USAID/Kenya SO 5 Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE) Mid-term Evaluation Final Report Management Systems International Submitted by: Drew Lent, Team Leader, Strategy and OD Specialist Michael Fox, Enterprise Development Specialist Dr. Steven Njuguna, NRM Evaluation and Policy Specialist James Wahome, NRM Evaluation and OD Specialist June 17, 2002 USAID Contract: AEP-I-00-00-00024-00 Task Order No. 810 USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page i Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1 Description of the CORE Project ........................................................................................................2 Evaluation Purpose and Methodology.................................................................................................2 Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions ....................................................................................3 Recommendations..............................................................................................................................13 Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................................15 List of Appendixes.............................................................................................................................16 Appendix A: CORE Mid-Term Evaluation Scope of Work..........................................................17 Appendix B: Supplementary Information on the CORE project...................................................22 Appendix C: Evaluation Methodology and Instruments ...............................................................23 Appendix D: Individual Team Member Reports ...........................................................................33 Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed ...................................................................................53 Appendix F: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted...........................................................54 Appendix G: Summaries of Focus Group Discussions, Interviews and Site Visits ......................65 Appendix H: Strategy Session Agenda for the Final Extension Phase .......................................102 List of Acronyms ACC............... African Conservation Centre AWF .............. African Wildlife Foundation ATGRCA ...... Amboseli Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association BCP ............... The European Union’s Biodiversity Conservation Programme CA ................. Cooperative Agreement CBO............... Community-based organization CORE ............ Conservation of Resources through Enterprise CWS .............. (KWS) Community Wildlife Service EDF ............... Enterprise Development Fund EU.................. European Union FAT ............... (CORE) Focal Area Team GMU.............. Grant Management Unit GMT .............. Grant Management Team GoK ............... Government of Kenya IR ................... Intermediate Result KWS...............Kenya Wildlife Service M&E...............Monitoring and Evaluation NRM...............Natural resources management OD..................Organizational Development PA...................Protected area, i.e., a park or reserve PAC................Problem animal control PMT ...............Program Management Team PMP................Performance Measurement Plan PSC.................Program Steering Committee PwC................PricewaterhouseCoopers SAMED..........Small and Micro Enterprise Development Ltd. SITE ...............Strengthening Informal Sector Training and Enterprise SO...................Strategic Objective USAID ...........United States Agency for International Development USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 1 Executive Summary From April 22 to May 17, 2002 a four-person team conducted a participatory mid-term evaluation of the USAID/Kenya’s Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE) project. This project, a combined effort of seven institutional partners working together under 3 separate Cooperative Agreements, represents the major investment of USAID/Kenya in achieving its Strategic Objective 5, "Improved natural resources management in targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders". CORE’s central hypothesis is nearly synonymous with the SO 5 development hypothesis and its activities contribute directly to each of the program’s Intermediate Results. In this regard, this exercise served as much as a mid-term program-level evaluation of the SO 5 strategy as a review of CORE’s tactics and management. By all accounts from USAID’s performance measurement and reporting documents, CORE and SO 5 are highly successful in achieving results. The timing of this exercise, two and one half years into the four-year project (with options for another two years) could not have been better placed. This evaluation encouraged USAID, its CORE partners and over 200 project customers to reflect on the effectiveness of CORE’s interventions and the project’s chances for delivering significant and lasting development changes in NRM in the next year or more. In short, their conclusions were, as expected, very positive. However, in light of the very ambitious number and nature of the project activities in progress, across the five large and far-flung focal areas in Kenya, and the fact that several major components of the project (notably NRM planning and constituency-building) are only beginning to be operational, it is clear that the remaining years in the project will be short. Beyond the fact that CORE is delivering admirably on its performance indicators, the evidence gathered on the basic “cause and effect” of the CORE/SO 5 program strategy bears out that the hypothesis is working. The central issue at this point is not “Does this set of interdependent results add up?” but rather “Will we have we done enough by the project’s end, to have created sufficient critical mass to deliver on the promise of this hypothesis?” The simple answer to that question is “not yet”, although if USAID was to walk away from this project at the end of four years it is highly probable that a lot of what CORE has achieved on the ground would remain. The real question is “In what form would it remain?” A few quick answers are that: ƒ The targeted group ranches will have vastly improved their ability to work together and manage their collective resources for the benefit of their constituents, but whether this behavior change would be enough to affect members’ land use patterns in favor of biodiversity conservation on their marginal lands is doubtful. ƒ There would be new or greatly improved nature-focused enterprises in place but whether they would equitably benefit communities and thereby affect broad-based NRM behaviors is questionable. Among the enterprises would be some impressive ecotourism sites, many of which will only have a 50/50 chance of surviving their first five years as real community enterprises due to inadequate marketing and market linkages. ƒ Several new wildlife forums will be in place on the regional level but whether they could play a critical role in networking, supporting and advocating in favor CBNRM on the national level is doubtful. ƒ The huge gains in community awareness and appreciation for conservation and the environment would remain, for a while, but diminish slowly for lack of concrete skills and tools for capitalizing or effectively managing the fragile resources within, and more critically, just beyond the borders of the communities. ƒ On a smaller scale there would be significant “missed opportunities” to link the project areas with other NRM initiatives (forestry and other donor activities). All of this argues for serious consideration of project extension options for years five and six. Fortunately, the project has most of the management and technical capacity to bridge these gaps within the time remaining. The project has the distinct possibly of leaving behind some profoundly positive changes in the way Kenyans manage marginal lands with critical biodiversity. Our report highlights our conclusions on the state of progress and presents recommendations and critical choices for consideration by USAID and CORE management. Some definitive tactical and implementation decisions need to be made regarding the way forward. We can conclude that CORE is not in need of major course corrections, but rather some actions need to be taken to “lock in the course”. Our chief recommendations cover the need to harmonize project-wide NRM planning activities amongst the partners -- the major “almost” missing link in the strategy -- as well as the consensus that national level advocacy activities would best be managed outside of the CORE set of mechanisms. We commend the CORE partners on their commitment and progress and wish them the best in the many challenges that face them in the upcoming years. - The Team USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 2 Description of the CORE Project1 The Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE) Project is one of the two projects implemented under the wildlife component of USAID/Kenya’s Natural Resources Management Strategic Objective (SO5). The other project is Natural Resource Management and Conservation on Drylands. In September 1999, USAID brought together seven national and international organizations to work towards the conservation of natural resources and the promotion of socio-economic growth among local peoples through the development of conservation based enterprises. The overall goal of CORE is to improve conservation and management of natural resources through increased benefits to communities and landowners in areas critical to parks and reserves. The key CORE hypothesis is that: If people benefit from wildlife and other natural resources, then they will take care of these resources, using them sustainably. CORE is funded through three separate but coordinated Cooperative Agreement (CA) mechanisms; one to the Kenya Wildlife Service, a second to the African Wildlife Foundation and its partners (PWC, ACC and SAMED), and a third to Pact and its partners (EAWLS and ACC). CORE is a 4-year project operating across five “focal areas” in Kenya and builds on the foundation of the USAID COBRA project implemented by the Kenya Wildlife Service during 1992-1998. The objectives of the CORE program2 are: 1. To increase socio-economic benefits to target communities and landowners through nature-focused businesses. 2. To promote relevant policies, legislation and tools to encourage community incentives for wildlife conservation. 3. To increase size and visibility of the domestic constituency for conservation amongst the Kenyan citizenry 4. To increase capacity to conserve and manage natural resources outside target parks and reserves 5. To improve monitoring, evaluation and reporting systems within KWS. The Five CORE Focal Areas The CORE program operates in five regions (referred to as focal areas). These areas were selected based on their importance as wildlife dispersal areas outside of key Kenyan parks and reserves and to build on and expand prior work undertaken by USAID/KWS/ COBRA and CORE partners in the vicinity. The “focal areas” are: Laikipia/Samburu, Greater Amboseli, Taita/Taveta, South Coast, Greater Masai Mara. The project is expected to enable communities living in these wildlife dispersal landscapes to benefit from those natural resources through successful enterprise activities. Enabling local communities to derive income and livelihoods from their wildlife and other natural resources offers an important mechanism for maintaining important conservation areas and ultimately to sustainable development. This hypothesis underlies Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) efforts and was the basis for the development of the COBRA Project. A description of the roles and contributions of the CORE partners and the full list of CORE’s anticipated results can be found in Appendix B: Supplementary Information on the CORE project. Evaluation Purpose and Methodology USAID’s “managing for results” systems are intended to utilize a balanced combination of active teamwork, performance measurement and program evaluation. The SO 5 team and the CORE coalition ensure complementary structures where USAID sit on the PMT and the three lead CORE agreement holders sit on the SO Team. As the major implementation mechanism for the SO 5 program, the CORE coalition partners regularly and directly contribute the majority of SO 5’s performance data for USAID SO 5’s PMP updates and reporting requirements (previously known as the R4 process). The overall purpose of this Mid-term Evaluation was to fill in information gaps that are essentially inherent in performance measurement. Specifically, while performance data can inform managers about what is happening on the ground relative to particular program indicators and targets, it proves to be inadequate in explaining why desired results are or are not being achieved. Given the CORE project represents the vast majority of USAID SO 5 investments in achieving program results, this 1 This section draws from text included in CORE’s 2001 M&E Report and from the project description in the Task Order SOW. 2 The CORE coalition refers to itself as a “program” in that they represent a combination of three distinct USAID-funded sets of activities. We have respected this language in this section, but elsewhere refer to CORE as a project in order to avoid confusion between CORE and the SO 5 NRM program that it serves. A Sampling of Mid-term Evaluation Tasks focusing on the Program and Project Levels SO 5 Program-level Evaluation Questions ƒ Is there evidence that SO 5’s development hypothesis (relative to CORE) is working? ƒ What are the impacts on NRM and the environment in the focal areas? ƒ What would constitute a strategic plan for the final two years of the CORE Project? Project-level Evaluation Questions ƒ Is progress being made toward achieving the project objectives? ƒ Are any modifications needed in the project activities? ƒ Will the project need a two-year extension as provided for in the respective Co-operative Agreements? USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 3 evaluation essentially served as a combination of a program-level review, aimed at determining whether CORE outputs are adequately delivering specific SO-level results, and a project-level review focusing on management and tactical questions relative to CORE’s implementation. CORE’s performance data tells a story of significant success. The project is meeting its objectives and exceeding its performance targets in nearly every case. This performance begs evaluation questions such as whether the targets were originally set too low or whether the three CORE Cooperative Agreement workplans should be adjusted for quicker graduation of activities or expansion into new areas. We address both questions under Recommendations in this report. In addition, questions of the sustainability of new organizational and individual behaviors are critical to assess whether SO 5 and CORE performance will translate into lasting development effects after the withdrawal of USAID funding. Clarification of the SOW and Evaluation Questions The Task Order SOW (see Appendix A) contains a set of nine technical information tasks that constitute a comprehensive and ambitious list of questions, which answered literally would have exceeded the time and resources available in this exercise. These questions guided a discussion of evaluation methods and priorities conducted with CTO and CORE partners on April 25. The resulting set of thirty-four priority questions are listed in the master list of evaluation questions (see Appendix C). We answer these priority questions below in the “Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions”. In Appendix C: Evaluation Methodology and Instruments, the reader will find: a more comprehensive discussion of the clarification of the SOW; a detailed description of the development of the evaluation workplan; a description of our data collection and analysis methods; and samples of our instruments. In short, this evaluation sought to assess CORE’s direct contributions to USAID/Kenya’s SO 5 program while looking for lessons-learned and ways to improve overall project performance. We have not attempted to redo the performance measurement reviews that are a standard part of USAID’s monitoring and reporting procedures nor have we attempted to evaluate each and every CORE-funded intervention (workshops, consultations, technical assistance). Our conclusions and recommendations focus on how well CORE is supporting the SO 5 strategy and ways in which CORE’s tactics and management can be improved. Specifications for the Mid-term Evaluation Final Report Requisite with the schedule of deliverables specified in the SOW, this final report may not exceed a two-page executive summary and a fifteen-page3 summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations, and lessons-learned. The appendixes include more detailed findings in the form of individual team member reports (see Appendix D) and interview notes (Appendix G). The evaluation team leader served as the principal author of this report and therefore was not required to submit an individual report. The final report was presented and discussed with senior management of USAID on May 16 and the CORE PMT on May 17. During the latter session specific plans were made for the “culminating consultative strategy” workshop to be conducted on June 17th. A preliminary agenda for this strategy session is provided in Appendix H. The actual “way forward” strategy will be developed collaboratively during that session and be prepared as a post-workshop report under a separate cover. Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions This section presents our team consensus on the most signification conclusions, supported by the evidence of specific findings, identified in the Mid-term evaluation. These program-level findings and conclusions were drawn from our analysis of data gathered from CORE documentation, our interviews and field visits as described above in the “Evaluation Purpose and Methodology” section of this report. Where we have summarized conclusions presented in the appendices of this report, we have provided appropriate page references. Note that other categories of findings and conclusions are included elsewhere in this report. In the Appendix D, members of the team offer their own conclusions and findings relative to their particular area of expertise, while in Appendix G we have captured activity-level findings derived from our visits to selected field sites. In this section we have grouped our responses to the priority evaluation questions from two viewpoints: 1. CORE’s program-level contributions to SO 5 and its Intermediate Results (IRs)4 , and 2. Conclusions specific to CORE’s project-level sustainability, coordination and management. 3 This was modified by the CTO from the ten-page limit stated in the SOW on 6/5/02. 4 By aligning our findings and conclusions to the SO 5 IRs, we address the priority evaluation question, “Are there ways in which CORE could better link up to the SO 5 strategy?” Further conclusions to this effect as addressed in the report Recommendations. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 4 CORE’s Contributions to the Achievement of the SO 5 Strategy SO 5’s Overall Development Hypothesis Is the hypothesis that “we can motivate people to engage in CBNRM behavior through incentives and community benefits” working? CORE’s hypothesis (noted above on page 2) and the SO 5 development hypothesis (see text box) are essentially the same premise. We conclude without a doubt that the hypothesis is working, but in its application to the CORE focal areas there are no textbook solutions. During 2001, communities and landowners in the focal areas legally set aside 97,100 ha of land into conservation, directly attributable to CORE (the target was 35,000 ha), raising the total hectares in community/private conservation areas to 657,040 (with 101,899 attributable to CORE). This represents a 16% increase in the landmass under community conservation practices since the inception of the CORE Project. The population reached through CORE interventions was 41,433 persons against a target of 22,0005 . The success of this hypothesis varies from one focal area to another. It is clear that several biophysical and socio￾cultural factors contribute to these varying degrees of success. These factors include: ƒ The match of CBNRM and indigenous socio-cultural attitudes. A CBNRM approach works more easily among pastoralist populations. Consequently, poaching and/or pressure from agriculture are more recalcitrant issues in areas such as the South Coast6 and Taita Taveta7 where agriculturalist communities push up against pastoralist ones (as in Laikipia/Samburu). ƒ The degree to which the focal areas are truly wildlife dispersal areas (ranges). For instance, where wildlife density is low or simply transitory (as in migration corridors) there is a comparatively smaller chance of deriving significant tourism benefits (as in major parts of Laikipia and areas around Tsavo East and West National Parks), consequently tourism incentives in these areas will be less compelling. ƒ The degree to which the land is marginal for other forms of productive use. This strategy works best where populations have few other sustainable land-use choices. Where the land is appropriate for other productive uses it is proving harder to effect NRM behavior (as in fertile areas of Masai Mara and Taita Taveta). ƒ The amount of human population pressure in the area. Where there is high demand for land and/or high human fertility rates driving up the population, sustainability of the CBNRM regimes will prove more difficult. This is the case in the far northern side of the Greater Amboseli (south of Nairobi National Park). Another threat is pressure for subdivision (primarily in Amboseli, Masai Mara, and Laikipia), and the presence of GoK resettlement schemes (as in Taita). SO 5: "Improved natural resources management in targeted biodiverse areas by and for stakeholders" Is critical mass being achieved in focal areas and are impacts sufficient to advance broader NRM? The goal of the CORE programme is to "improve conservation and management of natural resources through increased benefits to communities and landowners in areas critical to parks and reserves." The achievement of this goal entails land use change and a growing number of direct and indirect community members benefiting from the CORE project at the grassroots. Within a short time, the CORE project has made major strides in achieving this goal against many challenges. Additionally, the project has empowered CBOs with additional rights, information and knowledge, and improved their earning potential. CORE's organizational development process continues to create both capacity and knowledge for the target communities in all the five focal areas. The CORE project is therefore well poised to achieve critical mass and benefit more grass-root communities. Has there been attitudinal change? There is clear evidence of attitudinal change among the pastoral communities. While emphasizing their views on livestock as a bank account on the hoof, the communities of Koija, ATGRCA, Koiyaki-Lemek, and Siana, were also 5 CORE M&E Report 2001 6 For instance, despite the fact that the number of Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary members has increased, community members and even some shareholders are still practicing detrimental NRM practices in and around the PA. 7 GoK resettlement communities of non-Taita people next to Kasigau represent a serious challenge to plans to establish a conservancy in the area. The most significant result achieved was the positive land use change. Communities and private landowners in 9 separate conservation sanctuaries legally set aside 92,100 hectares of land as wildlife habitat, buffer zones and water catchment areas. This came as a result of some 862 stakeholders directly receiving funding, training, technical or commodity benefits attributed to the program. - USAID/Kenya 2001 Annual Report, page 4. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 5 unequivocal on their understanding of perceived benefits from the wildlife and natural resource conservation. They referred to the latter as a second bank account, which has potential to grow. As such, they expressed their readiness and willingness to reduce their livestock numbers (shrink the first account) and allow the expansion of the wildlife (expand the second account) and bring about the equilibrium needed in resource use (carrying capacity). Have the target communities and group ranches been empowered? Which aspect of group ranches should be the focus of CORE interventions to ensure their sustainability? Yes, the communities are in the process of being empowered. Right now, the work on awareness creation, training and all the other organizational development initiatives being provided by CORE partners to the communities seems to be effective in equipping them to: ƒ Develop a strong sense of ownership through, inter alia, the acquisition of Title Deeds for their communal land; ƒ Develop confidence and build consensus as they develop mechanisms and instruments (including constitutions) for transparent and democratic management of their respective group ranches, as well as guidelines for setting aside and managing conservation areas; ƒ Ensure sound and transparent financial systems for equitable distribution of benefits. While CBOs targeted for capacity building would benefit from a better understanding of the scope of the OD process8 that CORE is using to validate, empower and build transparency with the community, CORE technical officers have done well not to rush the capacity-building process (in enterprise and organizational development) in the communities. Moderating the process is not easy when CBO members complain about the number of meetings and workshops needed before they see tangible development outcomes. The CORE staff should be commended for their attention to the developmental learning process as well as concerns about building dependency for donor inputs. There is no expedient way to build the resident skills and practices necessary for these community enterprises, group ranches and forums to transition to self-management. Is CORE contributing to true poverty alleviation? The CORE project has demonstrated the potential to contribute to true poverty alleviation by increasing incomes of the target communities directly and indirectly. This will become even more evident when mechanisms for ensuring equitable distribution of the income are firmly in place. Is the state of the environment improving in project areas? While CORE has significantly extended the amount of land under NRM, the evidence indicates that pressure on some of these ecosystems remains constant or is even increasing. Environmental degradation is continuing with loss of tree cover (trees cut for fuelwood and charcoal) and soil erosion from the mountain slopes in Greater Amboseli. We witnessed that poaching pressure exists for bush meat (mainly antelope) in LUMO, and poaching of translocated impalas has occurred in Mwaluganje. The Masai used to have a ready market for livestock but no longer do because the Kenya Meat Commission closed down some time ago. Consequently, livestock numbers are increasing, resulting in increased degradation. We were surprised to hear members of several group ranches in Laikipia and Amboseli freely acknowledge that they needed to address their overstock problem. Coming from Masai tribesmen, this in itself is an indication of significantly increased environmental awareness. The biggest conservation issue in Laikipia is the conflict between human and wildlife. KWS assists communities in erecting electric fences and live fences using thorn trees such as Ceasalpinia decapitata. Water resources management is a major issue in Amboseli, Taita-Taveta, Masai Mara and Laikipia. The water supply in Kasigau is seasonal except in two villages. The challenge in the future will be to balance the needs of wildlife, livestock and agriculture. This conclusion underlines the need for CORE to get moving quickly on well integrated NRM planning and consultation within and beyond the communities the project is currently serving. Not everything is declining. We were impressed that every group we spoke to could render an honest assessment of their immediate environment. In some cases, people reported that gains were being made against degrading practices at least as fast as the speed of decline. In the South Coast, there is evidence that the same SO 5/CORE hypothesis is working to leverage community conservation (see text box below). 8 During the course of this evaluation the team members and CORE OD specialist explored ways of using visual aids to portray a “process map” that could help CBO members understand and track the logic of the CORE interventions. Our field interviews established that communities appreciate the outcomes of the OD interventions on their organization even though they may not understand how the whole OD process fits together. CORE technical officers have done well not to rush the capacity-building process (in enterprise and organizational development) in the communities. The most significant program achievement in 2001 was the attitudinal change towards the environment due to increased awareness of conservation incentives among the target communities. - USAID/Kenya 2001 Annual Report, page 4. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 6 There is evidence that within a couple of years, there will be an appreciable natural recovery and rehabilitation of vegetation and improvement of the overall landscape in the areas set aside for community conservation. This is attributable to: ƒ Awareness creation through training and exchange visits to successfully manage conservation areas in other communities demonstrating tangible attendant benefits for the community; ƒ Cash entrenchment in the local economy necessitating the need for cash income; and ƒ Development of group cohesiveness in the group ranches and the subsequent emergence of a greater sense of ownership and empowerment in decision-making. IR 5.1: Site-specific initiatives for NRM implemented outside protected areas The strategic plan explains, “Within each targeted area, specific NRM initiatives will be tailored which respond to local needs and conditions, including the need of women. By implementing these initiatives, communities will change their behaviors in favor of improved NRM9 ”. CORE’s NRM initiatives in each target area have been “tailored” to respond to local conditions in so much as they have not taken a “cookie-cutter” approach to their interventions. The partners have worked with a limited variety of viable nature-focused businesses, paying careful attention to the development of community ownership and local business and CBO management skills. In most of the CBOs we visited we encountered women as small, and sometimes silent, minorities on community management committees. We recognize however that this minority may constitute significant progress in these communities. We also noted that several community enterprises have associated women-specific spin-off businesses. We understand that these initiatives directly benefit women. Regardless of the promising developments in site-specifics initiatives, it is generally understood within the CORE coalition that efforts will be needed in the next phase of the project to: 1) further diversity the use of appropriate NRM tools (IR 5.1.1); and 2) complement the current initiatives with integrated NRM planning (IR 5.1.2) and discrete NRM capital investments. IR 5.1.1: Appropriate NRM tools and technologies adopted The stakeholders have used a wide range of conservation tools. These include: land set aside for wildlife conservation; nature focused enterprise development; spin-off enterprises; forum and network creation; focused commodity support; M&E systems and databases; conservation leases; NRM planning; organizational capacity development tools and skills; marketing development and product development. In certain CORE focal areas there had been attention to utilizing a mix of tools, such as trust or conservancy work. The team shares the concern expressed by several informants that while community enterprise can indeed work to change awareness and behavior vis-à-vis the environment, not every community will be able to have enterprises. In these cases, the effective application of other tools will be critical. Furthermore, while the establishment of profitable nature-based community enterprises is clearly necessary to advance NRM in the five CORE focal areas, alone they are not sufficient to achieve sustainable NRM practices. The potential for developing more enterprises in CORE focal areas exists but such enterprises must be culturally relevant and market-driven. Many of the people that we interacted with in the field reflected on the fact that while the potential for new tourism enterprises may have no limit in Kenya, they will not be appropriate for many communities in the greatest need of NRM improvements. The fact is that over 85% of the EDF grants have gone to tourism operations. In addition the size of the grants to tourism enterprises dwarf those grants going to other types of enterprises. The individual size of grants for tourism facilities have been anywhere from four to fifteen times the size of grants to apiculture. Looking at this disparity, some wonder whether future grants should be made to favor other types of enterprises. Others assert that the 9 USAID/Kenya’s SO 5 Strategic Plan, page 17. ..it is generally understood within the CORE coalition that efforts will be needed in the next phase of the project to: 1) further diversity the use of appropriate NRM tools; and 2) complement the current initiatives with integrated NRM planning and discrete NRM capital investments. The Wasini Project in Kisite is reported as a CBNRM success story. The reefs there are in good shape and the fishermen and boat operators are collaborating. Fish populations are showing an increasing trend. Another positive development is that the local fishermen want to expand the marine reserve in order to keep out fishermen using destructive methods. There is also a wetland boardwalk where women are conserving the mangroves through selling curios to tourists. Daily patrols in Kisite Marine Park by KWS wardens in collaboration with community members have reduced dynamite fishing by fishermen from Tanzania. