2010

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century production of iron

implements was a normal practise until the early 1960s. Fall of traditional

iron smelting culture was first linked to conflicts between the locals and then

colonial Government that discouraged smelting.

After many years, awareness of the value of iron-ore among the local people

started to rise in the 1990s particularly in Kishushe and Wanjala

The scramble for iron ore in Kishushe and Wanjala region intensified.

Conflict started to surface between communities and mining companies

such as Wanjala and Sanghani Mining.

A massive demonstration of the local people of Kishushe and Wanjala

occurred, led by local leaders, against the mining company that was

apparently operating illegally. Police clashed with demonstrators, arrested

and detained their leaders.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No title deeds MineBoundaries

Poorpolicy/law

Politics Illegal miners Miningdependance

% o

f R

esp

on

da

nts

per

co

nfl

ict

Causes of conflicts

What are the causes of conflicts in Taita Taveta County?


29

2010 to 2014

From Early

2014

Conflicts occurred between small-scale gemstone miners and large- scale-

miners at Kasighau, Chungaunga, Kamtonga over prospecting and mining

rights.

From 2010 to 2014 competition for prospecting rights, pegging, claims over

mining areas was widespread in Kishushe.

From early 2014 to date conflict occurred between Kishushe Cooperative

Society and the Wanjala Mining Company over boundaries.

6.4.4 Initiatives / Interventions Undertaken to Prevent Conflict in Taita Taveta County

About 33% of the respondents were aware that conflict prevention initiatives were being

undertaken. However 58% of the respondents were not happy with these interventions. The

interventions suggested by the respondents are indicated in the next section.

6.4.5 Strategies of Managing Conflicts in Taita Taveta County

Figure 16: The types of conflict prevention initiatives in Taita Taveta and percentages of

stakeholders suggesting the initiatives

6.4.5.1 Future / anticipated conflicts in Taita Taveta County

The three main conflicts envisaged in future are; an influx of outsiders prospecting for mining

profits, enhanced environmental degradation and increased economic vulnerability. Neglect of

the environment, largely through poor EIA and environmental audits (EA), is predicted to rise

as mining increases. Concomitant to this over reliance on mining industry and the neglect of

other livelihoods by communities is a conflict that is also envisaged to rise.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Allo

cate

tit

le d

eed

s

Sort

bo

un

dar

ies

Enh

ance

live

liho

od

s

Co

mm

u. E

mp

ow

erm

ent

via

fun

ds

Imp

rove

wo

rker

CB

A

Op

en f

orm

al m

ine

ral

mar

kets

fo

r SM

Es

Pro

vid

e la

nd

fo

r ill

egal

min

ers

% R

esp

on

se p

er c

on

flic

t


How can the conflicts in Taita Taveta County be resolved?


30

Figure 17: The future conflicts envisaged in Taita Taveta County

6.5 Extractive Industries and Nature of Conflicts in Kwale County

Kwale County is endowed with various types of industrial minerals (Figure 18). Key among

these is titanium mineral sands (comprised of ilmenite, rutile and zircon) and niobium. Titanium

is mined at two areas in Msambweni sub-county. Originally it was to be mined by a Canadian

Company called Tiomin which later sold the mining rights to Jinchuan (a Chinese company).

The latter subsequently sold off the mining rights to an Australian company - Base Titanium.

An estimated annual extraction of 410 000 tons of ilmenite, plus rutile and zircon (over a 13-

year mine life) is expected to yield $200 million (Sh17 billion) annually. This project will earn

Kenya over $2 billion (Sh170 billion) over its mine life.

Niobium, a material used to strengthen steel and estimated to have a potential in-ground value

of KShs 5.4 Trillion is mined at Mrima Hill in South Kwale. Mining is done by Western Pacific

Wildcat Resource Corporation that is linked to Cortec mining company.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Infl

ux

of

ou

tsid

ers

En

han

ced

en

vir

on

men

t

dam

age

Incr

ease

vu

lner

abil

ity /

pov

erty

Dis

pla

ce c

om

mun

itie

s

Po

liti

cal

man

ipu

lati

on

Incr

ease

d m

azu

rura

Sp

ace

scar

city%

Res

po

nd

ent

per

co

nfl

ict

Type of Conflict

What are the future conflicts anticipated in Taita Taveta County?


