LETS ALL REVIEW THE KISUMU LOCAL PHYSICAL & LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
LETS ALL REVIEW THE KISUMU LOCAL PHYSICAL & LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PETITION TO COUNTY ASSEMBLY OF KISUMU
To The chairperson
ICT & Industrialization Committee
County Assembly of Kisumu
CC; His Excellency the Governor of Kisumu County
CC: The Clerk of Kisumu County Assembly
CC: CECM Lands, Housing, Physical Planning and Urban Development
CC: CECM Finance and Economic Planning
7th March 2022
RE KISUMU LOCAL PHYSICAL & LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
In reference to the above subject matter before the committee of the assembly we have taken a keen note on areas that require expeditious action both by your committee and the county executive.
We are in agreement that this process is lacking considerations on the rights of indigenous people during its preparation, the plan equally lacks proper public participation in entirety as a prerequisite!
It should be noted that Public participation process should directly involve the public in decision making and gives full consideration to public input in the same.
Public participation should afford the stakeholders, interest groups and communities the opportunity to influence decisions that affect them and allows for meaningful involvement and social inclusion in the process.
Its not in doubt that the most critical steps in public participation are as follows;
Leaders must provide adequate information to the public concerning proposed projects.
Leaders must consult with the public at each stage to obtain feedback.
The public, stakeholders and interest groups concerns must be accommodated at all stages
Collaborate with public to develop assessment tools and empower them in making final decision.
On the matter before the assembly we have carefully looked at the plan and observed that in addition to the process lacking proper public participation, key areas have been omitted as follows.
1. The plan lacks clarity as to the measurements around the areas proposed in the 5 developed nodes namely Dunga, Nyamasaria, Kondele , Kisian etc. This should be clearly outlined since the earmarked areas are currently occupied and they must be prepared in advance of coming evictions. This is a prerequisite.
2. It’s been noted with great concern that this plan lacks cultural, economic and social impact assessment. This is great negation of the United Nations international and regional treaties which Kenya part is of. We need this clearly captured and mitigation measures against executive excesses or overreaches associated with implementation of this plan must be clearly foreseen.
3. Related to the above, we have noted with great concern that this plan lacks the much desired aspect on community co-ownership. This we mean for example in the lakefront, Nyamasaria and the other nodes. The community deserves a share of the development ownership, we can’t be spectators of development that has displaced our people! We want to be allocated a protected share which shall be co-financed under an agreed capital financing arrangements with the development partners which includes our local banks. These are matters that were raised during the lakefront bill enactment but were blatantly ignored by both the Assembly of Kisumu and the county executive.
4. The plan lacks specific mention or considerations on Nyamthoe Community lands. We need to be authored clearly how this plan relates to protected community lands like Nyamthoe. This one needs to come out clearly at this conception stage.
5. Due to public demand and overwhelming concerns we need this plan to state clearly whether it will convert our freehold titles to leasehold. On the same breath there is fear that this plan seeks to relocate Kisumu boys and girls high schools to unknown locations. Why it that schools like Agakhan Primary are not being mentioned for relocation? Why should the plan seek to relocate Kisumu Boys & Girls but not Agakhan and others? These are matters of overwhelming public interest and will affect the long cherished educational heritage for our city dwellers. If the plan relocates these schools elsewhere, where yet our city dwellers especially peri urban have been depending on these schools for day schooling where and how will these parents afford the boarding facilities? We need clarity on this !
6. There is disconnect between the key stakeholders in this process and the promoters of this plan, there is a wide information gap between the authorities & architects of this plan and consumers or beneficiaries of the same. Lack of stakeholder inclusion has been detected in this process and it’s against the fundamental rights to public participation. This process should be well synchronized and riveted in the minds of our communities especially those who will bear the heaviest disturbances associated with the implementation of the same.
7. Kisumu is dotted with long standing historical lands injustices and it would be prudent for these to be properly addressed before applying this plan on already aggrieved communities. We therefore want to see a multispectral approach involving the NLC in conception, adoption and implementation of his plan.
8. On housing we employ the city planners to consider our peri urban settlements. These settlements bear the greatest burden of shouldering the influx associated with rural to urban migration. These settlements have been housing and accommodating low income earners yet these specific areas continuously lack descent housing, sanitary amenities like sewer line and other city amenities. In short these peri urban areas bear the greatest economic, social and environmental pressure not to mention insecurity yet county authority allocates extremely meager resources for these zones . We therefore want this regeneration plan to take this in to account.
9. On the AUJI Creek the information is still scanty as to whether the developments will be done on the riparian sections or will be done on the adjacent plats or sections.
KEY RECCOMENDATIONS ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
We need an effective public participation method that involves land owners in the affected areas and other community leadership. We don’t want social media or radio; we need focused group discussions on this with adequate time.
We observe that public participation is a national value and a principle of governance enshrined in article 10 of 2010 constitution.
Therefore public participation ought to be real and not illusory and ought not to be treated as a mere formality for the purposes of fulfillment of the constitutional dictates. This is supreme and the constitution binds all state organs, state officers, public officers and all persons in the discharge of public functions to adhere to the spirit and letter of our constitution and appreciate public participation as one of the ideals and aspirations of our democracy.
We therefore request this assembly to stop rushing this process and allow for adequate consultation.
Presented by on behalf of community stakeholders Nyalenda
Mr. Micah Herbert Magajia
Mr. Pharez Oketch
Mr Oginga Okech