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 7 predominance of tourism proposals simply reflects the best opportunities in the Kenyan marketplace and the fact that it is challenging to find investors willing to make significant capital investments in communal lands. The truth is most probably in between these two points of view and we are confident that the PMT and GMU are cognizant of the need, at this point of the project, to be looking at a balanced use of these resources. IR 5.1.2: Integrated community NRM plans established Have there been gains in integrated NRM planning? What should be the focus of CORE’s OD work: the CBO’s ability to manage itself or to do NRM work within a specific ecosystem? The application of integrated NRM planning is an essential complement to the development of nature-focused businesses without which one could lose the essential conservation logic in the enterprise. While this was lacking in the first years of the project, concrete NRM planning steps are being taken. Essentially this important function was not originally included in CORE-Pact’s CA. On the CORE-AWF side, AWF’s Heartlands Program has included some NRM programming in Amboseli and Laikipia, but this has not reached other AWF sites. Last year an amendment to Pact’s CA extended their period of performance and included resources for ACC to conduct NRM planning for all of the CORE CBOs. On a second track, Pact has hired a NRM specialist who is working on a “rapid response” basis with Kurikuri. As noted above significant gains in NRM coverage in each of the focal areas, at least in the zones where CORE is working, will not be achieved without the engagement of a more complete set of NRM tools and technologies. This NRM planning function should directly facilitate the choice and application of NRM tools and technologies. There is no question that USAID can expect to take an ecosystem approach to NRM advancement in the focal areas,10 as this far beyond their manageable interest. However, it is also evident that the long-term success of CORE interventions necessitate that the most pressing environmental threats in, around and between the sites be clearly identified so that mitigating action can be taken. This is especially true where the wildlife forums are nascent and far too immature to take on such analysis and action. The NRM planning activities will benefit from a small NRM fund (approximately $350,000) intended to provide limited resources to CBOs that propose to take on NRM-related capital investments. IR 5.1.3: Improved local decision-making based on monitoring and analysis What has been done to advance resource monitoring? Are there capabilities on the ground to do monitoring? At the local level, KWS wardens are responsible for monitoring and evaluation throughout the country. KWS HQ houses CORE's M&E database and provides data to individual wardens and communities to assist in short-term and long-term planning. Senior KWS employees and line monitoring staff have been trained in M&E and KWS has included M&E as part of the syllabi at both Manyani Field Training School and Naivasha Wildlife Training Institute. The databases that have been developed include: Problem Animal Control (human-wildlife conflict); Rhino Monitoring; Ecological Monitoring; Wildlife for Development Fund (WDF); and CORE Training. It is too early to determine the functionality of these databases. Efforts will be needed be ensure that KWS’s resource monitoring outputs are linked with the NRM planning work that is planned under CORE in the next year and a half. IR 5.1.4: Nature-focused business practices improved With CORE technical assistance nature-focus business practices are improving. Collectives are now beginning to harvest export-quality honey (Kurikuri) and are making sophisticated choices about hives and alternative ways of producing honey (Namelok). A cooperative has been set-up to buy all honey produced so that producers don’t need to worry about overproduction. These bee-keeping enterprises seem to be proceeding in a timely fashion and will likely be sustainable at the end of the initial four year term of CORE. Relative to tourism enterprise, the notion of communities benefiting directly from these revenues is a relatively new idea that is being confirmed by CORE contributions. Very few traditional lodges and camps in Kenya historically shared benefits to surrounding communities. Partially through CORE, a new type of tourism enterprise is emerging. A general rule of thumb for the tourism industry is that it takes approximately 18-24 months to take an enterprise from the beginning of actual operations, to a phase approximating sustainability. Complicating this from a community enterprise point of view is the need to access capital from donor sources, or to take the steps necessary to create a legal or financial structure to ensure revenue sharing or community benefits on a sustainable basis. Once these outcomes have been achieved, initial business operations can be begun. 10 NRM planning will be extended to just four of the five focal areas, with the South Coast excluded. With the shift of certain activities to the Kenya Coastal Project, there are only two CORE initiatives remaining in the South Coast. The OD work focusing on the Mwalugenje Elephant Sanctuary should graduate by the end of the four years of CORE and the only remaining activity will be OD work for the maritime forum. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 8 Community Enterprise Management Continuum Is it worth expanding the CORE interventions (enterprise and OD) at the group ranches? Similar to how NRM tools and technologies need to be tailored to the needs and conditions of a specific community in the context of that particular ecosystem, the experience in choosing and developing nature-focused community enterprises seems to be a function of several factors, including: ƒ The community’s natural resource base and climatic conditions. ƒ The marketplace plays its rightful role in determining whether there is adequate demand for each particular enterprise idea and whether the community can deal with the many considerations that go into calculating risks, and utilizing resources and collective capital for gain. ƒ Finally, the amount of cohesion within the community and its willingness to organize and manage a community enterprise in another key determinant in what kinds of enterprise makes sense. This is especially true in the case of group ranches. The CORE experience seems to indicate that the appropriateness of community-based nature-focused enterprises is a function of several factors, including: ƒ The community’s natural resource base and climatic conditions. Obviously the physical location of the community and its natural resources is a key factor in determining whether a community will be a prime candidate for tourist￾oriented enterprises or whether they will need to look for other forms of nature-focused enterprises; ƒ The marketplace plays its rightful role in determining whether there is adequate demand for each particular enterprise idea and whether the community can deal with the many considerations that go into calculating risks, and utilizing resources and collective capital for gain. This is a complicated set of skills that CORE seems to be addressing in its work with target CBOs. Understanding and selecting market niches and customer expectations will take time for any of the current community enterprises to master, as well the simpler tasks of choosing and negotiating with investors and contractors. ƒ Finally, the amount of cohesion within the community and its willingness to organize and manage a community enterprise is another key determinant in what kinds of enterprise make sense. This is especially true in the case of group ranches. CORE engaged with several communities and group ranches that were attempting to run a community enterprise. Working with this willingness and experience (in each case, an experience of disappointing returns) CORE has shown quick results in developing new business skills. These skills range from organization of the business (OD interventions) to bookkeeping, procurement and marketing. ƒ Low community cohesion ƒ Low project management capability ƒ High community cohesion ƒ High capacity to staff and /or manage a community business Lower costs, limited profits Í ENTERPRISE OPTIONS Î Higher costs, higher potential benefits Land use lease arrangements - LUMO Mid-range tented camps - Olgulului Student bandas - Kasigau Honey production – Namelok Honey processing - Kurikuri High-end ecolodges - Koija Cultural manyattas - Il Polei This continuum is well illustrated in the cases of LUMO, Olgulului, Kasigau, Namelok, Kurikuri, Koija and Il Polei and hopefully soon Mwalugenje (currently struggling to more effectively manage a high-end Elephant Sanctuary). In certain cases, the best a group ranch may be able to manage is the transparent and equitable treatment of a simple lease arrangement. At the other end of the continuum (Olgulului and Koija), communities are proving that they can act as managers and staff of more complicated tourist service operations. IR 5.1.5: Awareness of incentives for NRM increased One of COBRA’s significant successes was creating the awareness of the value of wildlife among the Kenyan population. The SO 5/CORE strategy aims to translate that awareness into broad-based behavior change by getting community members to recognize and grab hold of incentives for managing natural resources sustainability in ways that benefit the community. In assessing whether people are aware of such incentives, we asked them to tell us whether there were benefits in NRM and what specifically they might be. Informants cited a variety of responses ranging from new, direct income from their community enterprises (Koija, Kurikuri, Kasigau, Kijabe,and others) or more equitable distribution of financial benefits already accruing to the community (Koiyaki-Lemek, Ol Chorro Oiroua, Olgulului , Siana Wildlife Conservation Trust). Every group interviewed felt confident that they would realize financial benefits USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 9 even though several of the CBO had yet to receive any revenues from their enterprise. Most informants went on to cite a variety of valuable non-financial benefits. Most informants went on to cite a variety of valuable non-financial benefits. These included: ƒ Education, either from the financing of new community schools, payment of school fees, or the new knowledge, skills and empowerment they are deriving from CORE training; ƒ Better infrastructure and physical security, from new and improved fencing, access to water, and medical services; ƒ Beneficial structural and social changes in communities (women’s collectives for beadwork in the Mara, creating additional income and independence for Masai women) and more secure community livestyles; and ƒ (For pastoralists) Greater financial security through diversified income streams and the establishment of more permanent settlements and communities. Beyond the group ranch enterprises, are benefits really accruing to the constituency? At the moment, the level of benefits accruing to the larger constituencies is fairly small and varies from one CBO to the other. A limited number of group ranches (such as the members of the Amboseli Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association (ATGRCA)) are starting to distribute cash and services to their respective constituencies. By and large, there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that the potential of larger cash incomes and more benefits to communal lands will be realized over time by the target communities. IR 5.1.5.2 through 5.1.5.5 – policy and legal reforms11 What is the present state of policy and legal reforms that are essential to the long-term sustainability of the program? CORE’s activities are relevant to conservation priorities and policies of the Kenya Government in project target areas. The CORE Project is faced with policy level constraints such as: Whose land is it? Whose wildlife is it? There is policy ambiguity and no clear direction. Land use plans are lacking, especially as regards wildlife conservation. User rights regarding wildlife utilization are not clear. Kenya Wildlife Service, the lead partner in CORE, is the only institution with the legal mandate to enforce wildlife laws and regulations, conduct anti-poaching operations, ensure security within national parks and deal with human-wildlife conflicts in wildlife dispersal areas. It has the sole jurisdiction of national parks and an oversight role in the management of national reserves and private sanctuaries (Wildlife Policy 1975; Wildlife [Conservation and Management] {Amendment} Act 1989). These functions remain top KWS priorities. Sessional Paper No. 3 of 1975, "Statement on the Future of Wildlife Management Policy in Kenya" (1975 Policy) contains Kenya's wildlife management policy as approved in 1975. The sessional paper sets out the policies justifying a new, integrated approach to wildlife conservation based on local participation in all forms of wildlife utilization). The 1975 policy showed the limitations of conservation when confined to protected areas. The first steps to rectify the failures in the implementation of the 1975 policy included the establishment of KWS in 1989, and amendments to the national legislation covered in the Wildlife (Conservation and management) [Amendment] Act 1989. A pilot program on wildlife utilization was launched and the government instructed KWS to address the human wildlife-conflict as a matter of the highest priority and to review current wildlife policies accordingly. In 1994, KWS commissioned an independent five-person review of the human-wildlife conflict. The review team concluded that the solutions to human/wildlife conflicts required a concept of sustainable wildlife management by and for people on their land12. Since 1992, KWS has undertaken initiatives through COBRA and CORE to engage landowners to conserve wildlife in wildlife dispersal areas. KWS has been involved in pilot projects to crop wildlife in Machakos, Naivasha-Nakuru and Laikipia. KWS has also been involved in maintaining security and has undertaken PAC in the target areas. KWS offers assistance to the local communities in providing security, translocating animals, conducting wildlife monitoring and supervising wildlife utilization. About 75% of the wildlife occurs outside protected areas. KWS has carried out an evaluation of the pilot wildlife-cropping scheme and an evaluation of game bird conservation and management. The recommendations arising from the cropping evaluation are awaiting KWS Board discussion on the way forward. An internal KWS committee is working with a consultant to review the Wildlife Bill and incorporate 11 These IRs are: IR 5.1.5.1 Wildlife policy revised and Wildlife Conservation and Management Bill passes; IR 5.1.5.2 EMA formed and functional; IR 5.1.5.3 Land use policy created and enacted; IR 5.1.5.4 New Forest Bill passed; and IR 5.1.5.5 National Biodiversity Strategy established. 12 KWS Wildlife Policy 1996 (Draft Version 15 January 1996) By and large, there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that the potential of larger cash incomes and more benefits to communal lands will be realized over time by the target communities. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 10 amendments that will address the major challenges facing NRM. The decentralization of some user rights and regulations on game bird shooting is in process13. IR 5.3.1: Improved availability and analysis of data for decision-making Baseline data for reference in measuring biophysical changes in all areas has been lacking for years, even in those areas where COBRA was involved. A baseline survey was completed in 2001 through CORE. In Shimba Hills and Mwaluganje, USAID has provided funds for animal census. This survey has been completed. The wildlife censuses in the group ranches include all species. Local communities have not been involved in wildlife monitoring in 2001 but plans are under way to involve them this year. There is an obvious need for CORE NRM planning activities to link up effectively with KWS’s monitoring and survey capability. IR 5.4: Environmental advocacy strengthened Should the advocacy element of CORE be pulled out and implemented through another mechanism? The discussion of CORE’s contributions to IR 5.4.1 (below) has direct relevance to this question. Our response to this evaluation question has been provided in the “Recommendations” section. IR 5.4.1: Constituencies for NR conservation established Despite the fact that progress in creating wildlife forums has been mixed, every piece of evidence argues that significant progress is being made under this IR. CORE’s interventions have supported significant increases in the Laikipia Wildlife Forum’s ability to organize and implement NR activities among member community. It is still too early to say the newer forums (Taita Taveta, Kwale and Samburu) are functional constituency groups but the prospects are hopeful, due to CORE’s OD interventions. Other examples of on-the-ground progress include the formulation the Siana Wildlife Conservation Trust. This new constituency came into being in response to CORE’s work with other groups in the Mara. EAWLS has made the correct conclusion that the time is not really right for developing a National Wildlife Forum. The experience of LWP and Pact work seems conclusive in supporting this decision. However, the time is right to focus on the regional fora, in terms of the organizational functioning, their ability to service their membership, and their role in clarifying and representing the interests of their constituency at the regional level. The remaining IRs are beyond the management interest of SO 5 and consequently should not be considered objectives of the CORE project: ƒ IR 5.2 Encroachment & subdivision reduced. This is the responsibility of USAID/Kenya SO 2, the Ministry of Agricultural and Ministry of Lands and Settlement. ƒ IR 5.3 Improved management of protected areas. This is the responsibility of KWS. What are the forestry linkages for CORE? CORE's forestry linkages are few. KWS's involvement in indigenous forest management is limited to Mt. Kenya forests only. Plantation forests are still under the Forestry Department. In Aberdares, KWS is involved only with those forests within the National Park. An MoU exists for collaborative management of forest areas between KWS and the Forestry Department. In Ol Donyo Sapuk, KWS assisted communities in the formation of Fourteen Falls Conservation Committee as well as planting trees as a buffer zone to the reserve. It is expected that the buffer zone will reduce human-wildlife conflicts in the area and cushion Ol Donyo Sapuk National Park from forest degradation. In the whole of Taita -Taveta, the biggest threat is deforestation of water catchment areas in the mountains. The mountain forests have rich biodiversity with endemic species and many other species of medicinal value. Charcoal production within and outside the ranches is rampant, including lands bordering the national parks. Conclusions specific to CORE’s project-level sustainability, coordination and management Project and Program Sustainability Is the sustainability of the enterprises and CBOs being developed, and if sustainability is not being developed well, what should be the strategic focus of the program to make them self-sustaining after project ends? The majority of the enterprises and CBOs are still in the “start-up” phase of development, and in this phase, most are going extremely well. The question of sustainability really has to do with a long-range view of both the CBOs and the enterprises, and each individual case is different. By and large, the CBOs have made many changes based on the OD interventions, empowering them to seek or obtain title to their land, (Siana Wildlife Conservation Trust, Koija), to put 13 KWS/CORE "This is Our Story": Important accomplishments for year 2001, problems encountered and challenges. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 11 aside various individual plots of land for conservation or for reserves (Koija, Kurikuri, Kijabe, LUMO), to raise money to work in partnership for conservation interventions on land (fence construction and renovation at Olgulului and other sites) and other types of environmental stewardship, and to collectively seek income-earning opportunities for the groups. Groups have resolved long-lasting conflicts (LUMO), come up with better techniques for communication (Ol Chorro Oiroua) and have discovered that collectively, some forms of advocacy can make a difference (Siana Wildlife Conservation Trust). Relative to the sustainability of most of the CBOs, the majority can achieve sustainability in the initial four year cycle of CORE, provided technical assistance needs are analyzed and provided for along with an exit strategy at this time. The organizational capacity assessments (OCAs) and other OD interventions led Pact and AWF began a process that has been extremely useful, has produced results, and can likely lead to complete CBO sustainability over time. What do the current socio-economic trends indicate for the success of enterprises and CBOs as a CBNRM development strategy? There is no question that Kenya’s economy is sluggish at best. This should not hurt the bee-keeping enterprises or the initial efforts of the bead-making projects. There is a sufficient structure to take honey to market and a large enough international market place to ensure that the socio-economic situation should not create a large impact on either the apiary industry or bead-making. The weakness of the tourism sector in Kenya is both structural (in that Kenya has not learned how to better market its tourism attractions in an increasingly crowded tourism marketplace) and political (in that overseas perceptions of Kenya’s political instability, crime, and overcrowding hurt Kenya’s image to holiday-makers). The larger question of tourism marketing is of greater concern, as Kenya has lost the place it once held as the most desirable country in the world in which to view wildlife. This problem results from a largely ineffective tourism board, an over-reliance on beach tourism (not especially desirable from a national perspective or an environmental perspective), a particularly ineffective entrepreneurial community in Kenya, and various economic and political disincentives in the Kenyan economy as a whole. CORE Project coordination and management Is the CORE coalition structure an effective management structure? The functioning of CORE management structures in Nairobi has received considerable time and attention as noted in progress reports from the first two years of the project. By all accounts, productive working relationships and meaningful synergies of project outcomes have resulted from the cumulative commitment of everyone concerned in CORE management. At this point in the project, we believe that it would be counterproductive to alter the carefully developed set of partner relationships. Direct observations of the PMT prior to this evaluation, interviews with PMT members and project documentation all support the conclusion that the PMT functions effectively in a manner exemplifying teamwork. Credit is due to the personal commitment and competence of lead institutional managers who have taken on their coordination roles with commitment and good humor. KWS has set an excellent tone in leading the PMT and enabling each group to share in the responsibility and decision-making. Interviews with members of the PSC yielded findings and recommendations for improvement of the EDF grant proposal review, approval and dispersal process. Not all grant proposals get to the PSC for consideration. Proposals that do make it to PSC take anywhere from three to six months or more of clarifications and modifications before they can be approved. It was noted that this average time has gone down significantly in the last year, as the technical officers climbed a learning curve about what are acceptable standards for grant proposals. A few CBOs and every one of the investors we spoke to raised the issue of EDF funding delays and the lengthy, belabored processes. We spoke to investors who conclude that they would “never again” pursue USAID funding. Fortunately none of these stated that they regretted doing business with the CBOs. We assume they would either do self-financing or find alternative financing in the future. One source of the delay was that some of the PSC members don’t feel that they have adequate information to approval the new proposals in one or two reviews. The delays in grant approvals are exacerbated by lenient procedures. Often proposals are submitted after the ten-day limit prior to PSC meetings. This means that members don’t have time to carefully read and react to the proposals before the meeting, which often results in postponement of the proposal review until the next PSC session. This problem is compounded by the fact that proposals are typically approved under the provision that further clarifications must be provided or certain conditions are met. At that point the money is considered “obligated” and is The OCAs and OD interventions began a process that has been extremely useful, has produced results, and can likely lead to complete CBO sustainability over time. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 12 blocked indefinitely from future use. In practice, many obligated funds stay on the books for months before actually being dispersed. This practice undermines the performance of the fund and represents a limiter to the incentive intended from the fund. Presently the EDF fund is over obligated by $37,900 due to an oversight in tracking, so no funds are available for new grants. However the EDF is sitting on over 80% of its cash pending dispersal. USAID is justifiably reluctant to replenish the EDF coffers when the fund is flush in cash. Is it cost-effective to have so many partners? The number and organization of the partners within the coalition may seem unduly large and complicated when considered from the perspective of Nairobi, the PMT and the PSC. It is understandable that people have suggested that the structure might be better with one lead organization or fewer partners. However, when considered from the point of view of the management and the delivery capacity of the partners vis-à-vis the broad range of tasks to be performed in five far-flung focal areas, we wonder whether the number of partners and range of expertise could be considered excessive or redundant. The question should be asked, “Would it be effective to have fewer partners? OR, “Could we expect to carry on the same level of performance with fewer players?” We tend to think not. Has CORE shown the ability to adjust based on realities on the ground and has project reporting been adequate? Definitely. Project reporting seems quite adequate, well prepared, honest and appropriate to the level of program managers. CORE management at its best moments demonstrates true “adaptive management.” Management and reporting remain clearly focused on objectives while allowing flexibility and adaptation to changing circumstances. Workplanning is treated seriously and these plans seem to be used regularly yet the “team” is not afraid to modify their activities when results point to the need to adjust tactics. The partners seem respectful of their temporary partnership and have each made significant efforts to collaborate. At its worse, the structure can be laborious and slow in facilitating cross-communication and decision-making throughout the circle of members. No one ever said teamwork would be easy; they said the combining efforts would yield value-added results, and this is what has happened. What is the relevance of this structure around KWS post-CORE? Is CORE a model for KWS? In so much as KWS is trying to evolve to serve as a coordinator for wildlife activities outside of parks and reserves, CORE could be considered something of a “practice-run” for the new role of the Service as a facilitator of NGOs and PVOs working in the field. From the Nairobi perspective it may seem as if a model has been found. But for the local coordinating body of CORE, the Focal Area Team (FAT), there is another story. The only FAT that is considered truly functional is the Amboseli team. The Laikipia group tried to make a go of it but a combination of personality and logistical issues has rendered the group nearly moribund. The South Coast possibly doesn’t need a FAT in that there are just two projects there and one, Mwalugenje, is situated so close to KWS that more coordination between the two may not actually be desirable. Despite the fact that the FAT’s are by and large nonfunctional, all KWS field staff were able to identify all the organizations involved in CORE even though some of them persist in referring to the project as COBRA. The team noted from our interviews with KWS that problems of communication with the local authorities are mounting. Have there been collaboration and coordination problems from the perspective of the stakeholders? What are the communities’ perspectives on this coalition arrangement? Is it working for them? CORE progress documentation for 2001 noted problems in inter-partner and stakeholder communications in the field. While communication and coordination lapses with headquarters can be a source of frustration for project staff, we did not observe inadequate communications between these same technical staff and their communities. We were accompanied in each one of our field visits by at least one of the CORE technical officers working with each specific CBO. Everywhere we went communities were aware and prepared for our visit. They were aware of when the next project contact would be and what would be the purpose of the next communication. Even better, while some people demonstrated some confusion about exactly what organizations were in CORE, everyone had a clear idea about which organizations and technical assistants they were involved with and who they could depend on for further assistance. Furthermore a few CBOs were able to explain CORE’s make-up in certain detail and seemed interested in utilizing some of the expertise the coalition could make available. What has been the experience with other donor projects? Is there need for coordination and who should lead this? Involvement with other donors is varied among the various communities. Those involved in NRM include the European Union through the Biodiversity Conservation Programme (BCP) funded through the Community Development Trust Fund and the recently launched Tourism Trust Fund. Other development agencies involved in NRM include, The Dutch Government, Belgian Government, Finland, and Department for International Development (DFID) of United Kingdom. From the team's discussions with BCP and DFID, it became clear that closer consultations with other donors would help to forge collaborative mechanisms especially on NRM activities on at sites common to CORE and BCP. There are also clear indications that DFID's involvement with group ranches in Magadi (Ol Donyo Sabuk), albeit in rural livelihoods initiatives, should be of interest to CORE, as CORE’s work should be of great interest to DFID. DFID has also small grants for supporting field-based activities. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 13 Recommendations CORE Project Activities How would devolution of control of project activities (from CORE technical staff to CBOs) be achieved? CORE has performed admirably in its first two and half years, but achieving lasting NRM behavior change in the long run will not happen without the application of new and different NRM tools alongside the CORE-supported enterprises. We conclude that CORE performance targets were not originally set too low; rather there is work to be done to ensure consolidation of the gains that have been achieved. Similarly we do not conclude that three CORE Cooperative Agreement workplans should be adjusted for quicker graduation of activities or expansion into new focal areas. Rather, in order to capitalize on CORE’s successes, the project will need to continue and enhance its current community enterprise development activities to further increase broad community benefits and ensure CBO financial independence. The project will also need to focus on integrated NRM planning and implementation to ensure sustainability of the wildlife resource base. These new initiatives may necessitate modifications of current resources and expertise. Community Enterprises Equitable14 community enterprise is a necessary15 but not a sufficient condition. In the next phase of CORE, a sufficient set of NRM tools should be in place by the end of the project to ensure that threats to critical biophysical conditions may be managed. In this regard, NRM planning efforts will be key to the sustainability of enterprises. Certainly CORE management and technical staff are aware of this issue and are already talking about what mix of tools and approaches may be needed in Laikipia/Samburu and in Taita-Taveta. The tourism enterprises are proceeding well and some have begun operations, while others are still going through the initial preparatory inception phase. Because of the longer cycle inherent to tourism enterprises, it is recommended that new and additional targeted technical assistance be provided to these enterprises. This need was originally identified as critical to the sustainability of community eco-lodges by AWF16. Such technical assistance must be carefully considered, and may need to last into the option years of the CORE project. Marketing is not the only challenge that is likely to face group-owned businesses. Issues of governance, ownership and benefit sharing17 will continue to need be addressed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the enterprises. The next phase of CORE will need to include interventions designed to ensure that the current enterprises have access to institutional support and financial services in the future. Should USAID anticipate withdrawal problems on the part of the CORE partners? Advise USAID if the program should have the two-year optional period as provided for in the respective Cooperative Agreements. USAID should not anticipate withdrawal problems on the part of CORE partners. It is clear that only a few of these enterprises will be self-sustaining by the end of the first four-year period of CORE. Part of this is because of the varying time it has taken to obtain investors and partners, to pull financing together, obtain title to land, resolve communal conflicts, or to set up revenue-sharing schemes. CORE should have the optional two-year extension to allow for the "graduation" of the enterprises” as well as the application of other conservation tools that are lagging behind enterprise development. How well are the enterprises' and CBOs' sustainability being developed, and if sustainability is not being developed well what should be the strategic focus of the program be to make them self-sustaining after the project ends? Clear criteria need be established at this time to determine what would be an acceptable outcome by the end of the project (i.e. what would determine adequate CBO “sustainability”). All CBO interventions ought to be managed in such a way as to achieve those criteria by the end of the CORE project. Attention should be given to organizational sustainability once the enterprises are up and running, i.e., transition of the CBO boards; skills transfer to new staff; etc. Is it worth expanding the CORE interventions (enterprise and OD) at the group ranches? Many of the tourism enterprises are based at the group ranches, and there seems to be a compelling argument for the basic CORE premise, that when local groups see the benefits from wildlife conservation, their behavior will change. CBO-oriented OD should continue to focus on enterprise and regional forums and address sustainable operations, 14 By “equitable” we mean that that benefits accrue to the full membership of the CBO, and that CBO membership is broadly distributed within the community. 