31

Figure 18: Kwale County and key areas of mining.

6.5.1 Current Conflicts in Taita Taveta County

Eleven conflict issues were mentioned in Kwale County with a good number being

environnmentally based (Figure 19). For instance water pollution, loss of landscape (sense of

place), biodiversity loss, environmental degradation. Conflicts unique to this county, and raised

by the mining companies, were those linked to the extra levy charged by the Kwale County

Government. Further, the delay by the Government to provide the export permit to Base

Titatium to ship their produce has been a conflict issue raised by the company as this delay

results in a drop of the company share on the stock market.


32

Figure 19: The types of conflict that are prevalent in Kwale County.

6.5.2 Causes of Conflicts

In Kwale County, stakeholders of the extractive industry outlined five key causes of conflict as

indicated in Figure 20. Most causes were due to improper engagement of the community with

the investor company and the Government. Poor implementation of the environmental impact

assessment was a conflict issue between the environmentalists and communities, on one side,

pitted against the Government and the investor on the other side. At stake are the endangered

birdlife, endangered plants and water pollution arising from the mining.

0102030405060708090

100

Loss

of

lan

dsc

ape

/se

nse

of

pla

ce

Wat

er p

ollu

tio

n

Co

mm

Invo

l lim

ited

Loss

of

trad

itio

nal

pra

ctic

es

Bio

div

ersi

tylo

ss/d

eve

geta

tio

n

Lan

dle

ssn

ess

Envi

ron

men

tD

egr

adat

ion

Lack

of

po

licy

fram

ewo

rk

Form

atio

n o

fU

nio

ns/

CB

A

De

laye

d e

xpo

rt p

erm

its

Un

war

ran

ted

Co

un

tyle

vy

% r

esp

on

de

nts

pe

r co

nfl

ict

Type of Conflicts

What are the conflicts in Kwale County?


33

Figure 20: Causes of conflicts in Kwale County (*Environmental and Social Impact

Assessment)

6.5.3 Conflict Timeline in Kwale County

Conflict with regard to titanium mining in Kwale have its roots in the late 1990s at the onset of

the exploration. For close to a decade there were various conflicts that existed between the

investor (Canadian Tiomin), the communities and the Government with regards to

compensation, land degradation and pollution issues. Although these have eased with time,

there are still issues which are outlined in Table 4a and 4b for Mrima Hill niobium mines and

Msambweni titanium mines respectively.

6.5.4 Initiatives / Interventions Undertaken to Prevent Conflict in Kwale County

Slightly over one third or 36% of the stakeholders were aware of the initiatives taken to prevent

conflicts in Kwale County. Notwithstanding the initiatives, 82% of them were not satisfied with

these initiatives and made suggestions which are outlined in the next section (6.5.5).

6.5.5 Strategies of Managing Conflicts in Kwale County

Kwale stakeholders in the extractive industry suggested four avenues of resolving their mining

conflicts (Figure 21). These were enhancing community involvement, undertaking continuous

environmental rehabilitation, increasing clarity or openness on the mining activities and having

a proactive corporate social responsibility; where the investor is ahead in addressing critical

issues in the communities.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Communitiesignored

Low landcompensation

Misinformation /No clarity(openess)

Poor landpolicies

Improper ESIA*

% o

f R

esp

on

ses

per

co

nfl

ict

Causes of conflicts

What are the causes of conflicts in Kwale County?


34

Table 4a: Conflict timeline indicating the key periods of conflict in Mrima Hill, Kwale County

Table 4b: Conflict timeline indicating the key periods of conflict in Titanium mining in Kwale

County

Time / Year Key Event Linked to Conflict or Conflict Trigger

February

2012

Cortec Mining company’s EIA submitted to NEMA was rejected because

Nature Kenya and the Kenya Forest Working Group (KFWG) objection as

Mrima hill was declared a Nature Reserve & National Monument for its

rich culture. A further detailed EIA was requested.

Early 2013 A redone EIA was approved despite concerns by Nature Kenya, KFWG

and WWF to the effect that important bird areas would be lost.

