To effectively address the degradation of Lake Naivasha, it's essential to understand the activities of other local actors in the area. This building block focuses on stakeholder mapping and engagement, aiming to harmonize efforts, avoid duplication, and identify the key priorities and concerns of different stakeholders. By coordinating actions and aligning objectives, the initiative can more effectively tackle the environmental challenges facing Lake Naivasha.

This building block focuses on engaging directly with local communities through face-to-face interactions and site visits to every forest block. We worked closely with the community to discuss the impact of forest degradation on agriculture, livelihoods, and the natural environment. On-the-ground visits ensured a deep understanding of the issues and secured community buy-in for the program. These efforts were carried out in partnership with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS), which played a key role in validating and supporting the initiative.

The community was directly engaged during this research to gain a clear understanding of the impacts affecting them.

NACOFA and WWF-Kenya recognized the concerns raised by the community, county government, and horticulture industry regarding reduced river flow and water supply to the lake, which threatened their investments and livelihoods. A study was conducted in collaboration with Water Resource User Associations (WRUAs) in the region, revealing that the root cause of the problem was forest and landscape degradation, along with poor farm management practices in riparian areas.

To effectively address the degradation of Lake Naivasha, it's essential to understand the activities of other local actors in the area. This building block focuses on stakeholder mapping and engagement, aiming to harmonize efforts, avoid duplication, and identify the key priorities and concerns of different stakeholders. By coordinating actions and aligning objectives, the initiative can more effectively tackle the environmental challenges facing Lake Naivasha.

The community was directly engaged during this research to gain a clear understanding of the impacts affecting them.

NACOFA and WWF-Kenya recognized the concerns raised by the community, county government, and horticulture industry regarding reduced river flow and water supply to the lake, which threatened their investments and livelihoods. A study was conducted in collaboration with Water Resource User Associations (WRUAs) in the region, revealing that the root cause of the problem was forest and landscape degradation, along with poor farm management practices in riparian areas.

The TREEO SaaS product provides project implementers with tools to carry out their due diligence process for their tree planting projects and provides data insights into the viability of the project or if the project meets with target standards and goals. This will be enabled through the following instruments:

• Land survey: designates the geographical boundaries of tree planting project areas (or plots)
• App is configured for remote locations without signal
• Built-in questionnaires should help to find out whether the projects are suitable for using the app 
• Personalized onboarding helps project implementers to use the entire TREEO technology correctly
• Go & No-go zone: shows the plantable and non-plantable areas
• Data validation: validation of monitoring data to ensure project compliance
• Satellite verification: an additional layer of data validation as well as historical checks on land cover and land use

This provides a replicable solution to collect land survey data and proper site selection. The TREEO App is designed as an offline-first app that works in remote regions even without internet connection (the data would be uploaded at the next possible connection). 

The global issue of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing affects both marine and freshwater ecosystems. IUU fishing includes illegal activities like fishing without a license or using prohibited gear, unreported catches that bypass official records and unregulated fishing without management strategies like fishing beyond the maximum sustainable yield or neglecting fishing seasons. As a major driver of overfishing, IUU activities jeopardise the economic backbone of the sustainable fisheries sector. Globally, IUU fishing practices lead to significant economic losses, estimated at USD 23.5 billion annually, mainly caused by industrial fleets. However, little is known about the impact of artisanal fisheries to fish stocks in coastal areas or inland waterbodies, which often remain unmanaged due to the absence of authorities or resources for data collection, reporting and surveillance. The same goes for small-scale fishers, who may struggle to comply with legal requirements such as using approved fishing gear, due to its unavailability and price. IUU fishing operations are furthermore often linked to other associated crimes, like the lack of safety regulations, fair working conditions and even the use of forced labour, to reduce costs and maximize profits.

Due to the relevance of combating IUU fishing, the FAO published many documents, including the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing and Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries. Our approach follows these guidelines in promoting human rights and fair access to resources. By addressing IUU fishing, we also contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1 and 2 (no poverty, no hunger) and SDG 14 (life below water). Other global efforts, such as the Conference of the Parties (COPs), Global Alliance for Food Security and the Blue Food Alliance, emphasize the urgent need for integrated and standardized operations. With this knowledge product, we wish to help others to support sustainable fishing practices in artisanal fishing communities and preserve aquatic resources for generations to come.

Globally, fish consumption shows strong regional differences. For instance, in 2009 the average yearly fish consumption per capita in Africa was 9kg, while in Asia it reached almost 21kg per person. On every continent, small island developing states or coastal countries have higher consumption rates than their landlocked counterparts. In addition to these differences, the FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report of 2022 predicts these regional imbalances to increase in the future while fish consumption in Africa is expected to further decline.

These observations are consistent with the findings of the baseline studies conducted by the GP Fish, which found that the median annual fish consumption per capita was 0.9 kg in Malawi (2018), 1.1kg in Madagascar (2018), 1.8 kg in Zambia (2021), but 24.4kg in Cambodia (2022). It must be noted that these consumption patterns reflect the situation of the rural population, who typically have lower incomes compared to the national average. Considering the recommended average yearly fish consumption of 10 kg per person, these findings are worrying.

