Integrated Land Use Planning involved strategically allocating land for agricultural and conservation purposes to balance human and wildlife needs. This comprehensive approach ensures sustainable land use that supports both community livelihoods and wildlife conservation. The planning was necessitated by the 10% fence plan, where 10% of beneficiaries' land was secured with an electrified short fence. Farmers utilized the secured land to incorporate skills honed from climate-smart agriculture training, maximizing production, while 90% of the land was left fallow for wildlife and livestock. Currently, a total of 129 acres have been secured by the 10% fence plan, with over 1,000 acres (90%) left as room for wildlife to roam. Up to date, there has been zero elephant conflict registered within the fences, securing crops and property with zero crop raids or property damage.

Integrated Land Use Planning involved strategically allocating land for agricultural and conservation purposes to balance human and wildlife needs. This comprehensive approach ensured sustainable land use that supported both community livelihoods and wildlife conservation. The planning was necessitated by the 10% fence plan, where 10% of beneficiaries' land was secured with an electrified short fence. Farmers utilized the secured land to incorporate skills honed from climate-smart agriculture training, maximizing production, while 90% of the land was left fallow for wildlife and livestock. Currently, a total of 129 acres have been secured by the 10% fence plan, with over 1,000 acres (90%) left as room for wildlife to roam. Up to date, there has been zero elephant conflict registered within the fences, securing crops and property with zero crop raids or property damage.

As a key measure to raise transparency within small-scale and artisanal fisheries, a robust registration and licensing system needs to be put in place. It is advised to introduce mobile, and if possible, community-led, on-site licensing initiatives, providing immediate support for licensing with registered tax numbers. This enhances the accessibility of the licensing process and compliance among fishers, due to a sense of community ownership. In cooperation with a dedicated governmental body, such as the Department of Fisheries and the local research institute, a digital management system should be developed. This central database helps to monitor licenses and registrations from multiple locations and thus enables conclusions to be drawn about the status of fish populations.

Controls and inspections are key principles of curbing IUU fishing. Improving the quality of patrols through specialized training for inspectors is essential to monitor fishing activities directly on board or after landing. Additionally, processors are encouraged to conduct self-inspections to prevent the processing of undersized fish and enforcing regulations in their businesses, thereby reducing reputational risks in the industry. The development and / or revision of standard operating procedures for these controls ensures that they remain relevant and effective in the face of changing IUU fishing practices.

In tandem with the technical measures, building cooperative and community-based management structures has proven to be very successful. Such communities establish rules and regulations for accepted fishing methods but also facilitate stakeholder engagement to encourage local fisherfolk and associations to participate actively in fisheries management. Training programmes for the management structures focusing on organizational and technical capabilities are essential, equipping beneficiaries with the necessary skills to sustainably manage their waterbodies. In certain regions, the approach has included restructuring local management systems into cooperatives. This ensures that they have legal status and a well-defined management plan, thereby validating their operations. It also improves their ability to manage resources and increases their access to financial support through various funding opportunities.

Sensitization of stakeholders and the general public is another major activity in the context of combating IUU fishing. Information campaigns, such as videos explaining data collection at landings and the role of inspectors, contribute to raising awareness about the importance of sustainable fishing practices and the dangers of IUU fishing. These campaigns can be spread through national television, social media platforms or radio programmes to reach a wide audience and foster compliance and accountability. Public engagement initiatives, like consultation workshops, are essential for disseminating information on licensing, legislation, and the consequences of non-compliance. Especially focus group discussions further strengthen a sense of responsibility among fishers. Key factors for success include integrating local knowledge, establishing clear and enforceable regulations, and raising awareness of the consequences of compliance (sustainable fish stocks) and non-compliance (penalties).

Potential risks such as resistance to change, insufficient funding, and the complexity of monitoring vast and remote fishing areas need to be continually addressed through adaptive management and stakeholder collaboration.

To ensure that fish production supported by the GP Fish is an accessible protein source also for the most vulnerable, GP Fish regularly tracks fish prices and the share of total production accessible to the food insecure population. According to the conducted surveys 90 %, 58 %, 84 %, and 99 % of farmed fish is accessible for the food insecure population in Madagascar, Malawi, Zambia, and Cambodia respectively (status 2023). These numbers again highlight the potential of extensive and semi-intensive aquaculture techniques to supply affordable protein and nutrients in areas with a high share of vulnerable people.

The project strategically allocated land for agricultural and conservation purposes to balance human and wildlife needs. This comprehensive planning ensured sustainable land use that supported both community livelihoods and wildlife conservation. Farmers cultivated their lands using the skills from Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) training, resulting in improved harvests with zero threats from elephants and other wildlife, making the 10% fence plans 100% effective. The remaining 90% of the land was used as fallow for wildlife and farmers' livestock, bringing a sense of wildlife-livestock integration. All farmers received dam liners for water pans and collected water for livestock and farming. This model brought a sense of integrated land use with a win-win benefit for both wildlife and communities. Sustainable practices were promoted, and policy support was advocated to back the integrated land use plans legally and institutionally. Continuous monitoring and evaluation systems were implemented to adapt and improve the plans over time.