August 2013 License to Cortec Mining was revoked, and was to be reviewed in 60 days,

on the basis of an earlier irregular allocation

Dec 2013 Pacific Wildcat Resource Corp (PWRC) acquires 70% of Cortec and puts

additional metallurgical work to boost the original weakness of the

economic study assessment

Early 2014 Given its estimated potential of Kshs 5.4 trillion, the Kenya Government

supports the Cortex project. The battle for environmental justice gets more

difficult and the conflict of economic gains versus environmental costs

remains

Time Year Key Event Linked to Conflict or Conflict Trigger

1998

Government approved the project by the Canadian company Tiomin

Resources Inc. for the exploitation of titanium deposits located in the Kwale

region

1998 A coalition of local communities and human rights organizations called Coast

Mining Rights Forum opposed the Tiomin-project, as it displaces 5,000 Digo

and Kamba people and would contaminate soil and aquifers with heavy metals

March 2003 The High court stops NEMA from issuing an EIA license to Tiomin following

the environmental conflict raised by the Centre for Environmental Legal

Research and Education (Creel) that the communities did not participate in

the Environmental Management Plans

2007 Several litigations lodged by farmers protesting at what they said was poor

compensation for their land

Jan-April

2014

Conflict over Government delay in providing the export permit for Base

Resources to ship their mineral products

June 2014 Base Resource disputes a levy on exports from its mineral sands project, and

it is disputing the matter with the relevant authorities.


35

Figure 21: The types of conflict prevention initiatives in Kwale and percentages of stakeholders

suggesting the initiatives

6.5.5.1 Future / Anticipated Conflicts in Kwale County

With continued mining in Kwale County the conflicts indicated in Figure 22 are envisaged to

occur in future. The most stated conflicts are dealing with the environment i.e. soil degradation

and water pollution. Coupled with these are conflicts that will raise health risks from toxic

emissions of the mines and biodiversity loss in this region that has a rich natural ecosystem and

cultural heritage. Other anticipated conflicts are labour / union disputes and increased

vulnerability and thus poverty.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Enhance Comm.Involvement

ContinuousEnvironmenalRestoration

Increaseclarity/openess

Proactive CSR

% R

esp

on

ses

per

co

nfl

ict


How can the conflicts in Kwale County be resolved?


36

Figure 22: The anticipated conflicts in the future of Kwale County’s extractive industry.

7.0 Stakeholder analysis, critical actors and their relationship

The key critical actors in the four counties and their relationships are shown in the stakeholder

matrix for Turkana (Table 5a), Kitui (Table 5b), Taita Taveta (Table 5c) and Kwale (Table 5d).

In Turkana County the key conflict is seen between the Turkana local people and Tullow Oil

Company together withTullow’s community liason officers. There is also the perennial conflict

between the Turkana and the Pokot with regards to boundaries in South Turkana. Minor

conflicts, though of concern, exist between the local Turkana and the investors that are non-

Turkana. There are also conflicts between the NGOs and Tullow Oil together with the Tullow

employed community liasion officers. Positive relationships exist between different

stakeholders in Turkana’s extractive industry but the most positive is that between the national

Government and Tullow Oil.

In Kitui County, conflict was noted between the Fenxi coal company with the following actors

– the Mui coal basin residents, the local NGOs and the Mui community liasion committee.

Similarly, there was conflict between the Mui residents and the National Government largely

driven by the lack of information and clarity on various issues by the Government.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Soil

de

grad

atio

n

Wat

er P

ollu

tio

n

Incr

eas

e v

uln

erab

ility

/p

ove

rty

Hea

lth

ris

ks f

rom

emis

sio

ns/

po

lluti

on

Lab

ou

r d

isp

ute

s &

Un

ion

s

Bio

div

ersi

ty lo

ss

Cu

ltu

re/T

rad

. lo

ss

% r

esp

on

ses

per

co

nn

flic

t

Types of Conflicts

What are the envisaged future conflicts in Kwale County?


37

Table 5a: Matrix showing the stakeholder relationship between the various actors in the

extractive industry in Turkana County (-minor conflict, --high conflict, +positive relationship,

++ very positive relationship).