15 As noted in our conclusions, the enterprises are in the start-up phase and will require continued attention during the remaining project period. 16 AWF Coalition Progress Report, Feb 22 2002. It was also determined that this more advanced technical assistance could have been undertaken earlier with many of the eco-lodges still under development. AWF is spearheading plans to determine the type of assistance that is needed in providing these market linkages. 17 AWF Coalition Progress Report, Feb 22 2002. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 14 member services, political support and advocacy. The emergence of an official NWF will result from empowered regional forums, and this may be more than a year or two in coming. NRM Planning A priority action in the remaining year and a half should be getting NRM planning activities going in each of focal areas (excluding the South Coast). Significant gains have been made in management capacity of the group ranches and community enterprises and it makes sense to build on these capabilities with a focus on environmental protection, land￾use planning and NR threat mitigation. Care should be taken to work within the existing CORE/community structures and partner relationships already in place. USAID should examine the question of basic implementation norms (the breadth and level of detail) for the NRM planning activities be to undertaken by each partner organization, as well as a review of the adequacy of the NRM grant funds destined to this component. Integrated18 NRM planning and NRM inputs are critical. Linkages of NRM planning to KWS’s M&E work should be established and the capacity of CBOs to participate in the planning expanded. Environmental easements should be used for wildlife conservation. Unfortunately the research on application of conservation tools has highlighted the difficulty of apply Environmental easements in acquiring critical conservation lands although provided for in the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 199919. This only one of the tools and given the sensitivities around land in Kenya the use of a wider array of tools is desirable and, in fact, necessary. NRM plans need to be located in a wider conservation context. To be effective the plans need to cover areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any individual local organization. The planning therefore needs to be linked to the wider conservation / NRM targets, the threats they face and strategies that are needed to abate or remove these threats. Although this may be beyond the manageable interest of one CBO -- e.g. wildlife movements, livestock grazing patterns, the dependence on shared resources such as water demands -- NRM planning should be undertaken at a scale that is greater that the boundaries of conservation areas and group ranches. Not only will this help to strengthen these important linkages but create a sense of wider partnership and help in the development of more regional NRM constituencies. Policy The policy "radar screen," referred to in the SO 5 strategic plan, is now is beeping! Support should be extended to the KWS internal committee reviewing the Wildlife Bill. CORE might influence the process to make it more transparent and participatory. The wildlife forums are not ready yet, but the need is for "more voices" on the national scene. CORE should also explore ways to advance the Land Use Policy. Advocacy Should the advocacy element be pulled out of CORE and implemented through another mechanism? The short answer is an emphatic "yes". Interviewees did not reflect a clear understanding of the concept of advocacy, particularly on a national level. There is nevertheless a need for two separate but complementary tracks in advocacy: one at the regional level, which would be coordinated, skills-focused, and mission/service oriented; the second one would be national. While we hasten to caution that the time may not be right for a national forum, a set of ad hoc and non-coordinated initiatives in the interim would likely accomplish a great deal. In the long term, these initiatives would likely coalesce at their own pace into a national forum. Our conclusion is that CORE should focus on developing regional wildlife forums, building advocacy skills among its constituency groups, while national advocacy is undertaken by an independent NGO outside the main CORE coalition. This NGO might be EAWLS doing NRM and related advocacy. EAWLS has been very effective in advocacy activities on wetlands (Tana River Delta) and forest excisions, and thus has a comparative advantage in this role. Regional forums could concentrate on regional issues, and the National Wildlife Forum (NWF), once operational, could address national issues, taking approaches similar to those applied by the Kenya Forestry Working Group (KFWG). We are also convinced that the advocacy efforts on the regional and national levels must look beyond the “obvious” environmental groups to include tourist organizations and other organizations with educational, economic or social interests related to the environment and land use policy. Monitoring and Evaluation Local communities should be trained and involved in monitoring and evaluation as part of capacity building in NRM. KWS should continually assess the functionality of databases in KWS to determine their effectiveness. KWS also needs to define its position on the extent to which it will conduct monitoring activities and the extent to which it would outsource for skills from partners. 18 By “integrated,” we truly mean an integrated approach that includes livestock, agricultural and other land uses. 19 AWF report comments, 22 May 2002. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report page 15 Management plans for protected areas should be revised to integrate the surrounding dispersal areas, migration corridors, buffer zones, and water resources. CORE should also address issues related to species and habitat management, water supply, species monitoring, and assessment of the carrying capacity of conservation areas. Forestry Linkages Forestry linkages are beyond the mandate of CORE. The issues that must be addressed should include regulation, control, and harvesting of wood and non-wood forest products, and pricing. Perhaps the most relevant issues to CORE are novel ways of introducing agroforestry as a tool for conservation of natural resources and providing additional income to communities. Creation of agro-forestry buffer zones involving local communities should also be encouraged. CORE and the Forestry Management Initiative should link to support management approaches that share responsibility and benefits with target communities. There is a need to increase efforts to conserve genetic diversity in managed forests through research, and by promoting better harvesting techniques. Efforts should be made to support a review of the Forest Policy, as forests are critical habitats for wildlife. Advocacy activities in CORE should also include the forest excisions issues occurring in the target areas and throughout the country. With the limited forest cover in Kenya, forest products will increasingly come from trees that people have planted. CORE Management CORE Management should now plan for an efficient and effective transfer of management of all projects by CORE's end. Focal Area Teams (FATs) are not operating as they should, and they need to be either revised or replaced by another mechanism. There is need to improve procedures in order to expedite the disbursements of project funds. The size of NRM grants relative to the overall budget reflects a need for balance. For PSC to gain understanding and make informed decisions in the approval processes, it is recommended that the PSC committee members be enabled to make regular visits to relevant field sites. The team recommends that CORE project management should proactively seek to develop more linkages with projects funded and implemented by other donors and institutions to gather and share information on lessons and approaches to community development (specifically on NRM and related activities). If USAID were to opt for another two years of funding after this first four years of CORE, the question of rearranging the partners and mechanisms might be raised. If however, the nature and mix of the tasks to be performed under CORE funding were to be similar to the current project, we do not see the need to modify the current set of players. The team had interviews with only two donor organizations. We got a clear indication that there is a lot of potential for donor collaboration and additional funding for NRM and enterprise development activities. The team recommends that CORE seek to identify and take advantage of opportunities for collaboration with donors through constructive and proactive engagement. Additionally there is a need to cultivate linkages with other activities in the group ranch areas, e.g. food aid, HIV/AIDS education, adult literacy, primary education. These activities are be outside of the scope of the CORE project but not outside of the range of SO 5’s ability to leverage partnerships and synergies20. Lessons Learned While the CORE project is still relatively young, a few lessons-learned can be gleaned from the experience. These include: 1. Active involvement of communities bordering threatened ecosystems eases the burden on KWS financial and human resources21. This involvement needs to take place in atmosphere of trust, consensus and confidence building. It also requires focused consultative processes 2. For the target communities to participate meaningfully in natural resources conservation, they must be brought in as partners, custodians, and stewards. In addition, they must be made to understand the full benefits accruing from such conservation efforts. 3. Locating technical staff within the focal areas has made it easier for community leaders to have easier access to technical staff and ensure their increased availability and visible presence to do effective mentoring communities at the project sites. In response, local communities develop interest and a sense of ownership for the CORE project and increase their commitment to the project goals and objectives as well as encourage them to take the risk of testing new approaches. For example, AWF/CORE team has decentralized its field operations by relocating staff to field sites. 20 AWF report comments, 22 May 2002. 21 CORE Progress Report, July 2000-June 2001, CM&E Unit and CWS USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 16 List of Appendixes A. CORE Mid-Term Evaluation Scope of Work.......................................................................................... 17 B. Supplementary Information on the CORE project................................................................................... 22 C. Evaluation Methodology and Instruments ............................................................................................... 23 D. Individual Team Member Reports .......................................................................................................... 33 E. List of Documents Reviewed ................................................................................................................... 53 F. List of Persons and Organizations Contacted ......................................................................................... 54 G. Summaries of Focus Group Discussions, Interviews and Site Visits...................................................... 65 H. Strategic Plan for the Final Extension Phase ......................................................................................... 102 USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 17 Appendix A: CORE Mid-Term Evaluation Scope of Work TASK ORDER SOW OF WORK for a Mid-term Evaluation of the Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE) Project for the USAID Kenya Mission. Background The Conservation of Resources through Enterprise (CORE) Project is one of the two projects implemented under the wildlife component of Natural Resources Management Strategic objective (SO5). The other project is Natural Resource Management and Conservation on Drylands. CORE is implemented through a coalition of NGO’s led by Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and Pact, Inc. It is administered through three separate, but coordinated grants. CORE is a follow-on to the USAID funded COBRA Project, implemented between 1992 thro’ 1998. The premise of CORE is: If people benefit from wildlife and other natural resources, then they will take care of these resources, using them sustainably. The objectives of CORE are to: ƒ Increase socio-economic benefits to target communities and landowners through nature-focused businesses. ƒ Increase capacity to conserve and manage natural resources outside parks and reserves. ƒ Increase size and visibility of the domestic constituency for conservation amongst the Kenyan citizenry. ƒ Promote relevant policies, legislation and tools to encourage community incentives for wildlife conservation. CORE focal areas include the greater Amboseli, the Laikipia/Samburu, the greater Masai Mara, the Taita/Taveta and the South Coast. The project is expected to enable communities living in these wildlife dispersal landscapes to benefit from those natural resources through successful enterprise activities. Enabling local communities to derive income and livelihoods from their wildlife and other natural resources offers an important mechanism for maintaining important conservation areas and ultimately to sustainable development. This hypothesis underlies Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) efforts, and was the basis for the development of the COBRA Project. The Kenya Wildlife Service take a leading role in the CORE Project as the partner with the most extensive and experienced workforce implementing conservation activities around and in Kenya Protected Areas. KWS provides the institutional memory of lessons learned from the COBRA Project that can be applied to CORE. Additionally, KWS contributes to steering and implementing the project by: ƒ Providing leadership on wildlife policy direction, ƒ Buffering or cushioning CORE activities through their extensive field presence, ƒ Taking the forefront in handling human – wildlife conflicts, ƒ Playing its mandated law enforcement role, ƒ Supporting capacity building for wildlife management. The African Wildlife Foundation led coalition implements The Community Enterprise Capacity Building, US$3M, four-year grant. AWF’s implementing partners that includes African Conservation Centre (ACC), Small and Medium Enterprise Development (SMED) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) brings to bear their collective expertise in wildlife conservation, community development and enterprise support in helping to achieve the following results: ƒ Community capacity to conserve and manage wildlife resources in USIAD targeted areas Increased. ƒ Innovative legal and economic tools for conservation designed and tested. ƒ Wildlife and wildlife-related businesses established and performing. ƒ Active partnerships established between communities and private sector established. Pact, Inc. led the coalition implementing the Community Based Organizations (CBO) Capacity Building grant. The four-year, US$4M grant activities includes institutional and technical capacity of CBO to undertake and implement natural resource management plans. The coalition partners include the East African Wildlife Society (EAWLS) and ACC. The following are the expected results: ƒ 10 Community Based Organizations (CBO’s) involved in the management of key wildlife enterprises in the 5 focal areas and have increased capacity to function as effective organizations. ƒ Effective networks established for information exchange and advocacy between target CBOs, wildlife fora and associations, and the National Wildlife Forum. ƒ Improved capacity among existing and newly formed district level wildlife fora and associations function within the five focal areas. ƒ 5 CBOs capacity to comprehensively plan for and implement the management of their natural resources in an integrated fashion developed. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 18 Statement of work 1.0 Purpose 1. To assess the progress made toward achieving the project objectives, 2. To recommend modification to the project activities, if necessary, 3. To determine if the project will need the two-year extension (optional) as provided for in the respective Co￾operative Agreement and develop a strategic plan for the final two years of CORE Project. Technical Information The contractor shall accomplish the following tasks: a. Assess the CORE Project design, the objectives, implementation and performance to date in terms of preparation and implementation of plans, and the process of achieving of targets and objectives – or the translation of project means and activities into results. This will entail evaluation of the adequacy of means, effectiveness of cost expended, suitability of project management, effectiveness of activities and adequacy of monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems. Identify the gaps, issues facing the project and adjustments that can be made to enhance achievement of the objectives, b. Assessment of the internal coherence and logic of CORE’s conceptual framework / hypothesis. Appropriateness of objectives in relation to biodiversity, institutional, socio-political and economic contexts. Relevance to conservation priorities and policies of Kenya government in project target areas. The likelihood of getting resolutions to the problems identified, and the program’s ability to deliver effective benefits to communities. Ability to adjust based on the realities on the ground and adequacy of project reporting. c. Assess the actual and/or potential grassroots impact on livelihoods and conservation in the focal areas where CORE is working. Assess the degree to which project results have contributed to the achievement of the project objectives, including realization of planning assumptions and effectiveness of community outreach mechanisms, and general USAID development objectives (environmental protection, development of human resources, poverty alleviation, gender and participatory approaches, sustainable development, development of private sector etc). d. Assess the project contribution to conservation in Kenya. What are the lessons learned from project design, implementation, and monitoring? e. Determine how well the enterprises and CBOs sustainability is being developed and if sustainability is not being developed well what should be the strategic focus of the program to make them self-sustaining after project ends? f. Assess the effectiveness of coalition management, the factors that have contributed for and against the functionality and performance of the CORE Project coalition. The contractor shall evaluate the performance and effectiveness of prime and sub-grantee in the CORE Project coalition and their contribution towards realization of the program objectives. g. Evaluate CORE Project wider participation in terms of collaboration and coordination within the coalition and other key donor programs/projects, and stakeholders in conservation arena. h. Advise USAID if the program should have the two-year optional period as provided for in the respective Cooperative Agreements. i. If extension of the project is recommended, the contractor shall develop a concrete direction and a strategic plan for the final two-year phase of CORE Project. 1.2 Methods and Procedures: a. The Cognizant Technical Officer, Mr. James Ndirangu, e-mail jndirangu@usaid.gov, and Tel. 254-02-862-400 will provide technical Directions during the performance of this SOW; Fax. 254-02-860949). b. The review team shall be expected to refer to CORE Project Agreements, sector reports (quarterly, semi￾annual and annual reports, evaluations, analytical sector reports etc) carried by CORE Project coalition USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 19 members, other donor similar programs/projects etc. The focused discussions and workshops shall be held to assist the reviewers gather as much information as possible. c. Participatory Process: The contractor shall be conducted in a participatory manner. The reviewers are expected to host a series of consultative meetings/workshops with implementing partners in an attempt to identify needs or gaps. To ensure ownership of the results and recommendations, the reviewer shall present their findings to the partners for review and comments. d. Consultation with USAID and other Donors: The contractor shall be expected to consult regularly with USAID/technical officer responsible for NRM program and other donors implementing similar activities in Kenya. Consultation with other donors shall enrich and provide a reality check for the proposed recommendations. e. Consultation with beneficiaries: The contractor shall visit and verify program activities in the field and consult widely with beneficiaries. The input from the beneficiaries shall be used to draw up recommendations and develop a strategic plan for the program. 1.3 Team Composition/ Responsibilities: A team of 4 people composed of two (2) international and 2 local Kenyan consultants will undertake this assignment. The consulting firm shall have the overall responsibility to conduct and put together the final mid-term evaluation report. To achieve this goal, the firm will appoint a team leader from one of the two international consultants who will be designated the Team Leader. He/she shall be responsible for: 1) a final Mid-Term Evaluation Report, 2) plan/coordinate/manage the evaluation exercise, and 3) ensure that each member is responsive to questions enumerated in the SOW for their areas of expertise. Other members of the team shall consist of the following positions: ƒ The second international consultant will be a specialist in Enterprise Development; ƒ One of the local Kenyan consultant will be a specialist in NRM policy for Kenya; and ƒ The second local Kenyan consultant will be a specialist in Evaluation/OD and backstop the Team Leader. 1.4 Terms of Performance: USAID expects to award a Task Order to a firm to perform a mid-term evaluation of CORE Project. The following are the terms of performance: ƒ Duty station is Nairobi and other CORE Project focal areas in Kenya. ƒ Six-day workweek is authorized without premium pay. ƒ The performance period is from April 16 to June 18, 2002. The contractor shall be committed to work full time on this SOW for the entire performance period while in Kenya. ƒ Logistic support: The contractor shall be responsible for all logistic support required by the reviewing team including office space, furniture, office equipment, secretarial services, photocopying and telephone services and local travel within Nairobi etc. USAID partners, however, will provide transport to project sites from Nairobi. 1.5 Deliverables: The contractor shall be expected to deliver the following: 1. Workplan: The contractor shall be expected to submit a detailed workplan with details of consultation with USAID and the partners, three days after the start of the contract. 2. Briefings: Briefing shall be held once a week at USAID office in the first two weeks and once a fortnight in the subsequent weeks with SO5 Team Leader and ABEO office Chief; 3. Interview notes and documents gathered: The contractor shall be expected to make extensive consultation with USAID partners and stakeholders. They shall make briefs of these meetings, workshops and focused discussions regarding the CORE Project mid-term evaluation. The briefs/workshop proceedings shall be turned over to USIAD/Kenya along with any relevant documents and reports gathered during the review. 4. Participation in entry, mid-term briefing and final briefing for USAID/Kenya staff and Partners. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 20 5. Submit mid-term evaluation reports: i) The contractor shall be expected to submit three copies, and one electronic copy of the draft report o/a May 16, 2002 prior to the team’s first departure in the format provided in Attachment 2. 6. The final Report: The final report will incorporate changes requested by USAID and partners implementing CORE Project, and agreed by both parties. The Contractor shall submit a final report to USAID, by May 28, 2002. The Contractor shall also deliver one electronic copy (in IBM-compatible 3.5-inch diskette format, using Microsoft Word 97 word processing software and Microsoft Excel 97 spreadsheet software) to the Cognizant Technical Officer at USAID/Kenya. Documents must be formatted for size A4 paper. The reports must be prepared in the English language. 7. Culminating Consultation and Strategy Session: The Team Leader will return to Nairobi to facilitate a forward￾looking culminating and consultative workshop o/a June 17, after the circulation of the Final Report. The two local Kenya consultants will assist in the conduct of this workshop. The workshop will allow partners to discuss the MSI suggestions on topics such as capacity-building, sustainability, effectiveness of the coalitions, leveraging funds/activities with other bi-lateral donors, meeting the goals of the USAID strategic objectives. The MSI team will prepare a short workshop report (approx. 5 pages) outlining the findings and conclusions of this post￾evaluation “consultation and strategy session” and brief SO5 Team Leader and ABEO office Chief prior to departure from Kenya. A.1 ACCCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA MAARD NO: 615-0247-3-30177 APP: 72x1014, 72x1021 & 72X1021 BPC: GSS3-93-21615-KG13,GDV6-96-21615-KG13 & GDVO-00-21615-KG13 RCN: 251457 A.2 TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS Technical Directions during the performance of this task order shall be provided by the Technical Officer as stated in Block 5 of the cover page pursuant to Section F of the contract. A.4 USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL (a) The contractor and any employee or consultant of the contractor is prohibited from using U.S. Government facilities (such as office space or equipment), or U.S. Government clerical or technical personnel in the performance of the services specified in the task order, unless the use of Government facilities or personnel is authorized in advance, in writing, by the Contracting Officer. (b) If at any time it is determined that the contractor, or any of its employees or consultants, have used U.S. Government facilities or personnel either in performance of the contract itself, or in advance, without authorization in, in writing, by the Contracting Officer, then the amount payable under the contract shall be reduced by an amount equal to the value of the U.S. Government facilities or personnel used by the contractor, as determined by the contracting officer. (c) If the parties fail to agree on an adjustment made pursuant to this clause it shall be considered a "dispute" and shall be dealt with under the terms of the "Disputes" clauses of the contract. A.5 DUTY POST The Duty Post for this task order is Kenya. A.6 WORKWEEK The contractor is authorized up to a six-day workweek in the field with no premium pay. A.7 AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE The authorized geographic code for procurement of goods and services under this order is 935. Attachment 2: Evaluation Report Format USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 21 Executive Summary (2 pages maximum length): [Brief description of CORE Project key results/impacts, and evaluation’s major findings/recommendations/ lessons learned. Main body (10 pages maximum length): Description of the project: Drawing from CORE Project, concisely describe rationale of community conservation program, including its genesis, what constraints/opportunities it was meant to address, and what, specifically, it has been trying to accomplish. Specify the problem(s) the CORE Project is facing and propose the way forward, for the project implementation and approach. Evaluation purpose, methodology: Describe, briefly, types and sources of evidence and methodologies employed to complete the evaluation SOW. Findings: Present findings, with supporting evidence, as regards the questions/issues in the SOW and other pertinent matters that should arise during the course of the evaluation. Recommendations: Present and synthesize pertinent recommendations from project participants/ stakeholders as they regard ongoing planning, management and implementation of the CORE Project. Also address matters of long-term sustainability and impact. Lessons Learned: Describe and document lessons learned from the project to-date for application to the extension phase if necessary. Consideration should be given to internal project aspects (planning, design, management, implementation) and external factors (e.g., policy contexts, other country/regional/global factors that have been constraining or supportive). 12 Pages total Annexes: Individual team member reports (maximum length 10 pages each). Strategic plan for the final extension phases (5 pages). List of documents reviewed, organizations and persons contacted, workshops held etc. (2 page). Side meeting/focused group meetings and workshop briefs/proceedings (5 pages). 52 Pages total USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 22 Appendix B: Supplementary Information on the CORE project CORE Partner Roles The Kenya Wildlife Service take a leading role in the CORE Project as the partner with the most extensive and experienced workforce implementing conservation activities around and in Kenya Protected Areas. KWS provides the institutional memory of lessons learned from the COBRA Project that can be applied to CORE. Additionally, KWS contributes to steering and implementing the project by: ƒ Providing leadership on wildlife policy direction, ƒ Buffering or cushioning CORE activities through their extensive field presence, ƒ Taking the forefront in handling human – wildlife conflicts, ƒ Playing its mandated law enforcement role, ƒ Supporting capacity building for wildlife management. The African Wildlife Foundation led coalition implements The Community Enterprise Capacity Building, US$3M, four-year grant. AWF’s implementing partners that includes African Conservation Centre (ACC), Small and Medium Enterprise Development (SAMED) and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) bring to bear their collective expertise in wildlife conservation, community development and enterprise support in helping to achieve the following results: ƒ Community capacity to conserve and manage wildlife resources in USIAD targeted areas Increased. ƒ Innovative legal and economic tools for conservation designed and tested. ƒ Wildlife and wildlife-related businesses established and performing. ƒ Active partnerships established between communities and private sector established. Pact, Inc. led the coalition implementing the Community Based Organizations (CBO) Capacity Building grant. The four-year, US$4M grant activities includes institutional and technical capacity of CBO to undertake and implement natural resource management plans. The Pact coalition partners include the East African Wildlife Society (EAWLS) and ACC. The Anticipated Results of the Core Program The CORE program is an ambitious undertaking and by September 2003, seven key results are anticipated to occur as a result of program implementation, they are: 1) Significant organizational development of at least 10 key Community Based Organizations (CBOs) demonstrated by their ability to work with a common purpose and to run and monitor conservation enterprises on their land and oversee equitable benefit distribution. 2) Successful operation of 20 community based conservation enterprises demonstrated by their ability to generate employment, income and financial and social benefits to community shareholders. 