Atlas · Kenya
/
Intelligence Briefs
BRIEF
Lamu seascape mangrove intelligence brief — 14 October 2026
Generated 14 October 2026 · confidence 85%
All briefsPrint / save PDF
Lamu seascape — mangrove intelligence brief
Evidence base: 60,004 mapped mangrove polygons covering 34,514 ha (2025), with Global Mangrove Watch maps for 1996, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, held in Atlas' own archived copy of the source data.
Needs attention
- A large share of mapped mangrove lies close to planned LAPSSET development. 18,676 ha of mangrove (54.1% of the mapped total) sits within 10 km of the LAPSSET development footprint (port area, Special Economic Zone, corridor, airport). This is the largest identified development pressure in the dataset. Suggested action: Run an impact screening for polygons in the ≤ 10 km bands and plan buffer and offset measures.
- Restoration sites: where degradation is highest. 4 of 12 assessed sites are rated highly degraded (Matsangoni 1, Eagle camp 1, NjIa ya Ndovu, Maganga). Recommended approaches: Enrichement planting (5), Assisted planting (7). Suggested action: Target the highly degraded sites for the next planting cycle.
- Vegetation index fell in protection zone MIDA_2. NDVI in MIDA_2 declined from 0.649 (FY2023) to 0.536 (FY2025), a change of -0.113. A sustained fall can mean canopy loss, drought stress or harvesting. Suggested action: Inspect the zone on the ground and with recent imagery.
- Vegetation index fell in protection zone MIDA_3. NDVI in MIDA_3 declined from 0.757 (FY2023) to 0.673 (FY2025), a change of -0.085. A sustained fall can mean canopy loss, drought stress or harvesting. Suggested action: Inspect the zone on the ground and with recent imagery.
- 2 of 9 themes have no data yet. Atlas holds no records for: Blue Carbon, Fire & Climate. Seagrass and salt marsh would come from UNEP-WCMC global datasets; carbon projects from the Verra and Gold Standard registries; community projects from partner programmes. Suggested action: Ingest the planned sources listed in the Source Catalogue, starting with Global Mangrove Watch, UNEP-WCMC seagrass and salt marsh, and the carbon registries.
- Licence terms to be confirmed for 355 datasets. Licence terms are being confirmed with the publisher. Atlas holds the data for scientific and internal use and shows the original attribution, but cannot grant bulk redistribution rights. Suggested action: Request written permission from WWF Kenya, KMFRI and KFS for redistribution and derivative products.
Worth acting on
- Most polygons are very small, but most area sits in large stands. 63.2% of the 60,004 mapped polygons are under 0.1 ha, yet patches of 10 ha or more hold 52.4% of all mangrove area. Management and monitoring effort should focus on the large stands, while the small-patch tail needs checking against satellite imagery. Suggested action: Prioritise field verification of large stands; review the sub-0.1 ha tail for mapping artefacts.
- Mangrove close to villages is exposed to community use pressure. 8,142 ha (23.6%) of mangrove lies within 2 km of a mapped village. Only 52 villages are mapped, so this is a lower bound. Suggested action: Prioritise community-managed forest planning where village proximity is highest.
- Field plots and the map: how well do they agree?. 103 of 139 field plots fall on a mapped polygon; the dominant genus recorded on the ground matches the mapped formation in 52.4% of those (exact class label: 19.4%, because field and map name classes differently). 36 plots lie outside any mapped polygon. Suggested action: Review disagreeing plots and plots outside the map; consider a formal accuracy assessment.
- Impossible canopy-cover values were rejected in the field survey. 3 plot(s) report canopy cover above 100% (largest 6070.0), which cannot be a percentage. Atlas rejected those values, kept the originals and flagged the plots. Suggested action: Ask the survey team to re-check the data sheets for the flagged plots.
- Sea-turtle tracking data ends in 2018. 4 tagged turtles contributed 1,406 fixes between 2017-05-21 and 2018-10-30. There is no later tracking in Atlas, so recent turtle movements and nesting use of Lamu and Kilifi waters are unknown. Suggested action: Seek newer tracking data from the programme and from Movebank / OBIS-SEAMAP.
Context
- Mangrove cover is dominated by a few formations. Rhizophora dominant covers 41.8% of mapped mangrove area. Shannon evenness by area is 0.86 (0 = one class dominates, 1 = perfectly even), so the seascape is fairly even.
- Net gain of mangrove since 1996. Global Mangrove Watch maps 52,354 ha of mangrove in Lamu seascape in 1996 and 53,174 ha in 2025: a net gain of 820 ha (1.6%), about 28 ha per year. This is the net balance of total mapped area; gains and losses inside the country can cancel out, so real loss may be larger.
- Intertidal sand and mudflats cover about as much area as mangroves. Mapped sand and mudflats total 22,415 ha, compared with 34,514 ha of mangrove (ratio 0.65). Extensive mudflats beside mangroves are important feeding habitat and an expansion zone for natural colonisation.
Method and limits
Every figure is computed by Atlas from stored geometry and observations; areas are ellipsoidal hectares. The source publishes no licence, the mapping is a single 2019 epoch, and distances use polygon representative points. See the Data Quality page for the full list of known issues.