UNESCO's Kwale biosphere push raises questions over Kenya's role in the process

Questions over government approval and UNESCO’s engagement with local groups are adding to concerns about how the proposal relates to Mrima Hill.

Community forest groups and Kaya elders in Kwale want UNESCO's proposed Kwale-Tanga Transboundary Biosphere put on hold. They say the proposal must first be formally disclosed so that communities can scrutinise it. The dispute now raises a wider question than consultation. What has the Kenyan Government authorised? And why does UNESCO appear to be engaging people on the ground before the Government's role and position are clear?

UNESCO invited representatives of all 12 Community Forest Associations (CFAs) and eight Kaya elders from the Mrima area to a meeting in Kinondo. The representatives gave UNESCO three conditions. First, the Biosphere document must be formally validated and disclosed to affected communities and their representative institutions before any further approval or implementation. Second, public participation must be meaningful, inclusive and documented, as constitutional and legal requirements demand, before the process goes further. Third, the Kenya Community Forest Association (KECOFA) must be formally consulted. The document must go to it for review and endorsement before the proposal is advanced on behalf of forest communities.

The CFA and Kaya officials said the process should not proceed until these conditions are met. They warned that affected communities could pursue legal remedies, including court proceedings.

The Kinondo dispute also exposes an unresolved question about institutional authority. UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere framework is not designed to replace national decision-making. National governments nominate biosphere reserves, and the sites remain under their sovereign jurisdiction. For a transboundary site, both Kenya and Tanzania would have to act. The starting point should be a clearly defined, government-led process, with community consultation as an essential part of it. It should not be a parallel process in which local endorsement builds up before the Government has set out its own position.

The concern was already visible in September. Kwale CFAs and Kaya groups raised more than the lack of consultation. They asked who was leading the process, what the Government had approved and which areas were proposed for inclusion. They also wanted to know who would manage the biosphere area, what rights communities would retain over their land, forests, cultural heritage and natural resources, and how any new designation would sit alongside existing Kenyan institutions and processes.

Crucially, they also demanded clarity on whether the proposal had any direct or indirect connection to Mrima Hill, its natural resources or future investment decisions. Their position was that no further decisions should be taken until there was a clear and coordinated Government position on the proposal.

These are not technical details. They go to who has the authority to take the proposal forward. Community participation is a constitutional requirement and an important safeguard, particularly where land, livelihoods and natural resources are at stake. But consultation does not transfer the State's responsibility for setting policy and determining the legal framework. It also does not transfer the State's responsibility for deciding how an international designation fits existing Kenyan processes.

The September statement also demanded a clear explanation of any direct or indirect link between the biosphere initiative and Mrima Hill. It asked about the link to the hill's natural resources, the anticipated project and future investment decisions. That question matters more if an international initiative is gathering institutional or community support before its relationship with existing Government processes around Mrima Hill has been defined.

The groups say they are not setting development against conservation. They see the responsible development of Mrima Hill as a significant economic opportunity for Kwale. They say it could create jobs, support local businesses and contribute to the county's development. They say conservation is equally important and that the two can proceed together. Communities would have to be properly consulted, and the Government would keep responsibility for the decisions Kenyan law gives it.

The same statement, issued jointly by Kwale CFAs and Kwale Kaya Groups, warned against any process that could become a "backdoor mechanism" to interfere with the Mrima Hill project. That does not establish that the biosphere initiative is intended to do so. But it reinforces the need for the Government to say publicly what it has authorised. It should also say where the proposed biosphere sits in relation to Mrima Hill and whether it could affect future land-use, regulatory or investment decisions.

Kenyan law requires public participation. Article 10 of the Constitution makes it a national value. Article 69 requires the State to encourage participation in managing, protecting and conserving the environment. Affected communities must therefore have a meaningful voice. But consultation should not become an alternative channel through which decisions reserved for public authorities are effectively made.

The question raised by Kinondo is therefore not only whether UNESCO has spoken to enough community representatives. It is whether that engagement is taking place within a transparent process led and authorised by the Kenyan Government. If the proposed biosphere has no bearing on Mrima Hill, the Government and UNESCO should say so plainly. If it could influence land use, investment or future development, those implications should be dealt with through the appropriate Kenyan institutions before endorsements are sought on the ground.

Scrutinising the proposal is not an argument against conservation. It also does not reduce the need for rigorous environmental and community safeguards around Mrima Hill. Communities must be heard and decisions must be transparent. But each actor must stay within a clearly defined role. UNESCO should support a Kenyan process and not create a parallel route around it.

Mrima Hill is already being considered through Kenyan institutions. Letting another international framework gain momentum before the Government explains its mandate could complicate that process. It could also create uncertainty later, when statutory decisions on prospecting, environmental approvals and any development go through the proper authorities.

The immediate priority is to establish the Government's position. What has Kenya approved? Which authority is leading the proposal? How does it relate to Mrima Hill and to existing regulatory processes? Community consultation should then take place within that framework. Affected people should have a real chance to shape the decisions that concern them.

Conservation and responsible development do not have to compete. Nor do government authority and community participation. A credible process needs both, and it needs clarity about who decides what before an international initiative moves further.