Turkana

locals

National

Govt

Turkana

County

govt.

Tullow

Oil

Community

Liaison

Officers

NGOs Local

investors

(Non

Turkana)

Pokot

locals

Turkana locals

+ + − − − + − − −

National Govt.

+ ++ + + + +

Turkana County

govt.

+ + + + _

Tullow Oil C

++ − + +

Community

Liaison Officers

− + +

NGOs

+ +

Local investors

(Non Turkana)

+

Pokot Locals

Table 5b: Matrix showing the stakeholder relationship between the various actors in the

extractive industry in Kitui County (- minor conflict, -- high conflict, + positive relationship,


Kitui

locals

National

Govt

Kitui

County

govt.

Fenxi

Coal

company

Mui Coal

Basin

Residents

NGOs Community

Liaison

Committee

Kitui locals + + + + + +

National Govt. + ++

− +

−

Kitui County govt. + + + +

Fenxi coal

company

− − −

Mui Coal Basin

Residents + ++

NGOs ++

Community

Liaison Committee


38

Table 5c: Matrix showing the stakeholder relationship between the various actors in the

extractive industry in Taita Taveta County (- minor conflict, -- high conflict, + positive

relationship, ++ very positive relationship).

Taita Taveta

local

communities

National

Govt

Taita

Taveta

County

govt.

Large-

scale

minors

Small-

scale

miners

Mazurura Gemstones

traders /

Middle

men

Taita Taveta local

communities + +

− −

+ + +

National Govt.

+ ++

− −

+

Taita Taveta

County govt. + + + +

Large-scale miners

− − −

+

Small-scale miners

+ +

Mazurura

+

Gemstones traders

/ Middle men )

Table 5d: Matrix showing the stakeholder relationship between the various actors in the

extractive industry in Kwale County (- minor conflict, -- high conflict, + positive relationship,


Kwale local

communities

National

Govt

Kwale

County

govt.

Base

Resources

Company

WPWRC-

Cortec

Company

Environmental

NGOs

Kwale local

communities + + + + +

National Govt.

+

−

+ +

Kwale County govt.

− − −

+

Base Resources

Company + +

WPWRC-Cortec

Company +

Environmental NGOs

In Taveta County the conflict of concern is that between the local communities and the large

scale miners and also between large-scale miners and small-scale miners. These conflicts are

all driven by competition for mining land. Unlike other counties, in Kwale, the conflict of most

concern is that between the mining companies and both the National and County Governments.

Here the companies feel aggrieved largely due to the delayed deliverance of export permits by

the National Government and the new levy demanded by the County Government.


39

Subsequently these conflicts have sent doubts to foreign investors with concomitant dropping

of the companies share capital on the foreign stock market.

8.0 Conclusions and Recommendation

Despite the differences in the types and nature of the extractive industry in the four Counties,

there were still significant similarities in the types of conflicts, their causes and intervention

strategies across Counties. There were also some similarities across the Counties, with regards

to the types of conflicts envisaged in future. Conflicts common to the four Counties were: the

unclear benefit sharing agreement on the extracted resources, unclear policies/law,

environmental (biodiversity) degradation, perishing cultures/traditions and poor compensation

of communities’ displaced from land. Declining grazing and fishing grounds were conflicts

specific to Turkana County while tax/levy and issuance of export permit conflicts were unique

to Kwale County.

The causes of conflicts were also common across the Counties. These included misinformation

or lack of information on issues such as benefit sharing, lack of land title deeds, little involvment

of the community in projects, poor policies and divisive politics.

The suggested conflict interventions mechanism were to a large extent similar across the

Counties. These comprised enhanced community sensitization, setting better CSR and MOU,

increasing clarity / community participation (empowerment), providing title deeds, enhancing

the social livelihoods and undertaking environmental restoration. All these interventions can be

undertaken via mediation and negotiation initiatives between the conflicting parties.