3) 10 new, successful, active and mutually beneficial partnerships between communities and the private sector demonstrated by their ability to generate financial and social benefits satisfactory to both parties. 4) Identification of the benefits and drawbacks of selected “innovative conservation instruments” demonstrated by the design and testing of such instruments in 3 conservation areas. 5) Increased size and visibility of the domestic constituency for conservation amongst the Kenyan citizenry demonstrated by the ability of target groups to undertake networking and advocacy activities and promote relevant policies, legislation and tools to encourage community incentives for wildlife conservation. 6) Increased ability of CBOs to conserve and manage natural resources demonstrated by capacity of CBOs to conserve land and manage natural resources, improved data and access to social and biophysical monitoring databases, and reduction in human wildlife conflicts. 7) Improved monitoring, evaluation and reporting systems within KWS demonstrated by utilization of new ME&R tracking systems and improved data and access to social and biophysical monitoring databases. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 23 Appendix C: Evaluation Methodology and Instruments Clarification of the SOW and Evaluation Questions The Task Order SOW (see AppendixA) contains a set of nine technical information tasks that constitute a comprehensive and ambitious set of questions that had they been applied literally would have exceeded the time and resources available. These questions guided a discussion of evaluation methods and priorities conducted with CTO and CORE partners on April 25. The resulting set of thirty-four priority questions are listed in our master list of evaluation questions (see below). We answer each of these priority questions below in our Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions. The level of this evaluation inquiry, described above, was developed in the course of the procurement process and subsequent consultation between MSI, USAID and the CORE partners during teams’ in-country preparations during the week of April 22, 2002. The SOW included in USAID’s request for proposals under the Evaluation Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC) requested six weeks of team presence in country. In the procurement process SO 5’s Technical Evaluation Committee chose MSI’s proposal for four weeks of field presence followed by a culminating strategy session in June. During the course of Task Order negotiations, the USAID Contract Officer modified the Mid-term Evaluation Scope of Work (see Appendix A) based on the original version of the SOW. The modifications included changes to the composition of the team and elimination of a set of detailed research questions associated with each of the team positions. In short, this evaluation sought to assess CORE’s direct contributions to USAID/Kenya’s SO 5 program while looking for lessons-learned and ways to improve overall project performance. We have not attempted to redo the performance measurement reviews that are a standard part of USAID’s monitoring and reporting procedures nor have we attempted to evaluate each and every CORE funded intervention (workshops, consultations, technical assistance). Our conclusions and recommendations focus on how well CORE is supporting the SO 5 strategy and ways in which CORE’s tactics and management can be improved. Development of the Mid-term Evaluation Workplan Another outcome of the April 25th meeting with the CTO and CORE partners was agreement on the evaluation workplan and methodology, and a careful review of the Task Order deliverables in the SOW. MSI’s proposed participatory approach was accepted. This approach favored reliance on focus group discussions with mixed groups of stakeholders, supplemented by individual and group meetings. The CORE partners chose a sample of project sites and were charged by the CTO with preparing the team’s field travel itinerary. The MSI workplan was modified to provide more time for interviews in Nairobi. The evaluation team digested the copious project documentation (see Appendix E) during the week of April 22nd and visited all five focal areas from April 28 through May 7. During this period the four-person team split up into two teams to conduct visits to the Mara and the South Coast. The team also split up to conduct simultaneous site visits in Amboseli and Laikipia. On May 8th the team started meetings and interviews in Nairobi and those activities continued through May 13th. To reduce the amount of time required from Nairobi-based interviewees, the team also conducted simultaneous meeting in two person teams. A list of people contacted and interview notes are provided in Appendixes G and H respectively. A presentation of the team’s conclusions and recommendations was conducted at the USAID mission on May 16 prior to submission of the draft final report. Description of the Data Collection and Analysis Methods Four specific data collection techniques and methods were used in this evaluation. These included: 1. Document review (secondary data collection) of over fifty documents including annual and quarterly progress reports, workshop reports, internal e-mail and technical documents as listed in Appendix E. 2. Focus Group Discussions (primary data collection) organized in the field and in Nairobi. Of the thirty-six formal meetings and interviews conducted, fifteen were focus groups, representing the predominant data collection technique. Cumulatively nearly one hundred people participated in these discussions. A sample of our Focus Group Guide is included in Appendix C. 3. Interview (primary data collection), included both individual and group interviews in Nairobi and the field as well as phone interviews. There were eleven individual interviews and eleven group interviews. Most group meetings were attended by two or three persons, although those conducted during site visits had as many as seven participants. The interviews followed the master list of evaluation questions, which is also included in Appendix C. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 24 4. Site Visits (direct observation) were conducted either in concert with a focus groups or group interviews. In total, eight sites were visited with the majority of them in Laikipia and Amboseli. During the course of this evaluation over 200 people were contacted with approximately 80% of those people in the field. The names of people in each interview or meeting are listed in Appendix F. In virtually every interview or meeting at least two team members were present. A team member was charged with producing the notes for each visit (see Appendix G). These notes were intended to capture the major findings from each interview without attribution. Data analysis methods The analysis of data leading to this report was conducted in four phases. The first phase followed the team’s initial document review during the first week of the assignment. Questions for clarification on the project’s organization and performance were generated amongst the team members to be addressed during the field visits. During the field visits a second phase of reflection and analysis occurred. Team members generated and distributed interview notes, and these preliminary findings were discussed. Once the data collection was concluded, individual team members were asked to analyze the findings and proffer preliminary conclusions and recommendations within their specific areas of expertise for consideration by the team. This third phase of analysis was organized along the lines of the master list of evaluation questions. The team leader took these submissions and produced a first draft summary of the conclusions and recommendations, which were analyzed in a consensual manner among all four team members (the fourth and final phase of analysis). The resulting group summary of the team’s conclusions, recommendations and lessons-learned are presented in the corresponding sections of this report. Findings, conclusions and recommendations, that for reasons of either lack of consensus or space in the body of this report, can be found in the individual team member reports in Appendix D. The remainder of this appendix contains: ƒ The Master List of Evaluation Questions explained above; ƒ The Focus Group Guide used by the team to conduct the focus group discussion; and ƒ A list of pointers in using focus group technique. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 25 Master List of CORE Mid-Term Evaluation Questions This master list of evaluation questions was derived from two sources: ƒ The list of tasks cited in the Task Order SOW (see Appendix A) and ƒ The priority questions identified by the USAID CTO and CORE partners during consultative meetings on April 23 and 25, 2002. The original tasks listed in the Technical Information section of the SOW have been retained in this master list for reference purposes. They are designated as Tasks “a” through “i” as there were in the SOW. Priority evaluation questions relative to these SOW tasks were identified in close consultation with the USAID CTO and CORE partners. These are noted as question numbers 1 through 27. In several cases, specific elements of the SOW tasks were identified to be priority questions and these elements are underlined by not numbered. This master list served as guide for individual and group interviews. It also provided the major discussion topics and probes used in the Focus Group Discussion Guide (see below). Each priority question is annotated with the source(s) of information expected answer the question. These are noted for each priority question on the master list using the following abbreviations: Information Source Annotation Codes Int (partner) = Group or Individual Interview FG = Focus Group Discussion SV = Site visit observation and discussions Doc = Document review PRIORITY EVALUATION QUESTIONS SOW Task: a) Assess the CORE Project design, the objectives, implementation and performance to date in terms of preparation and implementation of plans, and the process of achieving of targets and objectives – or the translation of project means and activities into results. This will entail evaluation of the adequacy of means, effectiveness of cost expended, suitability of project management, effectiveness of activities and adequacy of monitoring, reporting and evaluation systems. Identify the gaps, issues facing the project and adjustments that can be made to enhance achievement of the objectives SOW Task: b) Assessment of the internal coherence and logic of CORE’s conceptual framework / hypothesis. Appropriateness of objectives in relation to biodiversity, institutional, socio-political and economic contexts. Priority Question 1: Relevance to conservation priorities and policies of Kenya government in project target areas [KWS Int & FG]. The likelihood of getting resolutions to the problems identified, and the program’s ability to deliver effective benefits to communities. Priority Question 2: Ability to adjust based on the realities on the ground and adequacy of project reporting [Doc]. Priority Questions: 3. Is awareness creation (CBNRM behavior change based on incentives) hypothesis working? [Int – all partners & FG – Tech Off.] 4. Is the design (causality of CORE) accurate? Are adjustments needed? [Int – all partners & FG – Tech Off.] 5. Should the advocacy element be pulled out of CORE and implemented through another mechanism? [Int – all partners & FG – Tech Off.] 6. Is critical mass being achieved with the focus areas? [Int & FG] 7. Are impacts sufficient to advance broader NRM? [Int & FG & Doc] 8. Are there other options for generating benefits for the communities? [Int & FG] 9. Can stakeholders articulate the benefits accrued? Is there light at the end of the tunnel? [Int & FG & SV] 10. CORE was designed before completion of SO5 strategy – are there ways in which CORE could better link up to the SO? [Team leader & Int – managers] 11. Is the CORE coalition structure an effective management structure? [Int & FG & Doc] o AWF and PACT each have their own partners. Is this cost-effective to have so many players? So much OH? [Int – KWS, USAID] o What is the relevance of this structure around KWS post-CORE phase 2 or even after a CORE #2? [Int – KWS, FG – Tech Of] USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 26 12. What has been done to advance resource monitoring? Effectiveness of efforts? Capabilities on the ground to do monitoring? [Int & FG – KWS & Doc] SOW Task: c) Priority Question 13: Assess the actual and/or potential grassroots impact on livelihoods and conservation in the focal areas where CORE is working [FG & Inv]. Assess the degree to which project results have contributed to the achievement of the project objectives, including realization of planning assumptions and effectiveness of community outreach mechanisms, and general USAID development objectives (environmental protection, development of human resources, poverty alleviation, gender and participatory approaches, sustainable development, development of private sector etc). Priority Questions: 14. What are the communities’ perspectives on this coalition arrangement? Is it working for them? [FG] 15. Is CORE contributing to true poverty alleviation? [FG & Doc] SOW Task: d) Assess the project contribution to conservation in Kenya. What are the lessons learned from project design, implementation, and monitoring? Priority Questions: 16. Is CORE a model for KWS? Does this experience have any implications? [Int & FG – KWS and Tech Off] 17. Are there lessons-learned that can be extrapolated to similar areas in Kenya? [FG] 18. Have resources gotten to the people [FG & Doc] 19. Are we on the right course? Or do we need to modify, address and/or extend? {Int & FG] 20. What about Forestry linkages? ? [Int & FG – KWS and Tech Off] SOW Task: e) Priority Question 21: Determine how well the enterprises and CBOs sustainability is being developed and if sustainability is not being developed well what should be the strategic focus of the program to make them self￾sustaining after project ends? Priority Questions: 22. What do the current socio-economic trends indicate for the success of enterprises and CBOs as a (CB)NRM development strategy? (Is this good and promising success in the “worst of times” OR do the trends indicate a continued slow decline to nothingness OR something else) [FG & Int] CORE focuses on two of interventions and 3 kinds of CBOs: enterprises, group ranches and regional fora. Each group ranch is an enterprise as well as a NRM constituency group. 23. Which aspect of group ranches should be the focus of CORE interventions to ensure their sustainability? [FG & Int – KWS & Tech Off] 24. What should be the specific focus of CORE’s OD work: the CBO’s ability to manage itself OR its ability to do NRM work within a specific ecosystem? [FG customers, FG & Int – KWS & Tech Off] 25. Is it worth expanding the CORE intervention (enterprise and OD) at the group ranches? [FG & Int – KWS & Tech Off] 26. Beyond the group ranch enterprises, are benefits really accruing to the constituency? To the communities (communal lands as opposed to private lands)? What are the benefits? [FG] 27. Group ranches: [FG] o Has the community been empowered? o Has there been attitude change? SOW Task: f) Priority Question 28: Assess the effectiveness of coalition management, the factors that have contributed for and against the functionality and performance of the CORE Project coalition. The contractor shall evaluate the performance and effectiveness of prime and sub-grantee in the CORE Project coalition and their contribution towards realization of the program objectives. Priority Questions: See SOW Task (b) and: 29. Should USAID anticipate withdrawal problems on the part of the CORE partners? [FG & Int] 30. How would devolution of control of project activities be achieved? [Int – KWS & FG – Tech Off] USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 27 SOW Task: g) Priority Question 31: Evaluate CORE Project wider participation in terms of collaboration and coordination within the coalition and other key donor programs/projects, and stakeholders in conservation arena. Priority Questions: 32. Have there been collaboration and coordination problems from the perspective of stakeholders? How were these fixed? [FG] 33. Have you had experiences with other donor projects? Is there need for coordination and who should lead this? [FG] SOW Task: h) Priority Question 34: Advise USAID if the program should have the two-year optional period as provided for in the respective Cooperative Agreements. SOW Task: i) If extension of the project is recommended, the contractor shall develop a concrete direction and a strategic plan for the final two-year phase of CORE Project. Note: The subject of the consultative and strategy workshop on June 18. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 28 STANDARD FOCUS GROUP GUIDE For Project Customers22 OPENING TASKS (15 minutes) • WELCOME – thanks for taking the time, we’re happy to be here, we were from the US and Nairobi working for MSI for 1 month to evaluate CORE • Mid-term evaluation PURPOSE: (1) How activities are working? (2) How everything adds up for you, the community and environment? (3) How could the project be improved from your perspective? Doing group discussions in all five project focus areas. Will be talking to other groups like you as well as people at KWS, USAID and project staff in Nairobi. ƒ We wanted to hear your story that’s way this FOCUS GROUP -- an open discussion with a few topics that I move through in about one hour’s time. I really want each person to tell us their own views ƒ NOTE-TAKING is to only remember your comments later. We are not CORE employees and this is considered confidential. We will not report who said what. ƒ PARTICIPANT INTRODUCTIONS – name, project role, how long at it? DISCUSSION TOPICS AND QUESTIONS (approximately 1 hour) 1. INITIATIVE23 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY (See additional questions for Partner FG on page 29) Tell me how did your enterprise/association/group ranch get started? ƒ Who is idea was it and how is it working? ------ ƒ What has been the most successful part / what are you most proud of? ƒ What has been the most problematic / what has not gone well? How were problems fixed? ------ ƒ Looking out at the next year or two, what do you think will be the biggest challenge/concern? ƒ Where do you see your community/enterprise/association/group ranch in five years from now? 2. PROJECT BENEFITS So tell me what would you say are the real benefits from your initiative? ƒ Would you say the benefits have been mostly financial? Or what? ƒ Are the benefits enough to keep this activity going forever? ƒ Has everyone benefited in the same way / the same amount? ------ ƒ Enterprise/group ranch: Have you considered any other ways of getting ahead instead of your CORE initiative? 3. LOOKING OUTSIDE THE INITIATVE – TRENDS A. Relative to social, political and market forces When you think about the future of your initiative given what’s going on in {area name}? ƒ How is the market/political situation right now for your initiative? In {area name}, In Kenya as a whole? ƒ It is changing? Will things get be better or worse for you in the future? ƒ Any ideas about what to do in the face of future changes? B. Relative to government 22 See the Guide Addendum for additional and alternative question sets for Project Technical Officers and the KWS groups starting on page 29) 23 For this Guide, “initiatives” are either a community enterprise, group ranches or regional forum depending on the focus customer group. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 29 How do you see the future of your community enterprise / regional association relative to government, e.g. KWS but also other government services? ƒ Do CORE initiatives seem helped or hampered by GOK conservation policies? ƒ What about other government policies and priorities – decentralization, HIV/AIDS, economic policy, etc - Should we be looking outside of the wildlife sector for threats/opportunities? 4. ASSISTANCE AND COLLABORATION WITH CORE PARTNERS (See additional questions for Partner FG on page 29) CORE is made up of several partners working with 2 main types of assistance: business development activities and organizational development activities. Business development = helping to find investors or providing business training. Organizational development = assessing the strength inside “the house” as well as planning and management training. What type of assistance has your group received and what seemed the most useful? ƒ If you had to do your initiative over again, would you do it differently? ƒ What could you say was the specific result/benefit of the business enterprise work AND/OR the OD work? ------ ƒ How do you communicate with the CORE project? Do they contact you or do you contact them? ƒ How many partner organizations have worked with you? ƒ If there was no CORE tomorrow, do you think your initiative would fail? ------ ƒ Besides CORE do you work with or know other development projects? Are they as easier/harder to work with as CORE? 5. NRM IMPACTS (See additional questions for Partner and KWS FG on page 29) Maybe you know the saying “he can’t see the forest for the trees.” A main objective of CORE’s activities is to improve local community management of natural resources. Has anything changed in resource management since CORE came here? ƒ Has the physical environment got worse, better or stayed the same in the last few years? How do you know? ƒ Is your activity for conservation/NRM? Should it be? Is conservation just a KWS and USAID issue? ƒ Are we doing enough to make a difference in the environment? ƒ What else could be done to improve the conservation of resources in your community? DISCUSSION CLOSURE (10 to 15 minutes) ƒ Search for summary conclusions for each major topic discussed and ƒ Explain next steps of the evaluation. Thank the group for their time and interest in the project and discussion ADDITIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE QUESTION SETS FOR PROJECT TECHNICAL OFFICERS AND THE KWS GROUPS I. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Tell me about the development of enterprise/association/group ranch get started? ƒ Who is idea were they it? ƒ What have been the best practices? ƒ What have been the hardest challenges? ------ ƒ What has been the most successful part of this project / what are you most proud of? ƒ What has been the most problematic / what has not gone well? ------ ƒ Is awareness creation (CBNRM behavior change based on incentives) hypothesis working? ƒ Is the design (causality of CORE) accurate? Are adjustments needed? ƒ Should the advocacy element be pulled out of CORE and implemented through another mechanism? ------ ƒ Looking out at the next year or two, what do you think will be the biggest challenge/concern? USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 30 ƒ Where do you see the project’s legacy in five years from now? 4. ASSISTANCE AND COLLABORATION WITH CORE PARTNERS ƒ What is the relevance of the CORE structure around KWS post-CORE phase 2 or even after a CORE #2? ------Group Ranches ƒ Which aspect (business enterprise or OD) of group ranches should be the focus of CORE interventions to ensure their sustainability? ƒ What should be the specific focus of CORE’s OD work: the CBO’s ability to manage itself OR its ability to do NRM work within a specific ecosystem? ƒ Is it worth expanding the CORE intervention (enterprise and OD) at the group ranches? ƒ Beyond the group ranch enterprises, are benefits really accruing to the constituency? To the communities (communal lands as opposed to private lands)? What are the benefits? ƒ Group ranches: o Has the community been empowered? o Has there been attitude change? ------Transition & Sustainability ƒ Should USAID anticipate withdrawal problems on the part of the CORE partners? ƒ How would devolution of control of project activities be achieved? 5. NRM IMPACTS ƒ Is CORE a model for KWS? Does this experience have any implications for KWS? ƒ Are there lessons-learned that can be extrapolated to similar areas in Kenya? ƒ Are the NRM incentives enough to yield NRM results? ƒ Are we on the right course forward? Or do we need to modify, address and/or extend? ƒ What about Forestry linkages? What has been done to advance resource monitoring? Effectiveness of efforts? Capabilities on the ground to do monitoring? USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 31 FOCUS GROUP POINTERS An effective Focus Group (FG) requires two people playing the roles of facilitator and note-keeper. An established interview guide is essential for coordinating and managing the session. The guide should be organized to ensure that all the major questions are dealt with in the time given and that the note-taker can easily follow and capture the information. Duration: Most FGs go from 1 hour to 1½ hours in duration. A longer meeting brings greatly diminishing returns and is not really fair to the participants. Roles: NOTE-KEEPER: As FG is an opened-ended information-gathering technique; the note-keeper has the most important role even though he often doesn’t speak during the session. The note-keeper needs to be positioned so that he can see and easily hear all the participants. It is often necessary for the note-keeper to interrupt the proceedings to get clarification if he feels like the quality of his notes are in jeopardy. FACILITATOR: The facilitator should also make some notes but these will be very short notations of key points and issues on the interview guide. These notes are very useful in helping the facilitator relate participant responses from one question to another. Reference to previous responses may help in validating group opinions and deepening the FG conclusions. The primary roles played by the facilitator are to: • Establish a comfortable, relaxed and secure ambiance for the FG discussion • Reflect sincere interest in the participants’ responses by demonstrating active listening at all times • Maintain a clear direction in the discussion and ensuring that the note-keeper is following • Moderate the discussion so that everyone gets to contribute and no participant dominates the discussion • Stimulate the FG discussion through the use of evaluation questions and related probes • Support cross-conversation among participants. The key to FG’s success as a tool is the fact that less-directed and multi-sided conversation led to more participant reflection and so deeper insights and more balanced conclusions. • Avoid expressing personal opinions Room set-up: A circle of chairs or UN style meeting set-up where all participants can easily see and hear each other. The facilitator sits within the circle. The note-keeper is either just to the side or in the circle. FG Procedures: OPENING TASKS (15 minutes) • Welcoming comments – the purpose of the meeting, what is a FG (open guided group discussion designed to encourage reflection among interested parties) • Introduction of the facilitator and note-keeper – briefly describe these two roles, give assurances about the use of the notes and attribution • Describe the purpose of the FG – the mid-term evaluation scope and how this FG fits in • Participant introductions – name, role in the project DISCUSSION PERIOD (approx. 1 hour depending on the size of the group) • The facilitator starts in following the discussion guide. Depending on the number of participants you might be able to address 5 to 8 major questions during the FG (including associated probes) • The facilitator needs to moderate the time in order to get to all the questions. The FG team needs to decide in advance approximately how much time should be spent on each question. • The facilitator may need to interrupt participants to clarify the question if it hasn’t been well-understand and use probes to stimulate reactions from the group. • Note that sometimes the FG discussion will deviate from the established order because there is particular energy around one or more of the questions. The facilitator should let this happen but keep track of the questions that have and haven’t been touched. DISCUSSION CLOSURE (10 to 15 minutes) • The facilitator announces that the discussion is almost over and proceeds to proffer some summary conclusions for each major question based on his notes and memory of the discussion. Search for agreement from the group on these summary conclusions, noting where there was lack of agreement or significantly different opinions or perceptions. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 32 • The FG team thanks the group for their time and interest in the discussion and briefly explains what are the next steps of the evaluation. • The FG may provide participant with their coordinates in case anyone wants to add more to the findings. POST-DISCUSSION MEETING Immediately after the FG the note-keeper and facilitator should meet over the notes. The note-keeper leads this meeting to fill in and validate the FG notes. Time may not allow the note-keeper to polish the notes at this time but he should have everything he needs to type up the results. The finished notes should include two items: 1. These detailed findings and conclusions by major evaluation question 2. The short FG summary that will go in the evaluation report annex. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 33 Appendix D: Individual Team Member Reports INDIVIDUAL REPORT By Michael Fox Enterprise Development Specialist An Overview of CORE’s Enterprise Activities The premise of USAID’s CORE program (“Conservation of Resources Through Enterprise”) is that if sufficient benefits from wildlife and ecosystems are provided to communities as incentives, those communities will choose to change their behavior and better conserve the natural resource base. Enterprise was thus chosen as the most useful tool for creating this behavior change, as direct benefits accrue from successfully building and operating businesses. In its first two years of operations, CORE has been very successful with this model for conservation and development. Enterprise is one of the most useful tools for conservation and development in Kenya today. CORE interventions have woven a creative tapestry of new approaches to community-based enterprises, and those communities have responded to a remarkable degree with changed behavior and attitudes. This strategic thrust is very appropriate for Kenya, as so much of the Kenyan economy depends on the natural resource base, and it is not surprising that most of the interventions revolve around tourism, as this is Kenya’s most important industry. The old adage “if wildlife pays, it will stay” certainly appears to be true. While CORE’s strategic focus includes all types of conservation-based enterprises, community-based tourism enterprises make up the bulk of the enterprises that have been developed. While a strong argument can be made that a much broader application of enterprises as a tool for conservation would be useful, particularly on land that has little commercial value, in fact tourism is one of the best entry points to a diversified and vibrant number of industries. Each Ecolodge generates ancillary products and services, including beadwork, handicrafts, cultural performances, trade, and many other direct businesses. Indirectly, an Ecolodge can require construction of buildings and roads, the purchase of agricultural products, fuel, water, sewage treatment, and many other types of economic activity. Frequently a dozen or more businesses and industries are impacted with the creation of one tourism business. This drives a great deal of economic activity, all of it generating income for various groups, typically many from the community that is developing the Ecolodge, and many other individuals surrounding the threatened ecosystem. This has an immediate and profound impact on perceptions and behaviors in those communities and ecosystems. In the course of this evaluation, many different enterprises were looked at, and while a few apiary businesses were outside the main scope of tourism, virtually every other business was directly related to the tourism industry. Thus the bulk of this report will deal with the impact of the Ecolodges, their sustainability, and a suggested roadmap to the future use of this dynamic tool for conservation and development. The Success of Core Enterprises Many of the tourism enterprises are based at the group ranches, and based on our review, there seems to be a compelling argument for the basic CORE premise, that when local groups see the benefits from wildlife conservation, their behavior will change (we saw this at virtually all the CORE project sites). These changes have seen group ranches begin the process of obtaining title for their land (Siana Springs), or setting aside their own land for reserves in order to obtain additional revenue from conservation (Kurikuri, Koija, Kijabe, Siana Springs). Wildlife sanctuaries are being proposed and developed, in part, because local communities see the benefits of such sanctuaries in terms of income for those groups. If a successful conservation outcome is measured in terms of increased land for conservation purposes, or less cattle or goats so as to not overgraze an otherwise desirable piece of rangeland that wildlife can use and where communities can benefit, then at this stage, CORE is a huge success. And yes, more interventions can produce similar results. The results from OD interventions and community development have been nothing less than astounding. Seemingly intractable situations between communities and between community members have been resolved, new and creative approaches to acquire land title or create reserves or conservancies have occurred, additional group ranches have seen the benefits from other communities and petitioned CORE for similar interventions, and in every CBO visited, members have touted the benefits of conservation. Ol Chorro Oiroua could be the “poster child” for equitable distribution of benefits from Enterprise, even as they look towards new and even more inventive enterprises and sanctuaries. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 34 The Benefits of Enterprise Benefits for local communities can accrue in many indirect ways, particularly in an economy that is partially dependent on tourism, like Kenya. Obvious ancillary industries such as bead-making, cultural performances, craft making, basket-making and other industries will arise in direct proportion to the size of the tourism enterprise under development. Many additional benefits can also accrue from tourism, apart from income, including social changes deriving from the interaction local communities can have with the outside world, as in Koyaki-Lemak or in Kasingau. We saw evidence of women gaining additional measures of independence (both financial and personal) with the women’s bead-making collective from Koyaki-Lemak in the Mara. Trading can take place, bringing in foreign ideas and new approaches to commerce, construction, design and education. Overseas partnerships and educational opportunities also arise in the type of atmosphere that international contacts can create in local communities, such as the partnerships at Kasigau. Enormous educational benefits arise with overseas donors contributing all kinds of technical support and assistance, again at Kasigau. By and large, the CBOs have made many changes based on CORE OD interventions, empowering them to seek or obtain title to their land, (Siana Springs, Koija), to put aside various individual plots of land for conservation or for reserves (Koija, Kurikuri, Kijabe, Lumo), to raise money to work in partnership for conservation interventions on land (fence construction and renovation at Olgulului and other sites) and other types of environmental stewardship, and to collectively seek income-earning opportunities for the groups. Groups have resolved long-lasting conflicts (Koyaki-Lemak), come up with better techniques for communication (Ol Chorro Oiroua), and have discovered that collectively, some forms of advocacy can make a difference (Siana Springs). In some cases, the awareness of revenue generating group ranches in a given region has created a desire amongst other groups and group ranches in those regions to come into CORE and replicate that success (Siana Springs). In some cases, group ranches have undertaken the steps necessary to begin creating similar enterprises with their land (Siana Springs). Finally, as pastoralists begin making cultural shifts towards more sedentary lifestyles, the CORE interventions come at a time when these groups can be supported in reducing their livestock numbers, and begin focusing on alternative income-earning possibilities (Koija, Koyaki-Lemek). The State of CORE Enterprises in Kenya The majority of the enterprises and CBOs are still in the “start-up” phase of development, and in this phase, most are going extremely well. The question of sustainability really has to do with a long-range view of both the CBOs and the enterprises, and each individual case is different. Bee-keeping enterprises seem to be proceeding in a timely fashion and will likely be sustainable at the end of the initial four year term of CORE. Additional technical assistance can always be useful, but sustainability should be able to be achieved in the allotted time frame. Export quality honey is now being produced at Kurikuri, and Namelok has a dynamic group of entrepreneurs dreaming big dreams about their honey production business. However, most enterprises have developed into either Ecolodges or enterprises indirectly connected to the tourism industry. It is important to understand that inception of a CBO enterprise project is a very unusual type of endeavor, and that therefore there is a wide spectrum of time frames CORE enterprises have taken to move from inception phase to begin the start-up of operations. Part of this is due to the fact that a community-based enterprise is a much more complex undertaking than a simple enterprise. Issues arise including waiting for donor money (Koija, Lumo, Kasigau), and occasionally resolving long-term community conflicts (Koyaki-Lemak). It is not clear that CORE tourism enterprises will be self-sustaining by the end of the first four-year period of CORE. Part of this is because of the varying time it has taken to obtain investors and partners, to pull financing together, obtain title to land, resolve communal conflicts, or to set up revenue-sharing schemes. This is apart from the variable time of construction. However, because of the high visibility of the various Ecolodges that have been built and the communal expectations that they will succeed, it would seem to be critical that they do in fact generate the anticipated revenue for those communities. As communities and group ranches have made the strategic choice to change their lifestyles and donate land towards conservation and tourism undertakings, failure of these tourism enterprises could doom conservation efforts in those key regions where Ecolodges have been undertaken. The State of the Economy and its Impact on CORE Enterprises There is no question that Kenya’s economy is sluggish at best. This should not hurt the bee-keeping enterprises or the initial efforts of the bead-making projects. There is a sufficient structure to take honey to market and a large enough domestic and international market place to insure that the socio-economic situation should not create a large impact on either the apiary industry or bead-making. However, the weakness of the tourism sector in Kenya is both structural (in that Kenya has not learned how to better market its tourism attractions in an increasingly crowded tourism marketplace) and political (in that overseas USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 35 perceptions of Kenya’s political instability, crime, and overcrowding hurt Kenya’s image to holiday-makers). The events of September 11 also had a profound affect on the tourism industry in the last quarter of 2001 and the first quarter of 2002, but signs are that worldwide tourism in general is recovering. It may take another year or two before the market is back to “normal”, but barring any more catastrophic terrorist events, tourism demand is remarkable elastic, and tourism should recover fully from the events of September 11. The larger question of tourism marketing is of greater concern, as Kenya has lost the place it once held as the most desirable country in the world in which to view wildlife. This problem results from a largely ineffective tourism board, an over-reliance on beach tourism (not especially desirable from a national perspective or an environmental perspective), a particularly ineffective entrepreneurial community in Kenya, and various economic and political disincentives in the Kenyan economy as a whole. A fresh approach to entrepreneurial activity and a dynamic and effective marketing campaign can make a remarkable change in the current situation, and is a remarkably affordable strategy for the individual Ecolodges where CORE is active. On the macro-economic front, USA baby boomers are just beginning their retirement years, and all indications are that the desire for travel from this sector of the USA marketplace is the single greatest driving force the tourism industry can look forward to at this time, and in the coming years. Barring additional catastrophic terrorist attacks, there is no reason to believe that this trend will stop. The Changing Travel and Tourism Industry The good news is that tourism trends and the touring model in Kenya have both undergone a profound change, and that this change bodes well for the CORE Ecolodges. The demand for the traditional all-inclusive 2-week minibus tour of Kenya is decreasing, as tourists are no longer bound by the constraints of tour operators and travel agents to travel either with or amongst groups. Rather, with the proliferation of independent travel and the availability of information and communication via the Internet, tour operators and travel agents are no longer necessary for the intrepid traveler. Furthermore, travelers are increasingly coming to Kenya for shorter stays, often from 6-8 days, before moving on to Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana or South Africa. These changes mean that an Ecolodge is more desirable today than ever before. Inexpensive technology can allow travelers to discover a great Ecolodge on the Internet, book that lodge directly, and then be picked up in Nairobi and transferred directly to that Ecolodge. When travelers make two or three stops in Kenya, Ecolodges can evolve into all-inclusive booking agents for other properties in different parts of Kenya, or form partnerships to control clients’ itineraries in their totality. This offers Ecolodges the opportunity to create many different types of revenue streams, and “control their own destiny” through effective marketing initiatives. The only ingredient required for success of this type of endeavor is good knowledge of the travel and tourism industry and a very successful and innovative marketing campaign, including public relations, dynamic partnerships, newsworthy stories, a good web site, the use of sophisticated web search engines, and clever means of distribution of the product. In many ways, it should be easier to fill Ecolodges and retain more earnings in the current economic climate than it would have been in the previous decades. Do Ecolodges make a difference? Clearly to communities with limited resources, an Ecolodge can be a source of direct benefits, and this relationship can sustain a small conservation area. Ecolodges can thus make a very direct difference to these communities and ecosystems in the short run. This question must also be answered, however, in terms of what critical mass would be required to make a fundamental shift in a large ecosystem over the long run. Initial data seems to indicate that the interventions currently being made are in fact making a difference, albeit on a small conservation area. CORE field technical officers report that they fear a “critical minimum” (critical mass) may not yet be reached in the focal areas. What this means to each focal area (according to the technical officers) is another two to three interventions would be needed per region to create sufficient critical mass so as to fundamentally alter the outcome of a threatened ecosystem or conservation area in Kenya over the long run. A superficial review of each ecosystem indicates that in at least two of the regions (the Masai Mara and Amboseli), two or three additional interventions would indeed make a critical difference. This may be what is finally required to create true sustainability, the kind of sustainability that can change and maintain entire ecosystems. If in fact the premise is true that increased benefits to communities will change behavior on a small community level or on particular group ranches, and if these initial changes are having a positive impact on the natural resource base, USAID might well consider a larger investment than the current EDF fund or remaining technical assistance funds to create much larger interventions with greater reach in threatened ecosystems. If the technology is working, why not expand the use of this dynamic tool to see what kinds of impacts larger interventions or additional technical assistance might make? USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 36 The Sustainability of Core Enterprises The initial premise of CORE does seem to be valid, and as such, it is compelling to ask what kinds of outcomes would be acceptable so as to deem these enterprises as sustainable, given the initial design of CORE. It is clear that most of the enterprises have turned out to be tourism enterprises, and as such, there is a particular cycle required to insure success of any given tourism undertaking. A general rule of thumb for the tourism industry is that it takes approximately 18-24 months to take an enterprise from the beginning of actual operations, to a phase approximating initial sustainability. Complicating this from a community enterprise point of view is the need to access capital from donor sources, or to take the steps necessary to create a legal or financial structure to insure revenue sharing or community benefits on a sustainable basis. Once these outcomes have been achieved, initial business operations can be begun. Some tourism enterprises are already in operation and proceeding, some have just begun operations, while others are still going through the initial preparatory inception phase. Because of the longer cycle these enterprises will take, it is recommended that additional targeted technical assistance be provided to these enterprises. This technical assistance may need to last into a second phase of the CORE project. A key variable in tourism development is the amount of money planned for marketing. Typically, in order to insure success of a new tourism endeavor, as much as 30% of investment capital should go towards an effective marketing campaign. It is crucial to position a new tourism product in an appropriate way, expressing the product in a clear and dynamic fashion, choosing a particular message for the marketplace, selecting key partners and methods of distribution, and attacking key markets for maximum return on investment. It is clear that relatively little thought has gone towards marketing most of the Ecolodges under development. This is a critical lapse, and without an appropriate intervention in terms of additional money and technical expertise directed towards marketing, the chance of these Ecolodges succeeding in the short run diminishes greatly. Marketing in the tourism industry is very different from marketing in most other industries. There are very specific means of distribution, and clear steps to take in each phase of product development. For example, an Ecolodge needs to decide on one of several approaches to market itself. It can work through Kenyan-based ground operators or travel agents, and it can market itself directly to international tour operators. It can choose to sell indirectly through travel agencies, tour operators and other intermediaries, or it can make an aggressive play for direct bookings from passengers in the Kenyan or international marketplaces. It can market in specific targeted overseas markets, or it can join with other appropriate products to jointly approach distant marketplaces. It can produce brochures to distribute at trade shows and through the Kenyan Tourist Office, and it can invest in an effective web site with effective links and aggressive Internet search engines. By and large, virtually all the Kenyan Ecolodges would benefit from an effective public relations campaign, effective web sites, and effective use of Internet search engines. A well-planned public relations and marketing campaign over 18-24 months would insure maximal exposure of these Ecolodges in the international marketplace, and a good flow of visitors in the years to come. Because all of these Ecolodges are in development at roughly the same time, USAID could bring in some strong tourism expertise to support all the Ecolodges in marketing, greatly enhancing these Ecolodges’ chances of succeeding. Community Organization Sustainability The question then arises, if in fact initial interventions have been effective at creating behavior change and building potentially profitable and sustainable partnerships and enterprises in this start-up phase, how much time do local community organizations need to achieve full sustainability? Relative to the sustainability of most of the community organizations, the majority can achieve sustainability in the initial four year cycle of CORE, provided technical assistance needs are analyzed and provided for along with an exit strategy at this time. Communities will always have the capacity to absorb additional technical assistance, yet initial sustainability is possible in virtually all the cases the review group evaluated, depending on what criteria is used to determine sustainability. The OCAs and OD interventions began a process that has been extremely useful, has produced results, and can likely lead to complete community-based organizational sustainability over time. Left to their own devices, when asked, most CBOs suggested that they would need a great deal of time to become fully self-sustaining (Ol Chorro Oiroua, Siana Springs and others). However, when pushed, all indicated that they could achieve sustainability much more quickly. Notably at Ol Chorro Oiroua, the group initially suggested six more years, but after specific inquiries and a bit of pushing, they acknowledged they could actually achieve sustainability in no more than two years, with one or two dissenting voices suggesting up to four years. They clearly understand that the more projects they initiative and the more donor funding they seek, the greater number of benefits they might achieve. At the same time, however, they realize they can be funding their new projects entirely on their own, and when confronted with this fact, they seem comfortable proceeding without any more technical assistance on several fronts. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 37 To make it simple for CORE, clear criteria need be established at this time to determine what would be an acceptable outcome (i.e. what would determine CBO “sustainability”), and all CBOs managed in such a way as to achieve those criteria by the end of the four-year CORE cycle. Essentially, CBO sustainability can be achieved in the allotted time frame, but only with specific targets and measures in place long enough ahead of time. Technical Assistance As tourism is a unique type of undertaking, there is a particular type of technical assistance that is required to insure sustainability. Technical officers and project directors acknowledge that they don’t have the capacity to provide the type of technical assistance necessary to support these Ecolodges in marketing and tourism development. As such, a tourism development initiative could make the critical difference between success and failure of these communal Ecolodges. USAID should undertake to empower these groups through specific types of technical assistance from tourism industry experts to build the type of capacity necessary to insure sustainability of the various CORE Ecolodges. And if in fact the premise is working, should USAID obtain additional funding sources for Kenya, USAID should expand its efforts to preserve critical ecosystems or parts of those ecosystems by investing in Ecolodge interventions wherever such interventions might make a difference. At the very least, it should use the various types of investments already made in Ecolodge projects to analyze and discover what works in Ecolodge conservation schemes, and what doesn’t work. A “lessons learned” report with an overview of the Ecolodges initiated under CORE would yield a fascinating look at a generally misunderstood tool for conservation and development. The Ecotourism Paradigm The worldwide Tourism and Hospitality Industry is 10% of all GDP, 10% of all capital investment, and 10% of all jobs. In 1999 there were 657 million international travelers (according to WTO). Ecotourism is the fastest growing sector of the travel industry growing at an annual rate of between 10 - 30 % per annum, relative to overall tourism growth at 4% per annum. Meanwhile, travel to Kenya grew 45% from 1983 to 1993, with nearly 80% coming to view wildlife. This represented 33% of foreign exchange earnings for Kenya. Ecotourism can contribute to the economy and preserve the environment by conserving biodiversity, improving the quality of life and the economic well-being of local people, while promoting equity in investment, and maintaining the quality of the environment on which all these things depend. Ecotourism can educate the tourist about local wildlife, culture and conservation ethics, and can create sustainable partnerships for long term conservation goals. Clearly, Ecotourism is a very beneficial tool for conservation and community development in Kenya. But what is Ecotourism? In 1988, Ceballos-Lascurain defined Ecotourism as: “Tourism that involves traveling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific object of studying, admiring and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals as well as any existing cultural aspects found in these areas. Ecological tourism implies a scientific, aesthetic or philosophical approach, although the ecological tourist is not required to be a professional scientist, artist or philosopher. The main point is that the person who practices Ecotourism has the opportunity of immersing him or herself in nature in a way most people cannot enjoy in their routine, urban existences. This person will eventually acquire a consciousness that will convert him into somebody keenly interested in conservation issues.” In 1989 Karen Ziffer defined Ecotourism as follows: “Ecotourism is a form of tourism inspired primarily by the natural history of an area, including its indigenous cultures. The Ecotourist visits relatively undeveloped areas in the spirit of appreciation, participation and sensitivity. The Ecotourist practices a non-consumptive use of wildlife and natural resources and contributes to the visited area through labor or financial means aimed at directly benefiting the conservation of the site and the economic well being of the local residents. The visit should strengthen the Ecotourist’s appreciation and dedication to conservation issues in general, and to the specific needs of the locale. Ecotourism also implies a managed approach by the host country or region which commits itself to establishing and maintaining the sites with the participation of local residents, marketing them appropriately, enforcing regulations, and using the proceeds of the enterprise to fund the areas’ land management as well as community development.” The Ecotourism Society defines Ecotourism as: “Responsible travel that conserves the natural environment and sustains the well-being of local people”. It also describes Ecotourism as purposeful travel to natural areas; increased understanding of the cultural and natural history of the natural environment taking care not to alter the environment, and producing economic benefits that make the conservation of natural resources beneficial to local people. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 38 It is clear that Ecotourism is highly desirable from a conservation viewpoint. What is important to note, however, is that for many reasons Kenya has lagged behind many other countries in Ecotourism development. USAID’s CORE project is supporting local communities in making the leap into Ecotourism opportunities, where previously this seemed to be a distant dream. The singular contribution CORE is making to the field of Ecotourism is the utilization of new technologies that enable these communities through OD interventions and community development to begin shifting the tourism paradigm in Kenya to a paradigm where communities are sustainably benefiting from tourism, and tourists are having an improved experience in Kenya. This work is creative, and the lessons learned can be taken to other communities and countries throughout the world. Based on this work, it is strongly recommended that CORE document the various types of tourism interventions it has attempted, and track the benefits of each of the various approaches that have been taken in local communities. These lessons can become a primer for “best practices” in community development of Ecotourism enterprises. Problem Areas While CORE must be deemed a great success under almost any kind of analysis, there are some gaps in enterprise development that do need to be addressed. For example, in attempting to create enterprises in many communities around parks and reserves, CORE might have done a better job of working with a variety of private sector tourism operators, both to gain expertise, and to find more partners for conservation. The idea of Ecotourism is not new, and many private sector operators have strong conservation practices, often sharing many goals with CORE, and working in and around many of the same parks and reserves in Kenya. Many of those tour operators have creative ideas for reserves or sanctuaries that can be created, and new ways to share revenue and increase benefits for local communities. A better partnership might lead to strong collaborations in some areas, and many benefits on both sides of the conservation and development spectrum. The same can be said for the donor and investment community. While a partnership seems to have developed with BCP, the EU also has a Tourism Development Fund where Ecolodge proposals can be sent for funding. The IFC and GEF are funding various types of Ecotourism initiatives, and The Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, the IUCN, UNESCO, and even private sector firms such as International Expeditions have created various types of Ecotourism Investment Funds. Supporting more communities in developing proposals, and connecting some communities to these other funding sources could produce positive results. In interviews with some of the private sector partners that have been brought into projects with CORE, at least a few have expressed distress at how the partnerships have (or have not) worked. Both of the partners interviewed expressed the view that they would “never again” work with CORE. While a fair criticism might be made that these private sector partners were not familiar with the mechanics of funding projects with NGOs and donor agencies, it’s also fair to ask how CORE might simplify things for private sector partners and donors in the future. Based on some of the interviews the team had, it is clear that better relationship management would be crucial to future partnerships. Those same interviews brought to light some distress around the overall formula that private sector partners perceive CORE has used to evaluate potential Ecotourism projects. While funding delays present certain challenges, and raised expectations among communities are always problematic, several individuals challenged some of the basic premises of the CORE enterprise initiative, at least around the notion of Ecotourism investments. One partner claimed to have a multi-million dollar investor looking for conservation investment opportunities in Kenya, and based on the project description, it seemed a perfect match for CORE technologies around community support and development. However, this private sector partner expressed an opinion that he didn’t want anything to do with the CORE partners. And he appears to be one of the strongest partners CORE could possible have. This should be a matter of great concern. The perception seems to be that CORE is not a neutral partner in seeking and negotiating deals between local communities and private sector partners and donors. The perception is that CORE is focused on protecting communities and insuring environmental conservation, and while these are excellent goals, it does not therefore follow that CORE can be a neutral party and make a fair business judgment on what an appropriate deal might be between local communities and private sector donors or partners. CORE does not have the expertise to value all business opportunities, particularly when they’re built on marginal land, or even know what an appropriate business opportunity might look like in certain situations. Greater flexibility in looking at benefits packages for communities would be useful, as would finding a truly neutral party to help negotiate between local communities and private sector partners. Some of those partners might have very narrow constraints in certain situations. If CORE is supporting communities’ increased capacity to negotiate and speak for themselves and at the same time seeking appropriate business deals, it would be extremely difficult to mediate between two parties with very different views on what might be possible or even appropriate in certain business situations. In wanting optimal benefits for communities, might CORE occasionally miss opportunities when there are not very many good options, or at least not as many apparent benefits as many other communities might be receiving? Fine-tuning this evaluation and negotiation process would be very useful. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 39 It is important to remember that private sector firms have many variables to consider in striking deals. A business opportunity has to make good business sense, and occasionally a business proposition might work with one sets of benefits and profit formulas, and not with another. Particularly when a private sector firm is in competition with other firms that do not partner with local communities, or firms that exploit communities and natural resources, there might be a middle ground that must be reached in order for the firm to be competitive. In the absence of any other kind of deal, communities occasionally might be better off with a weak deal than no deal at all. Making these judgments is a very difficult undertaking. Further, some marginal areas may not be able to produce as many benefits for communities as others, yet some private sector partners may be able to contribute more to local communities than an existing situation might currently provide those communities. It is not clear that CORE always has the capacity to value land or business propositions when the outcome doesn’t fit the broad parameters that work in highly desirable locations around national parks and reserves. Benefits may flow in ways other than simply monetary. CORE needs flexibility and additional models to consider all those other types of benefits, particularly when certain land can’t yield the kind of financial returns that all would ideally prefer. As uncomfortable as it may be to consider, there may be situations where no “optimally good deal” can be made, and a judgment may need to be made to strike a deal with only the promise of improved benefits for a community, as no other deal may materialize for that community or that particular piece of land. Recommendations 1). Hire a tourism industry expert who can support all the Ecolodges in all phases of marketing, including public relations, web-search engines, web-site development, partnering, key marketplaces, and all appropriate means of distribution for the products. This is the best possible tool to create sustainability of the Ecolodges, and might be the single most important intervention CORE can make in the coming years. 2). Work on better relationship management with investors and partners. This clearly needs to be put back in. Ideally, the perception should be that CORE has a sign out, essentially saying that all conservation enterprise partners and donors are welcome. This is certainly not the perception from the tourism community today. 3). Create a close working relationship with private sector tourism operators, particularly those who are the “good guys”, already proactively addressing environmental issues with their tourism businesses. Have an ongoing dialogue, and try to find a middle ground to understand their concerns, and see where CORE can partner with them. They can benefit from CORE’s expertise with local communities, and CORE can benefit from their knowledge of tourism opportunities, demands, and their unique perspectives. Long-term partnerships can and should result and benefit both sides. 4). Find a neutral party to match private sector and investor concerns with community and conservation concerns. Consider a new approach to understanding the business aspects of a particular proposal, as benefits can accrue in many different ways. 5). Create a short study of “lessons learned” so that different approaches to community based tourism development are better understood for future projects. This can benefit local communities in Kenya, as well as contribute to worldwide “best practices” in Ecotourism operations. 6). Choose one or two critical ecosystems (the Mara and Amboseli, for example), and look to see where additional interventions can create sustainability for the entire ecosystem. Where Ecotourism interventions can make a difference, work with partners to create those interventions, either by supporting OD in the communities, or helping create funding proposals for BCP or the EU Tourism Development Fund, or other sources of funding. 7). Communicate with USAID Ghana to learn about their 10 year, 12 million dollar tourism initiative, where they actually created a national park (Kakum National Park), working with many local communities in Ghana. There are many applicable lessons that can support CORE’s work in Kenya, and an exchange between the two countries could be very productive for both. 8). Work with other donors, so that the kinds of partnerships that have developed with BCP can be expanded upon with DFID and other donor organizations. 9). Cast a wider net for potential donors. Most large donors currently seem to be Americans who have a particular love for Kenya. Surely a discreet ad in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times (“Investors sought for unique conservation investment opportunities in Kenya”) would surely bring some of the millions of satisfied American tourists back to Kenya to explore investment opportunities. 10). Actively seek new Ecotourism investment opportunities in Kenya. At the very least, there may be opportunities to support communities’ proposals, or to share the technical expertise acquired in the CORE project. And if the opportunity is great, CORE might support those communities in seeking funding. This could expand the potential impact of CORE’s enterprise program, and may actually plug some holes in biodiversity conservation programs for key ecosystems throughout Kenya. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 40 USAID/KENYA CORE PROJECT MID-TERM EVALUATION INDIVIDUAL REPORT By Prof. Steven G. Njuguna Executive Summary Findings and Conclusions CORE is very relevant to conservation priorities and policies of the Kenya Government in project target areas. KWS, a government parastatal and the CORE lead agency, has the legal mandate to enforce wildlife laws and regulations, conduct anti-poaching operations, ensure security, and deal with human-wildlife conflicts within national parks and wildlife dispersal areas. These functions remain the top priorities for KWS. Statistics now show that a very high percentage of Kenya's wildlife lives outside the protected areas. The CORE hypothesis of improving NRM through increased benefits to target communities and landowners in areas critical to parks and reserves is working but has no textbook solutions. CORE has enhanced the appreciation of wildlife among the local communities. CORE has provided education and training such that the communities see benefits of managing their land and resources. Community conservancies have been established. The overriding conclusion is that CORE has performed its functions competently and effectively. It is making a significant and essential contribution to improving NRM in the target areas. Credit for this achievement is due directly to the strengths of the CORE's three coalitions, their partners and the local communities. The new mission of KWS is "to work with others to conserve, protect and sustainably mange Kenya's invaluable wildlife resources and their habitats for the benefit of the people of Kenya and as a world heritage". KWS is reviewing its organizational structure and is considering devolution of certain responsibilities to wildlife stakeholders. The wildlife stakeholders have used a wide range of conservation tools. These include: land set asides for ecotourism or wildlife; nature focused enterprise development; spin-off enterprises; forum and network creation; focused commodity support; monitoring & evaluation systems and databases; NRM Planning; organizational capacity development tools and skills; marketing development and product development. Application of tools such as easements, buffer zones, land trusts, focused commodity support, agroforestry technologies for improved farming, M&E systems, conservation leases, water harvesting, co-management and domestication of plant and animal species has lagged far behind nature￾focused business and spin-off enterprise development. The challenge in the future will be to balance the needs of wildlife, livestock, agriculture and human settlements. The number of human-wildlife conflicts has increased by 40-44% in the focal areas except in Laikipia/Samburu where the reported incidents went down by 2%. The cause of the rise in the number of human-wildlife conflicts in these areas is not adequately explained. Wasini Project in Kisite is a success story where the reefs are good, the fishermen and boat operators are collaborating and the fish populations are showing an increasing trend. One positive thing is that the local fishermen want to expand the marine reserve because they want to keep out fishermen using destructive methods. There is also a wetland boardwalk where women are conserving the mangroves through selling curios to tourists. Daily patrols in Kisite Marine Park by KWS warden in collaboration with community members have reduced dynamite fishing by fishermen from Tanzania. CORE has worked extensively with Laikipia Wildlife Forum and supported the creation of Samburu, Taita Taveta and Kwale Wildlife Forums. Support was also extended to the National Wildlife Forum to attend NRM workshops, including discussions on advocacy, NEMA and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act. 1999. Forestry linkages with CORE are weak. The Forestry Department (FOD) in the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources has the legal mandate for the management of all gazetted forest reserves in Kenya. These include indigenous and plantation forests. However, an MoU between KWS and FOD for the management of selected forests exists. This MoU has a duration of 25 years, with reviews scheduled at intervals of five years. There has not been a review since the MoU was signed on 5 December 1991. Lessons Learned Community mobilization, participation and integration in projects are essential if project activities are to be effective. It creates sustained interest and a sense of ownership. Local communities contribute rights to land and local knowledge USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 41 and are willing to take the risk to test new approaches, the success of which is not usually guaranteed. Community contribution to projects further enhances the sense of ownership. Recommendations The use of environmental easements for wildlife conservation should be explored. These environmental easements are provided for in the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999. The main purpose of the environmental easements is to promote the principles of environmental management by facilitating the conservation of the environment through the imposition of one or more obligations in respect of the use of land, being the land in the vicinity of the benefited environment. Local communities should be trained and involved in monitoring and evaluation. KWS should continually assess the functionality of databases in KWS to determine their effectiveness. KWS also needs to define the institution's position on the extent to which it will conduct monitoring activities and the extent to which it would source for capabilities from partners. Advocacy should be undertaken by an independent NGO outside CORE. The best available possibility is to get EAWLS to undertake advocacy activities but outside CORE. EAWLS has been very effective in advocacy activities concerning wetlands (Tana Delta) and forest excisions. There is a clear conflict of interest and lack of democratic process in a KWS-led group lobbying KWS for policy change. EAWLS has carved out an advocacy role throughout East Africa based on good science and constructive public debate. It is the logical and only avenue for building advocacy skills but outside the CORE coalition. EAWLS with its broad public membership is likely to get support from other NGOs and landowners. 1. CORE Relevance to Kenya's Conservation Priorities and Policies Findings and Conclusions CORE is relevant to conservation priorities and policies of the Kenya Government in project target areas. Kenya Wildlife Service, the lead partner in CORE, is the only institution with the legal mandate as the conservation and management agency for wild animals in Kenya. It has the sole jurisdiction of national parks and an oversight role in the management of national reserves and private sanctuaries (Wildlife Policy 1975; Wildlife [Conservation and Management] {Amendment} Act 1989). KWS has the legal mandate to enforce wildlife laws and regulations, conduct anti-poaching operations, ensure security, and deal with human-wildlife conflicts within national parks and wildlife dispersal areas. These functions will remain top priorities for KWS. Despite the legislative framework, the depletion of wildlife continues. The law has been effective for a long time but can no longer cope with the emerging trends of human-wildlife relationship. Wildlife has acquired such as high profile and unique value that it is now essential that Kenya's legal system provides a clearly defined body of law which will give effect to what remains of the wildlife resource. That body of law must take cognizance of the fact that conservation of wildlife requires a holistic approach as the wild animals live in dynamically integrated ecosystems. This means that the local communities and other landowners must be established firmly in conservation activities. Since 1992, KWS has undertaken initiatives through COBRA and now CORE to engage landowners to conserve wildlife in wildlife dispersal areas. KWS has been involved in pilot projects to crop wildlife with LWF. KWS has also been involved in maintaining security and has undertaken PAC in the target areas. KWS offers assistance to the local communities in providing security, translocating animals, and carrying out wildlife monitoring and supervising wildlife utilization. The new mission of KWS is "to work with others to conserve, protect and sustainably mange Kenya's invaluable wildlife resources and their habitats for the benefit of the people of Kenya and as a world heritage". The CORE hypothesis of improved NRM through increased benefits to target communities and landowners in areas critical to parks and reserves is working but has no textbook solutions. CORE has enhanced the appreciation of wildlife among the local communities. CORE has provided education and training such that the communities see benefits of managing their land and resources. Community conservancies have been established. People are now willing to set aside large areas for NRM. During 2001, communities and landowners in the focal areas legally set aside 92,100 ha of land into conservation, directly attributable to CORE (target was 35,000 ha), raising the total hectares in community/private conservation areas to 650,040 (637,240 attributable to CORE). This represents 15% increase in community conservation lands since the inception of the CORE Project. These lands include wildlife migratory corridors, buffer zones, drought refuges (e.g. wetlands), indigenous forests and areas inhabited by endangered, endemic and rare wildlife species. In some areas fragmentation of habitats has been prevented. Shompole Group Ranch, for example, established a 9,000 ha sanctuary protecting rare breeding grounds of the flamingo and a wetland of international importance. Imbirikani, established a 2,000 ha sanctuary protecting a corridor USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 42 between Amboseli ecosystem and Chyulu National Park. Namelok Community development Association established a water catchment protection zone of approximately 500 ha to protect a 5 km stretch of riparian vegetation24. The human population reached by CORE was 30,560 against a target of 22,000 25. Through CORE's intervention the Koija Group Ranch was able to obtain the issuance of a land title deed. With this sense of ownership, the communities feel they are in control and this does allow them to keep out illegal grazers. Communities fence committees have been formed and these are taking responsibility in PAC by constructing and maintaining fences. An English/Swahili CORE￾net newsletter, linking 25 CBOs with 3 issues (3000 copies per issue) distributed to 98 targeted organizations was produced in 2001. Awareness creation regarding benefits from wildlife has been carried out well. The communities have in the past suffered much from human-wildlife conflicts and benefited less from NR conservation efforts. As they realize benefits from wildlife utilization, communities and landowners are beginning to change their attitudes in favor of wildlife conservation. Capacity building in the group ranches is hoped to create the critical mass needed to implement KWS policy throughout the wildlife dispersal areas. Lessons learned Involvement of communities living adjacent to protected areas and in wildlife dispersal areas in wildlife conservation and in human-wildlife conflict resolution eases the burden (financial and human resources) on KWS26. There is need for close mentoring of communities especially during the start up of community projects. Stronger field presence of the technical stall is crucial. AWF/CORE has decentralized its field operations by relocating staff to field sites. The CORE coalition of several partners, seven organizations and three coalitions, i.e., KWS (leader), AWF (AWF, ACC, PwC, SAMED) and Pact (Pact, ACC, EAWLS) has presented a challenge to the project as regards coordination and sequencing of activities. Coordination between CORE and other donor agencies in the target areas is also a major challenge. Community mobilization, participation and integration in projects are essential if project activities are to be effective. They create sustained interest and a sense of ownership. Local communities contribute rights to land and local knowledge and are willing to take the risk to test new approaches, the success of which is not usually guaranteed. Recommendations Efforts should be made to support the revision of Wildlife Policy since the one in operation is too old (1975 Policy) and significant changes have occurred since 1975. Emphasis must be placed on conserving biodiversity not only within protected areas, but also in all areas of biological importance. The revised policy should have a human face and seek accommodation and co-existence between people and wildlife. CORE partners need to consider decentralization of technical offers to the field in order to ensure close mentoring of communities. Increased support should also be given to training community liaison officers following the example set by LWF. The CORE partners also need to improve the coordination of their activities especially in the field to avoid confusion and delivery of conflicting messages. 2. Resource Monitoring and Trends Findings and Conclusions KWS is the lead government agency in wildlife policy development and biodiversity data management. KWS is also a member of NEMA and this establishes links with GOK agencies at the national level. At the local level, KWS wardens are responsible for monitoring and evaluation throughout the country. KWS houses CORE's M&E database and provides data to individual wardens and communities to assist in short term and long term planning. KWS appreciates the technology that the CORE Project resources have allowed it to acquire and use. Senior KWS employees and line monitoring staff have been trained in M&E. KWS has also included M&E as part of training syllabi at both Manyani Field Training School and Naivasha Wildlife Training Institute. The databases developed include Problem Animal Control (human-wildlife conflict), Rhino Monitoring, Ecological Monitoring, Wildlife for Development Fund (WDF) and CORE Training. The functionality of these databases is yet to be determined. There has been lack of baseline data for reference in measuring change in all areas, even in those areas where COBRA was involved. Baseline data were established in 2000 through CORE. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of the CORE project's activities were not undertaken, however, Initial Environment Examinations (IEEs) are being carried out to address any shortcomings. 24 CORE M&E Report 2001 25 CORE M&E Report 2001 26 CORE Progress Report, July 2000-June 2001, CM&E Unit and CWS USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 43 Kenya Wildlife Service provides the technical expertise needed for monitoring. KWS has a central database that is updated on a weekly basis. Vegetation surveys have not been carried out as yet. Elephant censuses have been carried out inside and outside the protected areas. In Shimba Hills and Mwaluganje, USAID has provided funds for animal census and this survey has been completed. The censuses in the group ranches include all species. Local communities have not been involved in wildlife monitoring in 2001 but plans are under way to involve them this year. Environmental degradation is continuing with loss of tree cover (trees cut for fuelwood and charcoal) and soil erosion from the mountain slopes in Greater Amboseli. Tree cover has been decimated along the Nultureshi water pipeline from Loitokitok to Machakos where there is human population concentration. In Namelok, where there is an apiculture enterprise, tree cutting for fuelwood and charcoal has been banned and there has been no felling of Acacia trees in the project area. In Mwaluganje, soil erosion from the slopes is going down. There are two factors that are affecting wildlife numbers, harsh climatic conditions and poaching. Poaching pressure exists for bush meat (mainly antelopes) in LUMO. Poaching if translocated impalas has occurred in Mwaluganje. Elephant poaching has suddenly taken place in two of the focal areas, Samburu and Tsavo. This upswing in elephant poaching is due to anticipation of lifting the ban on ivory trade during the CITES meeting to be held in Chile in November 2002). Poaching pressure exists for bush meat (mainly antelopes) in LUMO. Poaching of translocated impalas has occurred in Mwaluganje. The Masai used to have a ready market for livestock, the Kenya Meat Commission that closed down some time ago. The livestock numbers are increasing and there is no ready market. The "1st bank account" for the Masai is livestock. If benefits from wildlife,"2nd bank account", are large this will encourage the Masai to decrease their livestock and subsequently habitat degradation will be halted. The biggest conservation issue in Laikipia is the conflict between human and wildlife. KWS assists communities in erecting electric fences and live fences using thorn trees such as Mauritius Thorn and Kei-apple. Overgrazing and soil erosion are also major concerns in Laikipia. Water resources management is a major issue in Amboseli, Taita-Taveta, Masai Mara and Laikipia. The water supply in Kasigau is seasonal except in two villages. The challenge in the future will be to balance the needs of wildlife, livestock, agriculture and human settlements. The number of human-wildlife conflicts increased by 40-444% in the focal areas except in Laikipia/Samburu where the reported incidents went down by 2%. The cause of the rise in the number of human-wildlife conflicts in these areas is not adequately explained. Wasini Project in Kisite is a success story where the reefs are good, the fishermen and boat operators are collaborating with the management authority and the fish populations are showing an increasing trend. There is also a wetland boardwalk where women are conserving the mangroves through selling curios to tourists. Daily patrols in Kisite Marine Park by KWS warden in collaboration with community members have reduced dynamite fishing by fishermen from Tanzania. Lessons Learned USAID Performance Monitoring Plan created a better understanding of the program by the different stakeholders and established a firm foundation for the CORE M&E System. Baseline survey at the inception of the project and regular monitoring throughout the project period are important for success and sustainability of conservation projects. Regular meetings and forums for exchange of information and experiences between CORE implementing partners are important for the smooth implementation of the project. At the interface between wildlife, agriculture, livestock and human settlements, relevant data on carrying capacity, vegetation and land use surveys, economic valuation of game ranching and livestock/wildlife disease transmission is required. The CORE Project progressed faster in those areas where it expanded prior work undertaken by USAID/KWS/COBRA. Recommendations Local communities should be trained and involved in monitoring and evaluation. KWS should continually assess the functionality of databases in KWS to determine their effectiveness. KWS needs to define the institution's position on the extent to which it will conduct monitoring activities and the extent to which it would source for capabilities from partners. During the development of community NRM plans, the community and the CORE partners should address the needs of wildlife, livestock, agriculture and human settlements. NRM planning should complement traditional NRM systems. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 44 Management plans for protected areas should be revised to integrate the surrounding dispersal areas, migration corridors, buffer zones, sensitive areas, and water resources. CORE should address issues related to species and habitat management, for example, water supply, vegetation and species monitoring, and assessment of the carrying capacity of created conservation areas. 3. General Application of Tools Findings and Conclusions The wildlife stakeholders have used a wide range of conservation tools. These include: land set asides for ecotourism or wildlife; nature focused enterprise development; spin-off enterprises; forum and network creation; focused commodity support; monitoring & evaluation systems and databases; NRM Planning; organizational capacity development tools and skills; marketing development and product development. It was hoped that conservation easements would be implemented in Kenya by the life of the CORE Project. The policy and legislative environment in Kenya is not conducive to their use. The sensitivities around land ownership in the country make it challenging to use them. Borrowing from Tanzania experience, the potential for establishment of a Land Trust in Kenya is being explored.27 The potential for more enterprises exists but such enterprises must be culturally relevant. There is a limit to the kind of enterprises that will be successful such as ecotourism and beekeeping. In some cases the enterprise-NRM link is not clear. Application of tools such as easements, buffer zones, land trusts, focused commodity support, agroforestry technologies for improved farming, M&E systems, conservation leases, water harvesting, co-management and domestication of plant and animal species is lagging far behind nature-focused business and spin-off enterprise development. CORE has worked extensively with Laikipia Wildlife Forum and supported the creation of Samburu, Taita Taveta and Kwale Wildlife Forums. Support was also extended to the National Wildlife Forum to attend NRM workshops, including discussions on advocacy, NEMA and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act. 1999. The scourge of HIV/AIDS is affecting CORE's work in the focal areas. One of the projects obviously affected by the HIV/AIDS problem is the cultural bomas. Since no CORE member had the experience in communicating HIV/AIDS control messages, the link with the public health officers was found to be crucial. CORE has also held preliminary consultations with Family health International, Mombasa Office on possible integration of the organization's HIV/AIDS Progarm with CORE's activities in South Coast28. Lessons Learned Development of an integrated NR management plan is vital as enterprise development without NRM planning could lose the conservation logic. The size of enterprises required to provide adequate returns, as incentives for conservation are larger than projected. CORE will need to seek other sources of funding for projects as the enterprise development fund would not be adequate29. Recommendations Environmental easements should be used for wildlife conservation. These environmental easements are provided for in the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999. The main purpose of the environmental easements is to promote the principles of environmental management by facilitating the conservation of the environment through the imposition of one or more obligations in respect of the use of land, being the land in the vicinity of the benefited environment30. Establishment of a Kenya Land Trust that is acceptable to a wide array of landholders in Kenya should be pursued as vigorously as possible. The individuals and institutions to serve as Trustees must be selected carefully and must be acceptable to local communities, landowners and the government. The following are other additional enterprises that could be undertaken. These include: wildlife farming (ostrich, guinea fowl), crocodile farming, livestock development, gum arabic, sericulture, aquaculture, intensive agriculture, traditional artifacts and curios, historical sites (e.g. WWI relics) in LUMO, cultural heritage sites such as sacred forests or kayas, rock climbing, walking safaris, cultivation of medicinal plants such as Aloe (which is an endangered plant), bioprospecting, commercial woodlots, soap making, sisal basketry, and butterfly farming. 27 AWF/CORE Report 2001 28 CORE-net Issue 2, May-July 2001 29 AWF/CORE Report 2001 30 Wamukoya, G.M. and Sifuna, F.D.P. (Eds.). 2000. Environmental Management in Kenya. A Guide to the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999 USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 45 It will be necessary to monitor the enterprise projects regarding growth in number, profitability (as per return on sales and investments), levels of reinvestment, asset acquisition, and employment creation. Marketing strategies developed as in the case of Mwaluganje and other projects in Laikipia need to be implemented. There exists no formal working relationship between CORE and BCP, and other donors. The relationship is more of a "gentleman's agreement". It is recommended that memoranda of understanding (MoUs) be established between CORE and other collaborating donor agencies such as BCP, DFID and Ford Foundation. In carrying out NRM planning, it is essential to be aware not only of the scientific and economic data of modern systems, but also of the traditional knowledge systems of NRM. Local people have much to learn from modern science, but so do scientists have much to learn from local communities. Lines of communication are usually not effectively opened in either direction. Technical officers normally are so busy trying to transfer ideas to local communities, such that at the end, they do not have the energy left to hear what ideas local communities wish them to learn. In order to overcome market failure, the nature focused businesses need to develop multiple institutional partnerships with other firms, producer groups such as chambers of commerce or trade associations, centres of research and clients and suppliers, all of whom can provide useful market intelligence and new business opportunities. With limited funds available, and with high expectations raised among the target communities, CORE could serve to link the communities with prospective donors. CORE technical officers should increase their efforts to assist communities develop project proposals for submission to donor agencies and institutions such as BCP, CDTF, IFAW, DFID, UNDP, EU, World Bank, and other multilateral and bilateral agencies. 4. Forestry Linkages Findings and Conclusions CORE's forestry linkages are very weak. KWS forest linkages are with Mt. Kenya forests only. Plantation forests are still under Forestry Department. In Aberdares, KWS is involved only with those forests within the National Park. In Oldonyo Sapuk, KWS assisted communities in the formation of Fourteen Falls Conservation Committee and planting trees as a buffer zone to the reserve. It is expected that the buffer zone will reduce human-wildlife conflicts in the area and cushion Oldonyo Sapuk National Park from forest degradation. In the whole of Taita -Taveta, the biggest threat is deforestation of water catchment areas in the mountains. The mountain forests have a rich biodiversity with endemic species and many other species of medicinal value. Charcoal production within and outside the ranches is rampant including lands bordering the national parks. Kenya's forest cover now stands at a critical 1.7%. Kenya has now excised nearly 170,000 ha of her forests in parts of Mau Forest, Mt. Kenya, Nakuru, Molo, Tinderet, Mount Londiani and South Nandi. The excisions spell lean times for tourism and for the entire economy. The tourism industry is built on the country's natural resources, and the excisions endanger some of Kenya's most important tourism site. The Mau excisions will put significant stress on Lake Nakuru (with one of the world's largest concentrations of flamingoes) and the Mara River (the stage for annual wildebeest migration) which is the source of water for pastoralist communities and for the wildlife in the Masai Mara Reserve31. Management of all gazetted forest reserves in Kenya is mandated to the Forestry Department. These reserves include indigenous and plantation forests. However, an MoU between KWS and FOD for the management of selected forests exists. This MoU has a duration of 25 years, with reviews scheduled at intervals of five years. There has not been a review since the MoU was signed on 5 December 1991. Forests covered by this MoU were selected according to the following criteria: forests rich in wildlife, accessible forests that are on tourist circuits, and areas suffering wildlife damage to plantations and natural vegetation32. The USAID Design Team (Forestry Sector) worked with CORE members to identify possible areas for working with CORE in a forestry initiative. Field visits were made to focal areas. The sites visited were Mukogodo Forest, Ngare Ndare Forest, Lewa Conservancy and Meru National Park33. Lessons Learned Monitoring and continuous evaluation of the implementation of the collaborative MoU for co-management of indigenous forests between KWS and FOD is necessary to achieve results. 31 EAWLS, 2001. Situation Critical: Facts and Figures about Kenya's Forests. 32 Njuguna, S.G. and Matiru, V. 2000. KWS: Evaluation of Memoranda of Understanding between Kenya wildlife Service and Partners with Special Reference to Monitoring. KWS Report. 33 AWF/CORE Activities, Half Year Report, January-June 2001. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 46 Recommendations CORE and the Forestry Management Initiative should link to support management approaches that share responsibility and benefits with the local people. Capacity building to regulate and control harvesting, paying close attention to the process of awarding forest concessions and the reform of forest pricing policy should feature in this support. There is need to increase efforts to conserve genetic diversity in managed forests through research and by promoting better harvesting techniques. Efforts should be made to support the review of the forest policy, as forests are critical habitats for wildlife. Advocacy activities in CORE should also include forests in view of the forest excisions occurring in the target areas and throughout the country. With the limited forest cover in Kenya, forest products will increasingly come from trees that people have planted. Agroforestry as a tool for conservation should be implemented in the focal areas. Creation of agro-forestry buffer zones in the environs of protected areas and conservation areas involving local communities should be encouraged. The review of the MoU between KWS and FOD for collaborative co-management of indigenous forests should be a priority action of the proposed Forestry Management Initiative. Aberdare Forests, Mt. Kenya, Shimba Hills, Ngong, Kikuyu Escarpment, Kasigau, Amboseli, and Ol Donyo Sapuk should be targeted by the new initiative, as they are important wildlife and water catchment areas. 5. Advocacy Findings The group ranch associations were initially formed to play an advocacy role. CORE worked with Laikipia Wildlife Forum supporting its efforts in crafting an advocacy strategy focused on promoting relevant policies, legislation and tools to encourage community incentives for wildlife conservation. The advocacy strategy prepared represented the first time the group had set out to write an agenda for influencing policy.34 There is a clear conflict of interest and lack of democratic process in a KWS-led group lobbying KWS for policy change. EAWLS has carved out an advocacy role throughout East Africa based on good science and constructive public debate. Currently, it is the logical and only avenue for building advocacy skills but outside the CORE coalition. EAWLS with its broad public membership is likely to get support from other NGOs and landowners. Lessons Learned Political interference can reverse gains made in advocacy. Recommendations CORE should build advocacy skills among constituency groups such as the regional forums and at the national level. Whereas the regional forums could concentrate on regional issues, the national forum, National Wildlife Forum (NWF) or Wildlife Working Group (WWG) would address national issues along the same way that Kenya Forestry Working Group (KFWG) operates. Advocacy should be simply undertaken by an independent NGO outside CORE. The best available possibility is to get EAWLS to undertake advocacy activities, but outside CORE. EAWLS has been very effective in advocacy activities concerning wetlands (Tana Delta) and forest excisions. 