Considering the importance of fish as a protein and nutrient source for rural households it is important to better understand fish consumption patterns and their impact on food and nutrition security. In Malawi, Madagascar, Zambia and Cambodia the GP Fish and the Global Programme Food and Nutrition Security, Enhanced Resilience (GP Food and Nutrition Security hereafter) are working together to improve food and nutrition security. While the data from the GP Fish are focused on fish production and consumption of close by consumers, data from the GP Food and Nutrition Security provide information about the consumption of different protein sources by the Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS). The GP Food and Nutrition Security collected data from women of reproductive age living in rural, low-income households, not focusing on people involved in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and the surveys included questions to determine a household food security status. Using the extensive dataset allowed an assessment of the current role of fish in comparison to other animal and plant protein sources, without the bias of an increased fish consumption among households involved in fish production. Given that data collection was based on 24-hour recalls, the table in the Annex contextualizes the date of the survey with seasonal implications on fish availability (fishing ban, harvesting seasons), indicating that results can be considered representative.

The frequency of the consumption of various protein sources over the last 24 hours, disaggregated by food security status, is shown in Figure 3. The food protein sources include fish and seafood, pulses (beans, peas, lentils), meat and poultry, eggs, and milk and dairy products. The percentages indicate how many of the respondents consumed a particular protein source (e.g., 19% of the food insecure women in Madagascar have consumed fish and seafood in the last 24 hours). The overall height of the column indicates the aggregated frequency of protein consumption by respondents for each country. Lowest frequency of protein consumption within the last 24 hours for food insecure respondents was found in Madagascar and the highest in Cambodia.

Figure 3 reveals several interesting trends:

1. In general, fish is currently the most frequently consumed protein source in nearly all countries. The importance of fish as a protein source can be explained by the fact that fish is often more affordable, more accessible, and culturally preferred compared to other animal- or plant-based protein sources.

2. Food secure respondents do not in general consume fish more frequently compared to food insecure respondents. This indicates that fish is a source of protein and nutrients that is accessible also to the most vulnerable, namely the food insecure population.

3. The results show regional differences in the frequency of protein consumption between African countries and Cambodia: in Madagascar, Malawi, and Zambia, between 19 – 56% of food insecure respondents and 38 –39% of food secure respondents have consumed fish during the last 24 hours, while in Cambodia more than 80% of the respondents consumed fish during the last 24 hours, independent of the food security status. These results are consistent with the abundance of fish in Cambodia, while access to fish in African countries is often limited by seasonality and distance from water bodies.

In addition to the differences between countries, Figure 4 illustrates high differences in consumption patterns within one country. In Zambia, the GP Food and Nutrition Security found fish to be a consumed by 68.3% (food insecure) and 88.5% (food secure) of the interviewed women in the last 24 hours, while in the Eastern Province, it was only 16.5% and 23.2% respectively. This is consistent with the results from the GP Fish survey, which found that the median annual fish consumption in Luapula Province was 2.2kg and 5.2 kg per capita, while fish consumption in Eastern Province amounts to only 0.9 kg for food insecure and 2kg per year for the food secure respondents. These results suggest that the Chambeshi/Luapula river system and connected wetlands in Luapula Province make fish more accessible than in the rather dry Eastern Province. For the success of new interventions in the field of food and nutrition security related to fish production and consumption, the local conditions and cultural context are important factors to consider during the planning process.

In the first step of the solution GP Fish seeks to provide evidence about the role of fish in addressing malnutrition and supporting healthy diets, particularly for food insecure households. It is directed to professionals working in the field of food and nutrition security as well as rural development and investigates questions like “Does fish feed the poor, or is it too expensive?” By combining scientific insights with hands-on data from years of field experience, supplemented by practical examples, it aims to provide a broad overview of the current state in selected countries and a path forward.

Malnutrition is the most important aspect of food and nutrition insecurity and comes in many forms: undernutrition, overnutrition, and micronutrient deficiencies, often referred to as “hidden hunger”. The latter represents a major public health concern and results from inadequate intake of nutrients, such as iron, zinc, calcium, iodine, folate, and different vitamins. Strategies to combat micronutrient deficiencies include supplementation, (agronomic) biofortification, and most importantly diet diversification, which is the focus of contemporary policy discourses concerning the improvement of human nutrition. Diversifying diets by consuming animal proteins can significantly prevent micronutrient deficiencies, especially in low-income food-deficit countries, where diets are predominantly carbohydrate-based. Fish is a highly nutritious food that provides proteins, essential fatty acids, and micronutrients, as shown in Figure 1, to the point that it is sometimes referred to as a “superfood”. Due to its nutritional properties, even small quantities of fish can make important contributions to food and nutrition security. This is particularly true for small fish species that are consumed whole – including bones, heads, and guts –in regions where nutritional deficiencies and reliance on blue foods are high.

Figure 2 shows the share of recommended nutrient intake when consuming aquatic vs. terrestrial foods. Food sources are arranged from highest (top) to lowest (bottom) nutrient density. Visibly, aquatic “blue” foods like fish and mussels, are richer in nutrients compared to terrestrial sources. They are specifically good sources for Omega-3 fatty acids and Vitamin B12. Therefore, “blue foods” not only offer a remarkable opportunity for transforming our food systems but also contribute to tackling malnutrition.

Engaging and educating community members to ensure they understood the project, its benefits, and actively supported its implementation. This involved clear communication of project goals, addressing concerns, and fostering a sense of ownership among the community. Public participation was facilitated through monthly meetings in Kamungi Conservancy (KC) to create awareness on the benefits of the 10% Fence Plan, hazards, and overall project objectives. These meetings served as a platform for open dialogue, where community members could voice their concerns, ask questions, and provide input. Additionally, the meetings were designed to disseminate crucial information about the project, including how the fences would mitigate human-wildlife conflict, protect crops and livestock, and improve overall community safety. Educational sessions within these meetings focused on practical aspects of the 10% Fence Plan, such as maintenance and repair techniques, as well as broader conservation principles. This consistent engagement ensured that the community remained informed, involved, and supportive of the project's goals.