Given that the extractive industry in Kenya is still in its infancy stages, this report recommends

that:

A National sovereign fund to be established that will anchor Kenyans against vagaries

of future conflicts

Thorough environmental impact assessment be done and after the project begins, the

evaluation and audits should be closely monitored under prescribed environmental

management plans

The currrent policy frameworks and laws on mining and oil industry should be hastened

so as to be at pace with the quickly evolving Kenyan extractive industry

These laws be clearly sensitized to the the communities particular in the regions under

oil and mineral exploitation


40

9.0 References

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1996. Collaborative management of protected areas: tailoring

the approach to the context. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. 67pp.

Deutsch, M. & Coleman, P.T. 2000. The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and

practice. San Francisco, California, USA, Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, S., Abdi, D.I., Ludin, J., Smith, R., Williams, S. & Williams, S. 2000. Working

with conflict: skills and strategies for action. London, Zed Books. 224 pp.

Keller, P.C. 1992. Gemstones of East Africa, Geoscience Press, Phoenix.

Matiru, V. 2000. Conflict and natural resource management. Rome, FAO.

Mwandawiro Mghanga 2010. The wealth in the underground that is elusive to the local

people. Mining in Taita Taveta County – Prospects and Problems. Henrich Boll Stitung

Publisher.

The Energy Bill 2013. Kenya Gazette Supplement. Government Printer, Nairobi.

The Mining Bill 2013. Kenya Gazette Supplement No 28. Government Printer, Nairobi.

The Kenya Gazette Supplement number 56. Environmental Impact Assessment and

Audit Regulation 2003. Government Printer, Nairobi

The Kenya Gazette Supplement Acts 2000. Environmental Management Coordination

Act (EMCA) 1999. Government Printer, Nairobi

Warner, M. 2001. Complex problems, negotiated solutions: tools to reduce conflict in

community development. London, UK, ITDG Publishing.


41

APPENDIX 1: The Existing Oil Basins in Kenya

Source: Vanoil Energy Ltd

http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=V88ljsdLP6iLoM&tbnid=Q40y2LWZh5tCVM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.taipanresources.com/news.html&ei=DQ6bU9znIc7T7Abkm4HwAg&bvm=bv.68911936,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNG1IP-aNoTPj2f9LfAO31tCnQVGXQ&ust=1402756382774821


42

APPENDIX 2: The Oil Exploration Blocks in Kenya

Source: The National Oil Corporation of Kenya.

http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=7twPSbMYiALbjM&tbnid=5qe7CeRt9VhNmM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://nationaloil.co.ke/site/3.php?id=2&ei=YBObU9S9M7PB7Aax3oHQBQ&bvm=bv.68911936,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNG1IP-aNoTPj2f9LfAO31tCnQVGXQ&ust=1402756382774821

APPENDIX 3 - Interviewed Key Persons, Organisations and Communities

Name of organization Key Actor or informant

interviewed/contacted Contact person Email Address

International Organization for Migration Turkana County Augustine Lambert [email protected]

World Food Programme Turkana County Josephat Wafula [email protected]

Ministry of Water Turkana East Sub County Sub County Water officer [email protected]

Ministry of Livestock Turkana Central Sub County

DLPO - Sub county Livestock

officer [email protected]

Kenya Red Cross Society Turkana County Nicodemus Okango [email protected]

Ministry of Education Loima sub county

Benard Owuor - DEO Turkna

Loima [email protected]

International Rescue Committee Turkana West Sub County Patrick Gatembo -Field coord

United Nations for Food and Agriculture

Organization Turkana County Maina Kibata [email protected]

Catholic Diocese of Lodwar Loima & Turkana Central Sub County Bishop Dominic Kimengich [email protected]

Catholic Diocese of Lodwar Loima & Turkana Central Sub County Ekidor Linus Namoe [email protected]

Ministry of Agriculture Turkana Central Sub County [email protected]

Ministry of Interior and Cordination of

National Government Turkana County County Commisioner [email protected]

United Nations Development Organization Turkana County - Peace Programme

Lucas Echuchuka - Peace

coordinator [email protected]

United Nations Development Organization Turkana County - Livelihood Program Johnstone Moru - Field coordinator [email protected]

United Nations Development Organization Turkana County - Livelihood Program Francis Matheka [email protected]

Turkana County Government Turkana County Peter Ekai - Deputy Governor [email protected]