The project trained farmers in climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and permaculture farming practices to improve yields and sustainability. This involved practical training sessions, demonstration plots, and ongoing support to help farmers adopt and sustain new practices. Training programs were developed and delivered on CSA techniques, including soil conservation, water management, and sustainable crop choices.

Farmers were trained by experts from the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO), with a deep concentration on dry crop farming such as cowpeas, green grams, millet, and cassava. They were also linked to KALRO for the procurement of certified seeds for planting. The training was conducted before the onset of the long rains season, allowing farmers to apply the skills garnered just in time for planting before the rains started. County Agriculture officers attended the sessions to drum up support from the government.

Demonstration farms were established within the community to showcase best practices and allow farmers to see the benefits firsthand. Support networks and farmer groups were created for sharing knowledge, resources, and experiences, fostering peer learning and support. Necessary resources such as seeds, tools, and organic fertilizers were provided to help farmers implement new techniques.

Thorough assessments were conducted to identify human-wildlife conflict (HWC) hotspots and ensure the project addressed the most critical areas. This involved gathering quantitative and qualitative data to make informed decisions about fence placement and other interventions. GIS mapping, surveys, and interviews were utilized to understand current land use patterns, wildlife corridors, and areas experiencing frequent HWC. Surveys were also conducted with households to establish threats, crop and property destruction, and the amount of harvest farmers were getting. The results of the needs assessment were submitted to the Kamungi Board, who used this information to select three final beneficiaries of the 10% Fence Plan. Their decision was then passed through a public participation community meeting, where members present endorsed the identified beneficiaries.

Under the application of the trap for intermittent harvest, the best results were achieved with the following combination of variables: maize bran (supplementary feed) x maize bran (trap bait) x O. Shiranus (species) x 2 fish/m2 (stocking density).

The total yields under this combination were 25 percent higher than in the control group with single batch harvest. A higher stocking density (3 fish/ m2) led to a slightly higher total harvest in the control group, but to a lower net profit. The use of pellets reinforced both effects and was the least economical.

Results from the on-farm trials (see Figure 1) have demonstrated the functionality and the excellent catch effect of the traps. Over the three-month on-farm trial period, the trap was used 2 to 3 times a week and a total of 27 times. On average, around 120 small fish – an equivalent of 820 grams – were caught each intermittent harvest. With the use of the trap, all households reported that they now eat fish twice a week. Before that, fish consumption was between one and four times a month.

The benefits:

• Reducing the competition for oxygen and food among the fish in the pond and thus measurable increase in yield.
• Improved household consumption of small, nutritious fish and better cash flow.

Success factors:

• Traps are easy and inexpensive to build (USD 3).
• Traps are easy to use, also for women.
• Directly tangible added value thanks to easy and regular access to fish.

Examples from the field

Overall, the user experience of households engaged in the on-farm trials was very positive:

“As a family we are now able to eat fish twice and sometimes even three times a week as compared to the previous months without the technology when we ate fish only once per month.” (Doud Milambe)

“Catching fish is so simple using the fish trap and even women and children can use it.” (Jacqueline Jarasi)

“It is fast and effective compared with the hook and line method which I used to catch fish for home consumption that could take three to four hours but to catch only three fish and thus not enough for my household size.” (Hassan Jarasi)

Under the application of the trap for intermittent harvest, the best results were achieved with the following combination of variables: maize bran (supplementary feed) x maize bran (trap bait) x O. Shiranus (species) x 2 fish/m2 (stocking density).

The total yields under this combination were 25 percent higher than in the control group with single batch harvest. A higher stocking density (3 fish/ m2) led to a slightly higher total harvest in the control group, but to a lower net profit. The use of pellets reinforced both effects and was the least economical.

Results from the on-farm trials (see Figure 1) have demonstrated the functionality and the excellent catch effect of the traps. Over the three-month on-farm trial period, the trap was used 2 to 3 times a week and a total of 27 times. On average, around 120 small fish – an equivalent of 820 grams – were caught each intermittent harvest. With the use of the trap, all households reported that they now eat fish twice a week. Before that, fish consumption was between one and four times a month.

The benefits:

Reducing the competition for oxygen and food among the fish in the pond and thus measurable increase in yield.

Improved household consumption of small, nutritious fish and better cash flow.

Success factors:

Traps are easy and inexpensive to build (USD 3).

Traps are easy to use, also for women.

Directly tangible added value thanks to easy and regular access to fish.

Examples from the field

Overall, the user experience of households engaged in the on-farm trials was very positive: “As a family we are now able to eat fish twice and sometimes even three times a week as compared to the previous months without the technology when we ate fish only once per month.” (Doud Milambe)

“Catching fish is so simple using the fish trap and even women and children can use it.” (Jacqueline Jarasi)

“It is fast and effective compared with the hook and line method which I used to catch fish for home consumption that could take three to four hours but to catch only three fish and thus not enough for my household size.” (Hassan Jarasi)