6. Policy Findings and Conclusions The CORE Project is faced with policy level constraints such as: Whose land is it? Whose wildlife is it? There is policy ambiguity and no clear direction. Land use plans are lacking especially as regards wildlife conservation. User rights regarding wildlife utilization are not clear. The KWS Strategic Framework and the Community Wildlife Service (CWS) Strategy have been completed. Recommendations have been made on KWS organizational structure, decentralization, institutional strengthening and staff rationalization, and devolution of certain responsibilities to wildlife stakeholders. Implementation of some of these recommendations has started. The devolution of certain wildlife conservation responsibilities will be a major outcome of the CWS strategy. In readiness for this process, KWS and CORE are building the capacity of existing CBOs and wildlife forums. New forums are being created in the target areas where none existed as in South Coast, Taita-Taveta and Samburu. A strong NWF is envisaged with representatives from the regional forums. KWS has carried out an evaluation of the pilot wildlife cropping scheme and an evaluation of game bird conservation and management. The evaluation revealed the need for the establishment of a legal framework for landowners to be 34 CORE M&E Report 2001 USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 47 able to optimize returns from wildlife. A review of game bird management has also revealed that there were no clear provisions to support their conservation. Among the recommendations is that wildlife cropping will continue as KWS embarks on in-house capacity development to manage it. KWS has opened up the trade in ostrich products for sale in the local market. KWS's CWS has also started work on the preparation of wildlife utilization guidelines. A draft has been presented to the KWS legal section for review before it is submitted to the conservation committee of KWS Board of Trustees for approval. The recommendations arising from the cropping evaluation are also awaiting KWS Board discussion on the way forward. In the meantime, a consultant has been appointed to work with KWS internal committee to review the Wildlife Policy and the Wildlife Bill and incorporate amendments that will address the major challenges facing NRM. The decentralization of some user rights and regulations on game bird shooting are being considered35. Two of the main reasons for lack of progress on policy have been KWS's institutional problems on the one hand, and its reticence over devolution of rights on the other. Sessional Paper No. 3 of 1975, "Statement on the Future of Wildlife Management Policy in Kenya" (1975 Policy) contains Kenya's wildlife management policy as approved in 1975. The sessional paper sets out the policies justifying a new, integrated approach to wildlife conservation based on local participation in all forms of wildlife utilization). The 1975 policy showed limitations of conservation confined to protected areas. The first steps to rectify the failures in the implementation of the 1975 policy included the establishment of KWS in 1989, and amendments to the national legislation covered in the Wildlife (Conservation and management) [Amendment] Act 1989. A pilot program on wildlife utilization was launched and the government instructed KWS to address the human wildlife-conflict as a matter of the highest priority and to review current wildlife policies accordingly. In 1994, KWS commissioned an independent five-person review of the human-wildlife conflict. The review team concluded that the solutions to wildlife-human conflicts required a concept of sustainable wildlife management by and for people on their land36. In terms of policy development, KWS cannot exclude the stakeholders. KWS would like to devolve authority to the stakeholders and allow them to give their inputs. KWS would also like to devolve authority in wildlife management outside protected areas. The only problem is that the communities do not have the necessary knowledge and skills. KWS can train up to 100 recruits at a time (normally the training duration for a scout is 1 to 2 months). Arming the community scouts is another issue. KWS can train them in firearm use but they need to get licenses to carry firearms themselves. In Taita-Taveta, the TTWF estimates that over 75% of the surrounding area are inhabited by wildlife. Of this area, national parks take up 62% and 13% is private land. Given the wide distribution of wildlife in the area, the local communities feel that it is essential that they have a forum to talk in one voice about access to benefits from wildlife. Lessons Learned Several significant changes bearing on policy have occurred since 1975. Biodiversity has assumed greater importance locally, nationally and globally and its role in sustaining the planet's processes, ecosystem functioning and natural resource production systems has become even more evident. The understanding of biodiversity and its values has been increased following Kenya's ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). The pressures on land caused by competition between wildlife, livestock, agriculture and human settlement call for a review of the Wildlife Policy and legislation. The Wildlife Act, Cap 376 (1977) is inconsistent with the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (1999). Recommendations The current policy on wildlife conservation and management is too old and should be revised to reflect current realities both locally and internationally. Policies specifically addressing biodiversity conservation issues outside protected areas are urgently required. The government has much to gain from effective policies that provide economic and social incentives for in situ conservation through developing local capacity to assess, survey and screen resources of potential use. The National Wildlife Forum (NWF) or a National Wildlife Working Group (NWWG) needs to be established and strengthened to take on effective representation of the regional forums at the national level. This forum or group would address cross-cutting issues shared by all forums such as wildlife policy, legislation, consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife utilization, user rights and land use. The regional forums would address regional issues. 35 KWS/CORE "This is Our Story": Important accomplishments for year 2001, problems encountered and challenges. 36 KWS Wildlife Policy 1996 (Draft Version 15 January 1996) USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 48 Mid-term Evaluation of the CORE-NRM Programme Individual Report. By James Wahome Findings and Recommendations Introduction: From the 1960s, policy and legislation began to recognize that wildlife conservation would be best served by converting wildlife into a commodity that benefited landholders. This was first translated into policy or legislation in Zimbabwe and Namibia in the early 1960s. Economic research showed that by the 1990s, wildlife had a comparative advantage in using rangelands, and was more profitable than livestock in terms of income, forex earnings and employment. The terms of trade were also shifting steadily towards wildlife given increasing demands for recreation, declining prices of primary commodities, and weakening local currencies. Wildlife has a comparative advantage as soon as the boundary of viable rainfed agricultural production is crossed (about 700mm), but its relative value increases with lower rainfall. Not surprisingly, wildlife also has an ecological comparative advantage. A wide range of mobile species is adapted to Africa’s savannas and their variable weather patterns. Sedentary, single-species systems of exotic livestock are not. It is estimated that southern Africa’s rangelands have lost some 40% of their productivity through bush encroachment. This is exacerbated by soil losses where over￾grazing is more severe. This has resulted in widespread ecological damage, or desertification, making conventional livestock production not viable. With the granting of use rights to wildlife on private land, ranchers responded rapidly to these economic opportunities. As a result, wildlife enterprises grew rapidly, sometimes dominating traditional livestock enterprises on private land. These land use trends, with a major shift to wildlife in Zimbabwe, South African and Namibia where most private land in the region is found, confirm the economist’s assessment that wildlife is more profitable than other alternatives, or at the least should be added to the enterprise mix. Due to selfish political and economic reasons, private landowners have been selectively empowered and supported to take maximum advantage of wildlife, while communal lands have been left under an open access system. Communities living on such lands have not benefited as much as private landowners from the tourism trade and related businesses because they have not given equal opportunity, empowered or even encouraged to participate fully in natural resource management and conservation. The most important step in securing community participation is to make sure that the communities have secure tenure over land and the resources it supports as well as clearly defined rights to sustainably use and benefit from these resources. The target communities need to be reassured that they have specific rights that are fully recognised, supported and protected by the Government. The key factor that must be borne in mind is that different target communities have cultures that are different and as important to them as the biological resources. Therefore, any rigid adherence to any one method for dialogue may render it unresponsive to local needs. All approaches in dealing with complex intricate and seemingly intractable historical changes should be based on the philosophy that rural communities will only take responsibility to conserve and use common natural resources well, manage and sustainably use the same, if there are demonstrable and tangible economic and other benefits accruing from such efforts. The prospects for succeeding in these efforts without the involvement of the local people and agreeing on the attendant benefits and responsibilities do not appear promising. Communities will not participate and or manage communally owned resources unless they are sure what is in it for them. Against this background, participatory processes and approaches in identifying land use problems, potentials, constraints and designing appropriate interventions with the local communities are imperative. The process should also be seen as that of consensus and partnership building with the communities as clients, co-workers, custodians, stewards and stakeholders. Some of the major issues include, inter alia gender and equity to ensure free and participation of men and women in the entire consultative and decision-making processes. The CORE -NRM Programme partners have continued to identify and put in place, in consultation with the relevant government departments and sectoral partners, the selected target communities in the focal areas, mechanisms that elicit contributions from the communities in order to provide some additional ideas using participatory approaches and tools. The CORE partners are also addressing the issue of equity in benefit distribution and joint venture agreements. However, more attention needs to be paid to gender related aspects of the programme. In addition, CORE partners will need to investigate novel and innovative ways of adopting the provisions of the recently promulgated National Environment and Conservation Act (NEMA). USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 49 Organisation of the Report: This report sets the background against which the achievements of the CORE programme have been pursued. The report also gives suggestions and recommendations from a personal rather than the Review Team's perspectives. For purposes of coherence and easy reading, the writer's recommendations and suggestions to the CORE project are embodied in the report and not presented in a separate section. Findings and Recommendations: The goal of the CORE programme is to "improve conservation and management of natural resources through increased benefits to communities and landowners in areas critical to parks and reserves" The achievement of this goal entails land use change and a growing number of community members benefiting from the CORE programme. Within a short time, the CORE programme has made major strides in achieving the its stated goal against many challenges. By end of year 2001, it is estimated that 650,040 ha of communal land was set aside for conservation while 7,394 and 23,166 community members respectively benefited directly and indirectly CORE's organisational development process continues to create both capacity and knowledge for the target communities in all the five focal areas. The value of the CORE and its partners as a repository of knowledge and a cornerstone for the continued expansion of CBNRM nationally and especially as the national environmental policy environment improves is inestimable. It is evident that with the results achieved so far, that CORE-NRM partners are steadily building a successful community based natural resource (CBNRM) programme. The programme is therefore well poised to reach the critical mass and benefit more grass-root communities over the remaining project period. There are strong demands for and on the CORE -NRM programme to do more at the group ranch and private land￾owners' levels, given the rapid growth in OD requirements at the enterprise, group ranch and forum levels for varied services, integrate resource management and institutional arrangements. This requires a shift from a purely wildlife conservation paradigm to one based on integrated NRM management, greater emphasis on community organization and development. In a worst-case scenario, the CORE programme is likely to have to achieve this with lower inputs should current level of donor support go down. This would essentially imply a major directional shift in the CORE programme necessitating a greater emphasis on sustainability of the project beyond the present USAID funding. Against this background, the following recommendations are provided. 1. Participatory Democracy: Develop a programme-wide emphasis on strengthening group ranches and the related conservation and wildlife forums as participatory democracies based on control by the constituency acting through sound, constituted, accountable, transparent, democratic and equitable community-level institutions. 2. Financial Sustainability: Set in place plans for each Group Ranch to achieve financial sustainability as soon as possible. 3. Re-prioritization of the planning process: Hasten and simplify the NRM planning process, with an emphasis on improving the health of the land and other resources, improving livelihoods by achieving financial, institutional and natural resource sustainability. 4. Performance and compliance monitoring: Implement comprehensive, but simple, performance and compliance monitoring and control systems at all levels of project implementation. 5. Delivery systems: Review and revise support delivery systems to minimize costs and maximize impact 6. Regional Associations: Support emergence of Group Ranch Associations, Wildlife and other conservation forums at community, regional and national levels as the CORE-NRM programme’s lead agencies and primary mechanism of advocacy. In order to enable the overall CORE programme to move to the next level in terms of consolidating programme leadership and ownership, institutionalization of cost-effective and efficient NRM support services, strengthened partnerships, and increased programme sustainability, the following strategic recommendations are proposed: ¾ Establish and launch the National Wildlife and Conservation Forum, reorient the CORE programme in such a manner that it places group ranches and other land owners' forums firmly in the lead; ¾ Strengthen the CORE-NRM partnership to provide cost-effective capacity-building services, and demand-driven technical support more efficiently with greater presence and visibility at the community level; USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 50 ¾ Reorient and expand support for the CORE-NRM programme to address critical emerging issues and to increase the programme’s relevance and thereby augment the government’s stated national development goals and priorities; ¾ Ensure that increased economic benefits flow to target communities; ¾ Strengthen existing rights of all categories of land owners and users and secure additional rights for the communities; ¾ Develop a more robust and across the board system for monitoring and communicating CORE Programme, results, accomplishments and pronouncements; ¾ Proactively seek to develop a clear exit strategy and manage the transition and eventual disengagement of CORE partners and put the community based organisations firmly in the lead; ¾ Secure funding for the medium term and financial sustainability over the longer term ¾ Diversify the funding base for the CORE programme and proactively develop collaborative linkages with donors, relevant NGOs and other sectoral partners in Government Departments and agencies (e.g. Agriculture, Livestock, Marketing, Forestry) parastatals, NGOs and relevant community based organisations (CBOs). Poverty alleviation among pastoral communities is a noble and lofty goal. Kenyan pastoral communities' sources of income have been greatly reduced in the last two decades. They have therefore become poorer over the said period. The stratification of the beef industry set up in the early seventies in Kenya was an effort meant to increase offtake of livestock from pastoral areas and relieve the pressure on land occasioned by the ever-increasing livestock populations that far exceeded the carrying capacity. The concurrent formation of group ranches was meant to augment the overall objective of helping the pastoral communities link up with various market outlets such as the Kenya Meat Commission (KMC) for their animals and export markets. KMC is virtually dead. The options for cash generation to these communities are very few and favourable market outlets for livestock do not exist. It is not surprising therefore that communities in Laikipia, Masai Mara, and Amboseli have started to reduce their livestock populations as a response to these harsh economic realities in order to allow wildlife numbers to increase because they see greater potential for wildlife, tourism and related enterprises in generating desperately needed cash. During the short life of the CORE programme, there has emerged evidence that cash generation through enterprises is an effective catalyst because it is a direct benefit to the community members. Through the CORE programme, the target communities' awareness has been raised. The communities are now keenly aware of the immense potential for income that can be earned from wildlife and related tourism businesses and enterprises. The CORE programme is capable of achieving the stated goal and objectives and has got the potential to contribute to true poverty alleviation by increasing incomes of the target communities directly and indirectly when mechanisms for ensuring equitable distribution of the income are firmly in place. The lessons learned from design implementation, and monitoring the CORE project will be relevant, applicable and extrapolable to similar areas of Kenya with minor adjustments. The focal areas are representative of nearly 70% of Kenya's total land area that is characterised as arid and semi-arid, which is occupied by pastoral communities and where land is tenure is communal. The area is mainly utilised for grazing livestock. These areas also are wildlife migration corridors as well as dispersal areas. Many portions of this communal land are neighbours to protected Areas (PA's), i.e., parks and wildlife reserves. Pastoral communities in theses areas have coexisted peacefully with wildlife for centuries. As already stated, the CORE project beneficiaries have moved quickly to set aside conservation areas and sanctuaries for key species of wildlife such as elephants and rhinos. Within a couple of years, there is visible evidence of natural recovery and rehabilitation of vegetation and improvement of the overall landscape. These achievements are attributable to: 1. Awareness creation through training and exchange visits (to successfully managed conservation areas in other communities demonstrating tangible attendant benefits for the community)' 2. Cash entrenchment in the local economy necessitating the need for cash income to meet the household cash requirements; 3. Development of group cohesiveness in the group ranches and subsequent emergence of greater sense of ownership and empowerment in decision making The key lessons learned during the design, implementation and monitoring are: (a) For the target communities to appreciate and fully get involved and participate meaningfully in conserving natural resources, they must be brought in as partners, custodians, and stewards of natural resources. In addition, they must be helped to understand the full range of benefits accruing from such conservation efforts so that they can see what is in it for them. They will not conserve for the sake of conserving per se. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 51 (b) The involvement of the target communities needs to take place in an atmosphere of growing trust and confidence. This requires a focused and sometimes long drawn consultative processes. The transaction costs on time and human resources needs to be appreciated and budgeted for in the project plans; (c) For (a) and (b) to succeed, the process must be effective, efficient and allow for the necessary and sometimes unexpected conflicts to be resolved amicably through negotiation and tactful interventions. CORE partners must therefore allocate sufficient time to the staff to do effective OD functions leading to, inter alia, the issuance of the requisite Title Deeds and registration of the Group Ranches; (d) It is important that the roles of the different coalition partners involved in the implementation of the CORE programme should be clearly explained to all stakeholders. At the moment, not all target communities seem to be clear on the roles of ACC, AWF, Pact, and PWC; (e) The complexity of the CORE programme necessitates constant consultation and periodic adjustments. Transparency, information sharing and good will must be exercised by all stakeholders at all times to avoid any misunderstandings. An example here is the issue of NRM planning for CORE. It seems like NRM planning should have been done with the agreement and participation of all coalition partners and not by partner alone. Empowerment is important, intangible benefits are important, biodiversity conservation is important, but there is no “driver” for the CORE programme more important than tangible economic benefits. After years of painstaking and hard work getting a minimum set of enabling conditions in place, learning from failures and building on successes the COBRA (the predecessor of CORE) project, the CORE programme is poised to make a great leap forward. The engine that will power that leap is a steady and sustained flow economic/financial benefits to the target communities in the Group Ranches. At the moment, the level of benefits accruing to the larger constituencies (group ranches conservation, association, wildlife association and /or wildlife forums is fairly small and varies from one community to the other. Private land owners are already reaping the major benefits from wildlife and related tourism businesses. A limited number of group ranches such as, Amboseli Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association (ATGRCA) are distributing cash and giving other services to their respective constituencies. By and large, there is overwhelming and compelling evidence that the potential of larger cash incomes and more benefits to communities will be realised over time by the target communities. This accrual must be preceded and underpinned by community training and organisation, NRM planning, sound, transparent and accountable financial systems with checks and balances and strategies for marketing of tourism facilities. Establishing both tourism and related enterprises needs to be done in partnership with Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), respective Enterprise Officers and Organisational Development (OD) teams. These service providers should be intimately associated to the degree that mentoring and training grassroots staff should be a priority to which they are committed. The underlying philosophy should be three-fold: 9 That wildlife conservation is most likely where the primary beneficiary is the landholder community. 9 That wildlife and natural resource use rights should be devolved to target communities as quickly and as fully as possible. 9 That target communities should be empowered to determine their own destinies. In bringing about this devolution, the paradox of "Catch-22" must be borne in mind Devolution is sometimes hard to accept, mainly because it is a response to a "catch-22" situation, and because of the tendency not to trust communities with the responsibility for their own lives: 9 How can we give or devolve use rights to people who have little experience with managing wildlife? 9 But how can they learn to manage wildlife without actually managing it? The only sensible option is to immediately entrust communities with use rights. Only by using these rights will communities undergo the experiential learning process necessary to develop real management capacity. However, learning process must be supported with careful monitoring, coupled with technical advice to correct the legitimate mistakes that are integral to the process. The target communities in all the five focal areas are in the process of being empowered. However there is a need for them to be given ample opportunity to undergo experiential learning. There is sense in which, the project implementation process must accept some manageable risk of allowing the communities "the luxury of making legitimate but correctable mistakes". The work on awareness creation, training and all the other organisational development initiatives being provided by CORE partners to the communities are meant to equip communities to: a. Develop a strong and real and true sense of ownership through, the acquisition of Title Deeds for their communal land USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 52 b. Develop confidence and build consensus as they develop mechanisms and instruments (including constitutions) for transparent and democratic management of their respective group ranches, as well as guidelines for setting aside and managing conservation areas and sanctuaries; c. Ensure sound, transparent and financial systems for equitable distribution of benefits The participation of the rural communities in the improvement, diversification, sustainable use and management of natural resources requires desired attitudinal changes and paradigm shift for change agents such as community leaders, policy makers, technical and front-line extension staff and the rural communities alike. Hence, there will be a need of training for all involved to ensure proper understanding leading to shared but common goals, objectives responsibilities and accountability. There is clear evidence of a fast growing attitudinal change among the pastoral communities. While emphasising their views on livestock as a bank account on the hoof, the communities of Koija, ATGRCA, Koiyaki-Lemek, and Siana, were also unequivocal on their understanding of perceived benefits from the wildlife and natural resource conservation. They referred to the latter as a second bank account, which has a potential to grow. As such, they expressed their readiness and willingness to reduce their livestock numbers, i.e., shrink the first account, and allow the expansion of the wildlife, i.e., expand the second account, and bring about the equilibrium needed for sustainable resource use (carrying capacity). There is a conventional tendency on traditional land use planners to view conservation and agricultural production including fisheries as being mutually exclusive. Land and water are natural resources, which are the bedrock that most other renewable natural resources depend on. The life of the pastoral communities is slowly shifting to a sedentary one. These communities therefore need basic foodstuffs in line with their fast changing dietary habits. It is a lot easier and cheaper for the community members to grow such foodstuffs wherever possible to augment and diversify the household food budgets and ensure balanced diets for the households. Additionally, the entrenchment of cash in the local economy of target communities in the focal areas is a reality that NRM planning must address and accommodate. It is therefore quite conceivable that pastoral communities will, out of necessity, want to grow staple foods such as maize and beans for both subsistence and sale of limited surpluses and generate much needed income. Such agricultural activities need to be planned for and accommodated in CORE-NRM planning particularly along the banks of permanent rivers especially in areas where they pose a minimum threat to the environment through erosion and where no destruction of important habitats is envisaged. Under the right conditions, it may even be worthwhile to investigate opportunities for inland fisheries (aquaculture) and encourage tree planting on farms and pasture-lands (agroforestry). In addition, the traditional resources of target communities, i.e. livestock will always remain with them albeit in reduced numbers. There is therefore a strong justification for a holistic and integrated approach to NRM planning that takes full cognisance of improved methods of livestock and range management, agricultural crop production to meet the basic needs of the local communities. Involvement with other donors is varied among the various communities. Those involved in NRM include the European Union through the Biodiversity Conservation Programme (BCP) funded through the Community Development Trust Fund and the recently launched Tourism Trust Fund. Other development agencies involved in NRM include, The Dutch Government, Belgian Government, Finland, and Department for International Development (DFID) of United Kingdom. In summary, the CORE programme has been a great start: 9 However, it needs to all be based on sound, democratic, participatory organizations. 9 Then, it needs to take advantage of the opportunities for commercial enterprise development to make more money and achieve financial independence and sustainability. 9 Ensure sustainability, especially the wildlife and resource base. 9 Also, keep the social dimensions and dynamics clearly in view and monitor these to ensure equitable impacts. 9 Last, but not least, the programme needs to develop grassroots legitimacy and the democratic ability of its constituents to empower themselves USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 53 Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed NB: The majority of the documents listed here were provided to us in electronic format via e-mail from USAID/Kenya ABEO. Few of these documents came with title pages and we were able to get these clarified by the PMT or partners. We have approximated the title of the documents as best as possible given the circumstances. Source Title / Approximate Title AWF AWF/CORE Program, Work Plan July 2000 to June 2001 & Sixth Month Narrative AWF Half Year Report, AWF/CORE Field Report, 22 April, 2002 AWF AWF 1/2 year report July to Dec 2000 AWF African Wildlife Foundation, 2001 Summary AWF AWF 1/2 Year Report, Jan to June 01 AWF An Approach to Organizational Development, For the Pact/CORE Program CORE CORE M & E Report 2001 CORE The Conservation of Resources Through Enterprise, (CORE), Baseline Survey KWS Kenya Wildlife Service Core/USAID Funded Project - This is our story KWS Community Wildlife Strategic Framework 2001-2005 KWS Workshop on M&E follow-up - Jan 2002 KWS CORE M&E Workshop report - Oct. 4-6, 2000 KWS Evaluation of Memoranda of Understanding between KWS and partners Jan 2000 KWS PMP for Human Conflict Resolution Program, Dec 1999 KWS KWS Monitoring Guidelines Jan 2000 KWS Game Bird Conservation and Management Report Jan 26, 2001 KWS CORE progress report July 2000 to June 2001 KWS KWS Staffing Training Workshop in M&E - Training Guide - Oct 2001 KWS Report on Warden's M&E workshop 11-12 April 2001 KWS Wildlife for Development Fund (WDF) Status report Dec. 2000 KWS Wildlife for Development Fund (WDF) Status report Dec. 2001 KWS CORE M&E Karen Workshop Oct 2001 KWS TOT in M&E July 2-24, 2001 MSI Original MSI proposal MSI USAID Final Task Order SOW MSI Revised CORE Evaluation Timeline MSI The organization structures for CBNRM in Africa by Bruce Campbell PACT PACT/CORE proposed CA PACT PACT 1/2 year report Jan to July 2000 PACT PACT 1/2 year report July to Dec 2000 PACT PACT 1/2 year report Jan to July 2001 PACT Pact/CORE Work Plan, July 2000 – June 2001, Activity Matrix PACT Pact/CORE Work Plan, July 2001 – June 2002, Activity Matrix PACT E-mail from Cowles on Digest Article PACT 15 Documents on OD efforts at 15 Koija Group Ranch USAID Kenya Annual Report for FY 2002 USAID USAID/Kenya PMP for SO5 USAID PMP Summary USAID SO 5 Strategic Plan Amendment Document USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 54 Appendix F: List of Persons and Organizations Contacted CORE FOCUS AREA: GREATER AMBOSELI.......................................................55 Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association (ATGRCA) ....................................55 KWS - Amboseli........................................................................................................................55 Olgulului Campsite....................................................................................................................55 Imbirikani Rhino Project ...........................................................................................................55 Namelok Apiculture/Bee Keeping Enterprise ...........................................................................56 CORE FOCUS AREA: TAITA-TAVETA...................................................................56 Taita Taveta Wildlife Forum .....................................................................................................56 LUMO Community Wildlife Sanctuary ....................................................................................56 KWS Tsavo East........................................................................................................................57 Kasigau Bandas .........................................................................................................................57 CORE FOCUS AREA: SOUTH COAST.....................................................................57 Shimba Hills National Reserve..................................................................................................57 Mwaluganje Elephant Santuary.................................................................................................57 CORE FOCUS AREA: MASAI MARA.......................................................................58 Kenya Wildlife Service - Narok ................................................................................................58 Narok County Council...............................................................................................................58 Siana Group Ranch....................................................................................................................58 CORE FOCUS AREA: LAIKIPIA/SAMBURU.........................................................59 Laikipia Wildlife Forum............................................................................................................59 KWS Warden, Laikipia District ................................................................................................59 Kuri Kuri Group Ranch .............................................................................................................59 Naipotaki Farmers Cooperative – Mukogado Honey Enterprise ..............................................59 Il Polei Cultural Manyatta .........................................................................................................60 Koija Group Ranch....................................................................................................................60 Loisaba Ranch ...........................................................................................................................61 NAIROBI