Turkana County Government

Minister of Environment & Natural

Resources Ms Rhoda Loyor [email protected]

National Youth Council Turkana County Youth Director Turkana County [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]















44

Meteorological Service Turkana County [email protected]

Tullow Oil - Kenya B.V Community Liasion Officer –Lodwar Lynette Lokuruka 0715593534

Tullow Oil - Kenya B.V

Chief Communication officer –

Lokichar Huma Kaseu Kaoga [email protected]

Danish Demining Group Loima, Turkana South and Turkana East Mads Frielander [email protected]

Danish Demining Group Loima, Turkana South and Turkana East

Raphael Locham- Community

Facilitator [email protected]

TUPADO Turkana County Sammy Ekal - Program Manager [email protected]

National Environment Management Authority Turkana County [email protected]

SAPCONE Turkana County

Hamphery Amoni- Program

Manager [email protected]

Agency for Pastoral Development (APaD) Director ApaD Davis Wafula 0703235025

Ward Administrator - Lokichar Lokichar - Turkana County Koloi Simon 0710514833

Kenya Land Alliance Director KLA Odenda Lumumba

Oil News Kenya Kenya - Nairobi Hqs Samuel Kamau Mbote [email protected]

Ministry of Energy and Petroleum

Ministry Headquarter - Nyayo House

Nairobi

James Mbugua Nganga-Snr Supt.

Geologist [email protected]

Ministry of Energy and Petroleum

Ministry Headquarter - Nyayo House

Nairobi

Hudson K Andambi-Snr Principal

Oil Geologist [email protected]

Kenya Chamber of Mines Nairobi Hqs Mr Mwakesi 0723229117

Mui Community Association Kitui County Mr Kilonzo - Community leader

Mui Basin Mining Co. Ltd. Kitui County Mr. Kimani Wainaina [email protected]

Ministry of Minining Kitui County Joseph Makaa [email protected]

Kitui County Government Kitui County -Ministry of Environment Dominic Mumbu

Ministry of Mining Kitui County Mr Kirembu 0722622376

Kitui Catholic Diocese Kitui County Mike Chenze 0720693336

Ministry of Mining Kitui County Mr Ndolo 0722771470

Gath Mineral Resources Ltd. Kitui County Gathecha [email protected]

Community Action for Nature Conservation Kitui County Handley Becha















45

Community Action for Nature Conservation Kitui County Pauline Tatua [email protected]

R.K. Sanghani Taita Taveta County Babu Sanghani [email protected]

Rockland Kenya Ltd Taita Taveta County Alice Muthama [email protected]

Mawa Geological Consultants Taita Taveta County Malebe [email protected]

David Vishram Mining Taita Taveta County David Vishram [email protected]

E.A.P. & Miners Taita Taveta County James Muguoko [email protected]

Editha Samree lewela Taita Taveta County Editha Samree lewela [email protected]

Equator Gemstones (K) Ltd Taita Taveta County Kalinzoya [email protected]

Nadan Mining Taita Taveta County Immah Kimuyu [email protected]

Rubylite Mining Taita Taveta County Mbiriri [email protected]

Ronald Mdawida Taita Taveta County Ronald Mdawida [email protected]

Ministry of Mining Taita Taveta County - County Geologist Mr Omito

Taveta University - Mining Department Taita Taveta County Prof Cecillia Onyango [email protected]

Base Titanium Kwale County Cecilia Floren [email protected]

Bridges Exploration Ltd Kwale County [email protected]

Ministry of Mining Kwale County - County Geologist Wafula 0726201051

Nature Kenya Kwale County Ecologist

Kwale Human Rights Network Kwale County Jaramba George [email protected]

District Development Officer Kwale County Rama Kalama [email protected]

Minister fo Environment Kwale County

Community Action for Nature Conservation Kwale County

Nature Kenya Kwale County















APPENDIX 4: The mineral rich Mozambique Belt stretching from southern to eastern

Africa

Source: Keller 1992

Documents

Assessment Report on the Extractive Industries for ... · Assessment Report on the Extractive Industries for Sustainable Development in Kenya 4 1.0 Introduction Developing countries