MEETINGS.......................................................................................................61 Pact /CORE Technical Staff ......................................................................................................61 Pact /CORE Managers...............................................................................................................61 Directors of Pact /CORE Partner Organizations .......................................................................61 AWF/CORE Technical Staff .....................................................................................................61 Directors of AWF /CORE Partner Organizations .....................................................................62 Conservation Enterprise Director ..............................................................................................62 Directors of AWF ......................................................................................................................62 KWS M&E Staff........................................................................................................................62 KWS Nairobi National Park ......................................................................................................63 KWS CWS CORE Leader.........................................................................................................63 KWS CWP Assistant Director...................................................................................................63 DFID..........................................................................................................................................63 EU - BCP ...................................................................................................................................63 Core Partners Debriefing ...........................................................................................................63 USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 55 CORE FOCUS AREA: GREATER AMBOSELI FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association (ATGRCA) Monday, 29 April 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Gathinji, Irene Pact, Kenya Deputy Director CORE 2. Kaanki, Daudi, L. Namelok Community Dev. Assoc. Secretary 3. Kaipoon, Moses Imbirikani Group Ranch Member 4. Kilitia, Joshua Amboseli/Tsavo Association Secretary 5. Kotoke, Solomon Imbirikani Group Ranch Chairman 6. Lenchesi, Raphael Tono Namelok Community Dev. Assoc. Chairman 7. Leyian, Jacob Amboseli/Tsavo Association Chairman 8. Masinde, G.L. African Conservation Centre Community Conservation Officer 9. Meloupulii, Joseph Olgulului/Lolarrashi Group Ranch Manager - Camp Site 10. Miaron, Joseph Amboseli/Tsavo Association Program Manager 11. Musyoki, Simon Kenya Wildlife Service Deputy Warden, Amboseli NP 12. Ntiati, Noah Imbirikani Group Ranch Councillor 13. Salaash, David ATGRCA/Eselenkei Group Ranch Member INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW KWS - Amboseli Monday, 29 April 2002 Musyoki, Simon Kenya Wildlife Service Deputy Warden, Amboseli NP SITE VISIT and INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW Olgulului Campsite Tuesday, 30 April 2002 Meloupouki, Joseph Olgulului/Lolarrashi Group Ranch Campsite Manager Mwongela, Ben African Wildlife Foundation Enterprise Officer SITE VISIT and FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Imbirikani Rhino Project Tuesday, 30 April 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Cheriot, Mark Kenya Wildlife Service Security Officer 2. Dokolo, David Imbirikani Rhino Project Committee Member 3. Gathinji, Irene Pact, Kenya Deputy Director CORE 4. Kilitia, Joshua Imbirikani Rhino Project Secretary 5. Kotoke, Solomon Imbirikani Group Ranch Chairman 6. Lemasika, Isayah Imbirikani Rhino Project Committee Member 7. Lepurian, Simon Imbirikani Group Ranch Vice-Chairman 8. Masinde, G.L. African Conservation Centre Community Conservation Officer 9. Miaron, Joseph Amboseli/Tsavo Association Program Manager 10. Musau, Josiah African Conservation Centre Driver 11. Musyoki, Simon Kenya Wildlife Service Senior Warden (Deputy) USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 56 12 Mwangi, Joesph Pact, Kenya Driver 13. Ngida, Joel Imbirikani Rhino Project Committee Member 14. Ntausi, Mariamu Imbirikani Rhino Project Committee Member 15. Ntiati, Noah Imbirikani Group Ranch Councillor 16. Olchurie, Serah Imbirikani Rhino Project Committee Member 17. Olipanto, Musa Imbirikani Group Ranch Member 18. Wamugi, Isaac African Conservation Centre Field Officer 19. Wanakuta, Eliud African Conservation Centre Field Officer SITE VISIT and GROUP INTERVIEW Namelok Apiculture/Bee Keeping Enterprise Namelok Community Development Association (NCDA) Tuesday, 30 April 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Ben Mwongela AWF Enterprise Officer 2. Michael Njung'e SITE Project Officer 3. Daniel Lolokuta NACDA Team Leader 4. Raphael Lerichasi NACDA Chairman 5. Daudi Kankei NACDA Secretary 6. Joseph K. Patiat NACDA Treasurer 7. Joseph Lekamisha NACDA Member CORE FOCUS AREA: TAITA-TAVETA FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Taita Taveta Wildlife Forum Thursday, 2 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Kombo, Josephat, M. Taita-Taveta Wildlife Forum Chairman 2. Morara, Jasper EAWLS Program Officer 3. Mwabili, Richard Cllr. Taita-Taveta Wildlife Forum Member 4. Mwanyumba, Dawson EAWLS Field Officer 5. Mwasaru, Danson, M. Taita-Taveta Wildlife Forum Member FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION LUMO Community Wildlife Sanctuary Thursday, 2 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Kombo, Josephat, M. Taita Taveta Wildlife Forum Chairman 2. Morara, Jasper EAWLS Program Officer 3. Munyika, Crispus, S. Lumo Community Wildlife Sanct. Board Member 4. Mwabili, Richard Cllr. Lumo Community Wildlife Sanct. Chairman 5. Mwamburi, Athanasi Lumo Community Widlife Sanct. Board Member 6. Mwandoe, Nyambu Lumo Community Wildlife Sanct. Manager 7. Mwangeka, Flavian M. Lumo Community Wildlife Sanct. Board Member 8. Mwanyalo, Francisca Lumo Community Wildlife Sanct. Board Member 9. Mwanyumba, Dawsan EAWLS Field Officer 10. Mwasaru, Danson, M. Lumo Community Wildlife Sanct. Secretary 11. Mwasaru, Peter M. Lumo Community Wildlife Sanct. Board Member USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 57 GROUP INTERVIEW KWS Tsavo East Thursday, 2 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Gathieri, John KWS CWS Warden 2. Kasivi, Samuel KWS Scientist 3. Leitoro, Peter KWS Assistant Director 4. Mwanyumba, Dawson EAWLS Field Officer 5. Morara, Jasper EAWLS Program Officer FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION Kasigau Bandas Friday, 3 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Bambanya, Gideon Kasigau – Tumaini Chairman 2. Jali, Lucy Dama Tumaini White Eye Bird Jora Treasurer 3. Kamando, Francis Masai Kiteghe Tour Company Chairman 4. Kanene, Moses AWF Enterprise Officer 5. Lengube, Florence A. Mlemwa Tours Treasurer 6. Maza, Jasper Tofino T. Co. Ltd. Secretary 7. Morara, Jasper EAWLS Program Officer 8. Mwaegwa, Milton Makwasinyi Elephant Co. Secretary 9. Mwakio, Lawrence Tumaini White Eye Bird Secretary 10. Mwalei, Nashon Mlemwa Tour Company Chairman 11. Mwambi, Matthew, R. Mlemwa Tour Company Secretary 12. Mwanjala, Hezron Makwasinyi E.T. Chairman 13 Ngali, Daudi. M. Tofino T. Co. Ltd Treasurer CORE FOCUS AREA: SOUTH COAST FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION Shimba Hills National Reserve Thursday, 4 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Kavu, Benjamin KWS Ass. Director Coastal Region 2. Litoroh, Moses KWS Scientist 3. Morara, Jasper EAWLS Program Officer 4. Muyesu, Kaisha KWS Assistant Warden FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION Mwaluganje Elephant Santuary Saturday, 4 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Duncan, Darcy Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Peace Corps Volunteer 2. Kulola, Hamisi Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Shareholder 3. Litoroh, Moses KWS Scientist 4. Macharia, O. K. Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Manager (outgoing) USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 58 5. Mbongi, Mesaidi Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Shareholder 6. Morara, Jasper EAWLS Program Officer 7. Muyesu, Kaisha KWS Assistant Warden 8. Mwadudu, Juma Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Manager (incoming) 9. Mwadudu, Matano Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Director 10. Mwakazi, Bakari Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Member 11. Mwakutunza, Hassan H. Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Director 12. Mwalenga, Kobe Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Shareholder 13. Mwatowa, Meselemani Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Shareholder 14 Sawa, Kassim A. Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary Chairman, Board of Directors CORE FOCUS AREA: MASAI MARA INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW Kenya Wildlife Service - Narok Friday, 3 May 2002 Mr. Richard Obanda Kenya Wildlife Service District Warden GROUP INTERVIEW Narok County Council Friday, 3 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. John Kimiywi Ole Karia Narok County Council Administrative Officer, representing the Clerk of Narok County Council 2. Mr. Richard Obanda Kenya Wildlife Service Warden Narok District 3. Kenneth Ole Nashuu Kenya Wildlife Service Community Conservation Officer 4. John Ole Sipikiek ACC Project officer FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Siana Group Ranch Friday, 3 May 2002 No. Name Position 1. Paul Ole Montet Manager 2. Nepatato Ole Keeng Director 3. Dennis Silantoi Member 4. Kirusia Ole Sangeu Member 5. Topoika Ole Kararei Chief-Siana Location 6. Maloi Ole Kiu Councillor-Siana Ward 7. Kaitet Ole Gilisho Assistant Chief -Nkolaile 8. Sammy Ole Nkoitoi Chairman Siana Wildlife Trust 9. Selelo Ole Purrenkei Member 10. Someyoi Ole Guisho Member 11. Lepatim Ole Kool Member 12. Mrs Nellen Muntet Chair-Women Group Ass. 13. MrsMeliyio Ntayia Member 14. Leken Kilisho Member 15. Konana Kirrokor Member 16. Peter Lembuya AWF Staff 17. Harrison Metuo AWF Staff 18. Jackson Olaka Manager-Siana Camp USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 59 CORE FOCUS AREA: LAIKIPIA/SAMBURU INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW Laikipia Wildlife Forum Monday, 7 May 2002 Jonathan Moss Laikipia Wildlife Forum Office Director INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW Laikipia Wildlife Forum Wednesday, 9 May 2002 Gilford Powys Laikipia Wildlife Forum Chairman INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW KWS Warden, Laikipia District Monday, 7 May 2002 Mr. Abdulkadir Biru Kenya Wildlife Service Warden FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION Kuri Kuri Group Ranch Tuesday, 7 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Atei, Harrison Kuri Kuri Group Ranch Member 2. Kariuki, Anthony Pact/ACC Field Offficer 3. Leitiko, Margaret Kuri Kuri Group Ranch/RMAC Member 4. Leitiko, Stephen Kuri Kuri Group Ranch/RMAC Member 5. Matunge, Kidaru Kuri Kuri Group Ranch Chairman (10 yrs) 6. Matunge, Kuyan Kuri Kuri Group Ranch/RMAC Member 7. Rambei, George Kuri Kuri Group Ranch/RMAC Member 8. Sakaya, Mr. Kuri Kuri Group Ranch/RMAC Member 9. Saikong, Kasoni Kuri Kuri Group Ranch/RMAC Member 10. Saikong, Ngonge Kuri Kuri Group ranch/RMAC Member 11. Sakui, Daniel Kuri Kuri Group Ranch Member 12. Sakui, Jimii Kuri Kuri Group Ranch Member 13. Sanoy, Wilfred Kuri Kuri group Ranch Member 14. Thauthi, Mike ACC Field Officer FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION Naipotaki Farmers Cooperative – Mukogado Honey Enterprise Tuesday, 7 May 2002 No. Name Position 1. Mr. Stephen Pokisa Chairman 2. Mr. Harrison Atei Treasurer 3. Mr. Tajiri Peresian Vice Chairman 4. Mr. Daniel Kalasinga Member 5. Mr. Stephen Leriman Member USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 60 6. Mr. Ngaro Chachore Member 7. Mrs. Salome Kintanti Secretary 8. Mrs. Susan Kilebu Member 9. Mr. Wolfred Sande Member FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Tuesday, 7 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Kasana, Mokiri Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 2. Kisio, Mr. Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Community Liaison Officer 3. Larpei, Namawo Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 4. Legei, Sanoi Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 5. Liosor, Lialo Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 6. Mama, Olentaani Il Polei cultural Manyatta Member 7. Mamai, Susana Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 8. Meshame, Nkoilen Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 9. Meshami, Demu Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 10. Mashami, Ofisaa Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 11. Meshami, Olenkuku Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 12. Meshame, Wilfred T. Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Secretary 13. Monyo, Mzee Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 14. Mugambi, Mama Il Polei Cultutral Manyatta Member 15. Naimado, Daniel Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 16. Naimado, Siranga Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 17. Naimado, Tiranga Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 18. Naimado, Rauten Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 19. Ngilicho, Mato Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 20. Njepi, James L. Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 21. Nkaidori, Mahlon Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 22. Nompoyo, Titiyai Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 23. Nompuyo, Njener Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 24. Ntula, Mokodoi Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 25. Olemonto, Piroris Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 26. Pere, Noltinga Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 27. Pere, Oletauwo Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 28. Pere, Tition Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 29. Putunoi, Chief Il Polei Location Chief 30. Putunui, Njepi Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 31. Ralaile, Mrs. Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 32. Rana, Jonathan Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 33. Reno, Jane Il Polei Cultural Manyatta Member 34. Thauthi, Mike ACC Enterprise Officer FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION Koija Group Ranch Tuesday, 7 May 2002 No. Name Position 1. Mr. Yususf Kirambai Secretary 2. Mr. Kasale Kidding Member 3. Mr. Simantoi Lemiliko Member 4. Mr. Simintei Kirampai Member 5. Mr. William Kirambai Member USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 61 6. Look Lenaompoya Member INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW Loisaba Ranch Tuesday, 7 May 2002 Tom Silvester Loisaba Ranch Director/ General Manager NAIROBI MEETINGS FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION Pact /CORE Technical Staff Wednesday, 8 May 2002 No. Name Institution Position 1. Cowles, Paul Pact Pact/CORE Director 2. Gathinji, Irene Pact Pact/CORE Dep. Director/OD Facilitator 3. Kariuki, Anthony Pact NRM Officer 4. Kireu, Nancy Pact OD Trainer 5. Morara, Jasper EAWLS Program Officer 6. Sipitiek, Johnson Ole ACC Project Officer (Masai Mara) GROUP INTERVIEW Pact /CORE Managers Wednesday, 8 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Cowles, Paul Pact Pact/CORE Director 2. Panover, Bill Pact Pact Diretor GROUP INTERVIEW Directors of Pact /CORE Partner Organizations Wednesday, 8 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Nell Inamdar ACC Director 2. Ali A. Kaka EAWLS Executive Director FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION AWF/CORE Technical Staff Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association 1. Gitahi, Nyokabi African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) 2. Guchu-Katee, Christine African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) 3. Kanene, Moses African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) 4. Karimi, Irene PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) 5. Kiragu, George Small & Micro Enterprises Dev. Ltd. (SAMED) 6 Masinde, Godfrey African Conservation Centre (ACC) USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 62 7. Mwai, Wangeci African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) 8. Mwangi, Mary Small & Micro Enterprises Dev. Ltd. (SAMED) 9. Mwangola, Lenny African Conservation Centre (ACC) 10. Mwongela, Ben African 11. Ntiati, Paul African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) 12. Okudo, Joe R. African Conservation Centre (ACC) 13. Thauthi, Mike African Conservation Centre (ACC) 14 Wakhu, Patrick African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) 15. Warinda, Enock African Conservation Centre (ACC) GROUP INTERVIEW Directors of AWF /CORE Partner Organizations Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Nell Inamdar ACC Director 2. Jeff K. Njagi SAMED Director 3. Barbara Steenstrup PriceWaterhouseCoopers GMU INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW Conservation Enterprise Director Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Christine Guchu-Katee AWF/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers Conservation Enterprise Director GROUP INTERVIEW Directors of AWF Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Helen Gichohi AWF Director 2. Christine Guchu-Katee AWF/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers Conservation Enterprise Director FOCUS GROUP DISCUSION KWS M&E Staff Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution Position 1. George Muriuki KWS Geological Monitoring Unit 2. Philip Mwakio KWS Community Wildlife Programme 3. Wycliffe Mutero KWS GIS 3. Margaret Ndugu KWS Central Monitoring and Evaluation Unit 4. Benson Okita Ouma KWS Scientist, Rhino Programme 5. Martin Mulama KWS Rhino Programme Coordinator 6. Grace Thitai KWS HCME Unit USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 63 GROUP INTERVIEW KWS Nairobi National Park Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution Position 1. Mr. Paul Gathitu Masela KWS Senior Warden - Nairobi National Park 2. Mrs. Elizabeth Leytoro KWS - CWP Community Wildlife Officer, Nairobi National Park INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW KWS CWS CORE Leader Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Lynette Munira Anyonge KWS CORE Team Leader INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW KWS CWP Assistant Director Thursday, 9 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Joachim Kagiri KWS Assistant CWP INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW DFID Monday, 13 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Mr. Mark Rotich DFID Kenya Programme Officer 2. Mr. Martin Leach DFID Senior Rural Livelihoods Adviser INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW EU - BCP Monday, 13 May 2002 No. Name Institution Position 1. Mr. Joseph M. Ruhiu EU Technical Officer - Wildlife/Environment Core Partners Debriefing on the Mid-term Evaluation Friday, 17 May 2002 No. Name Institution/Association Position 1. Anyonge, Munira K. KWS KWS/CWS CORE Leader 2. Cowles, Paul Pact Pact/CORE Director 3. Gathitu, Paul KWS Warden, Nairobi National Park 4. Gichohi, Helen AWF Vice President - Program 5. Gitahi, Nyokabi AWF Legal Officer 6. Guchu-Katee, Christine AWF Senior Program Officer 7. Inamdar, Neel ACC Director 8. Kagiri, Joachim KWS Assistant Director, CWS USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 64 9. Kaka, Ali EAWLS Director 10. Kanene, Moses AWF Enterprises Manager 11. Karimi, Irene PwC Grants Manager 12. Leitoro, E. P. KWS Ass. Warden, Nairobi National Park 13. Mwai, Wangeci AWF Enterprise Specialist 14. Mwongela, Ben AWF Senior Enterprise Specialist 15. Ndirangu, James USAID/Kenya SO 5 Team Leader 16. Ndung'u, Margaret KWS M&E Officer 17. Okudo, Joe Robert ACC Head of Program 18. Ouma, Benson Okita KWS Rhino Program Officer 19. Polidoro, Bill Pact Country Director 20. Sipiet, Johnson Ole ACC Mara Project Officer 21. Steenstrup, Barbara PwC EDF Director 22. Thiong'o, Muthoni KWS Donor Liaison Officer 23. Thitai, G.N. KWS Head, CM&E 24. Wakhu, Patrick AWF NRM Officer 25. Warinda, Enock ACC M&E Officer USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 65 Appendix G: Summaries of Focus Group Discussions, Interviews and Site Visits Listing of interview notes Focal Area & Groups Interviewed Individual interview Group interview FG Site visit Notes on page: Amboseli 1. ATGRCA and group ranch enterprises X 66 2. KWS Amboseli NP X 66 3. Imbirikani X X 67 4. Namelok X X 68 5. Olgulului X X 69 Taita Taveta 1. Taita Wildlife Forum X 70 2. Lumo Group Ranch X 72 3. KWS Tsavo East X 74 4. Tsavo Conservancy - Kasigau Bandas X X 75 South Coast 1. KWS Shimba Hills X 77 2. Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary X 78 Masai Mara 1. KWS Narok X 80 2. Norak County Council X 81 3. Koiyaki/Lemek enterprises X 82 4. Siena Springs Conservation Association X 83 5. Ol Chorro Oiroua & Beadwork Group X X 84 Laikipia 1. LWF X 85 2. KWS Nanyuki X 86 3. Koija Group Ranch X X 87 4. Loisaba investor X 88 5. Il Polei Cultural Manyatta X X 89 6. Kurikuri Group Ranch X 90 7. Kurikuri Naipotake Farmer Cooperative X X 91 TOTAL FIELD INTERVIEWS = 23 4 7 12 8 Nairobi Meetings 1. CORE-Pact technical officers X 92 2. Pact Director X 93 3. CORE-Pact sub-grantee directors (ACC & EAWLS) X 93 4. CORE-AWF technical officers X 94 5. CORE-AWF sub-grantee directors (ACC, SAMED and PWC) X 95 6. CORE-AWF Senior Program Officer X 95 7. AWF Vice President for Programs X 96 8. KWS M&E X 96 9. KWS Senior Warden Nairobi NP X 97 10. KWS CWS Core Leader X 97 11. KWS CWS Asst. Director X 97 12. DFID X 98 13. EU’s Biodiversity Conservation Programme (BCP) X 99 14. Kenya Tourism Federation X 100 15. Tour Operator X 101 TOTAL NAIROBI INTERVIEWS = 15 8 4 3 NA TOTAL NUMBER OF FORMAL INTERVIEWS 12 11 15 Grand Total 36 interviews USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 66 Main findings from the Focus Group Discussion at Amboseli National Park with members of ATGRCA, Imbirikani Group Ranch, Elerai and Namelok Group Association KWS HQ, 9:30 to 11:45, 29 April 2002 ¾ The idea of Group Ranch formation preceded both the COBRA and CORE projects and its history dates back to the creation of KWS while Amboseli/Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association (ATGRCA) was formed well before the inception of CORE. ¾ KWS is credited by the ATGRCA for: 1. Providing technical knowledge and fundraising and therefore being a good partner for ATGRCA 2. Developing relationship with ATGRCA and bringing CORE to Amboseli ¾ Purpose of ATGRCA formation was to address inter alia: 1. NR conservation 2. Benefit sharing ¾ Group Ranches are not now getting the anticipated/expected full financial benefits accruing to the ATGRCA – part of this due to financial mismanagement and the fact that some initiatives (Imbirikani) are not yet operational. However, they were fully hopeful that with the continued progress that has made (featuring CORE assistance) in some of the enterprises there could be sufficient benefits accruing to communities for long-term sustainability. ¾ Regarding non-financial benefits - Quote: “The Masai love their land and the resources it supports”. Therefore, the health, state and integrity of the land are paramount for their survival. ¾ The intervention of the CORE project partners seems to have overshadowed the role played by KWS. ¾ ATGRCA didn’t see any advantage to separating their advocacy agenda from the CORE set of objectives. In fact they saw that they shared the same basic advocacy agenda with KWS and that KWS’ engagement is critical cover in their dealings with local government. ¾ The group expressed that the communities have suffered significantly from human animal conflicts and benefited less from NR conservation efforts. ¾ Training and education provided by partners is greatly appreciated by ATGRCA, however, there seems to be an OD fatigue in light of slow progress in realizing increased benefits by ATGRCA members. ¾ Disbursement of project funds by Pact for specific planned project activities is slower than expected by target groups – often two months or more. ¾ ATGRCA members appreciate the OD role and inputs of Pact in awareness creation and capacity building and see the need for more of this assistance over time, given that membership in the association changes with Annual General Meeting ¾ Quote: "You do not own a cow you do not hold in your hands" - (Expressing the need for cultivating even greater ownership for the CORE project among the ATGRCA members). ¾ There is great need to target the youth in projects aimed at wealth and cash generation (A laudatory example was given of the efforts by Peter Lembuya, AWF, in Namelok’s bee-keeping enterprise initiative). ¾ There is a need to include funding for scholarship(s) in the project proposals to benefit young people from the target communities to pursue higher studies in conservation/environment and plough back the knowledge. Main findings from Individual Interview with the Warden of Amboseli National Park KWS HQ, 9:30 to 11:45, 28 April 2002 ¾ While the Warden would like CORE to have an extension, if it doesn’t continue, he doesn’t feel KWS has the resources to properly manage all the projects. The Warden believes that ATCGRA can be the link for sustainability of the projects, post-Core. He believes they are very effective, and are the only umbrella organization that could get the job done. ¾ The Warden believes that group ranch training is particularly effective as the players change from year to year, and this builds on-going capacity throughout the community, and thus critical mass for KWS policy throughout the group ranches. Attitudes of those not trained through CORE are very different. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 67 ¾ Re: advocacy – The Warden believes that advocacy can be done in the current structure, pointing out “they are under our control”. ¾ Project start-up delays are frequently about in-kind contributions not coming through in a timely manner. Some project requests get shelved when the idea of in-kind contributions gets brought up. ¾ One hindrance is that there are a lot of resources in the community, and whereas government used to provide without asking, this new structure necessitates much more advocacy and dissemination to convince people to share in the costs and “own” the activity. The good news is that they are much more likely to own the activity when they do contribute. ¾ Example given of a request for a water pipe coming in, the Warden asks for ten percent contribution from the community, and seven months later, the topic hasn’t come up again. ¾ Transparency is a problem, as some of the group ranches refuse to participate or pay their registration fees with the Association. The Warden pointed out that some ranches are running campsites without properly sharing the revenues, and that those ranches fear that coming to a meeting will expose them to questions they don’t want to answer. ¾ Imbirikani is the only group with transparent financial management. If Kimana were run right, conservation practices would be better throughout the region. But corruption comes too easily. ¾ An example was given of an AWF investor who tried to negotiate a deal, and the whole scheme fell apart when the community didn’t feel consulted. KWS had neglected to inform the community during negotiations, and they later apologized to the community. ¾ Richard Bonham Safaris gives benefits in the form of projects instead of cash, so corruption doesn’t enter into his dealings with the community. ¾ KWS formed a conflict resolution committee that meets once a month. ¾ He thinks the Core coalition is overstretched. More enterprises could be created if there were another AWF person in the region. Many of the activities require intense monitoring, and one individual in such a huge area cannot do this effectively. ¾ The Warden asserts that while Pact uses their resources effectively, AWF resources are poorly managed. Current travel and transaction costs probably more than equal the expense of an additional employee in the Amboseli region. ¾ The Warden feels that ATGRCA would be better served if it were funded directly by USAID, with Pact only providing technical assistance and support. The current structure has all money going through Pact in addition to the technical assistance, and he feels this is a “muddy” arrangement. Previously ATGRCA received money directly from USAID. ¾ The Warden believes that NR monitoring is KWS’s primary business. He told us that 75% of the animals are outside the park. KWS monitors degradation, and puts in water points. They have a central database updated on a weekly basis. ¾ The environment is degrading. Two examples were given: 1). The Masai used to have a connection with a Kenya Meat Commission, and sold their livestock there. They no longer have that connection, yet livestock numbers are still increasing, and livestock disposal is less, as there is less market access; 2). Ranches are being sub-divided. When people own the land individually, the trees begin to disappear. ¾ The Kimana swamp was discussed in terms of linkage with Forestry. Main findings from the Site Visit and Group Interview at the Imbirikani Rhino Project Imbirikani Project Site, 2:30 to 5:00, 30 April 2002 ¾ The idea of establishing the Imbirikani Rhino Project was initiated by Kenya Wildlife Service many years ago. The project was vigorously resisted at the beginning. Acceptance of the project dates about 3 years ago. CORE has been involved in the project for about one and half years. ¾ Consultations among the group ranch members regarding benefits from wildlife conservation have been extensive. Imbirikani Group Ranch has set aside 3,000 acres for a rhino sanctuary and plans to establish an eco-lodge at the Imbirikani Rock site. The presence of rhino in the sanctuary will make it different from other sanctuaries and attract visitors. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 68 ¾ The CORE project through ACC has conducted training workshops on financial management. Pact has conducted leadership-training sessions. Financial management is now transparent. The Group Ranch Committee and the Rhino Committee are working hand in hand with the CORE partners. ¾ The community is concerned that the eco-lodge is taking too long to start. Financial support from donors to establish the eco-lodge has been promised but this has not yet happened. The community is ready and is waiting for the project to start. ¾ In 1996, Richard Bonham established a lodge within the group ranch and the community has found it beneficial. The lodge is established in a leased concession area and pays KSH 3-5 million per year depending on its performance. Bonham's lodge has an agreement with the community that the employees will be 80% local and 20% from outside the group ranch. ¾ The proposed eco-lodge will be operated on a partnership basis. Richard Bonham is interested in having some shares of the new eco-lodge. Regarding creating employment for the local people, the community would like to have in place the same arrangement of 80% local and 20% outsiders in the new lodge. It is the community's view that the eco-lodge would generate more revenue for the community if it owned it. The community would want run the eco-lodge once the capacity is in place. ¾ KWS Rhino Task Force plans to translocation 3 rhinos to Imbirikani. This is a restoration activity since rhinos have inhabited the area for a long time in the past. Water shortage is a problem for the area. There were no provisions made for the Nultureshi water pipeline from Loitokitok to Machakos to provide water to the local community. Livestock population has declined due to drought and changing lifestyles. Tree cover has been decimated along the water pipeline due to population concentration along the water pipeline. ¾ The challenge in the future will be to balance the needs of wildlife, livestock and agriculture. The community hopes that the NRM plans to be developed by the community and the CORE partners will address these issues. Main Findings from Discussions with Namelok Apiculture/Bee Keeping Enterprise -Namelok Community Development Association (NCDA) Namelok, 3:00 to 5:00, 30 April 2002 ¾ The idea of setting up an apiculture enterprise was homegrown. The Youth group was inspired and mentored by Peter Lembuya of AWF to develop a business plan and relevant proposal. After several revisions and adjustments to the proposal, the project was finally approved by the CORE's Programme Steering Committee. ¾ To date, the project has 44 members including 14 women. ¾ The project is run by a committee, which reports and is answerable to NACDA executive committee. The honey management committee implements various project activities. The whole project is divided into ten apiary teams of four each, while the project members are divided into and allocated to those apiary teams. ¾ NACDA (Youth Group) was motivated by a need for change in the lifestyle of the community and a desire to diversify livestock farming as well as contribute to the conservation of natural resources. As a consequence, tree cutting for fuel wood and charcoal is banned and there has been no felling of acacia trees in the project area. ¾ Other activities of the group include advocacy on HIV/AIDS. ƒ NACDA has developed a strategy for benefits/profits sharing, i.e.: ƒ 50 % to members ƒ 20% to conservation initiatives ƒ 15% to be retained as earning in the society's account ƒ 10% for administrative costs and ƒ 5% for marketing initiatives ¾ The work of SITE and SAMED through AWF in this projected is highly commended and greatly appreciated by the project members ¾ The members felt that the project has the potential to contribute to sustainable NRM through: USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 69 (a) Enforcement of ban in tree cutting and charcoal burning in the project area (b) Conservation through the setting up of apiaries over larger areas of the habitats suitable for bee keeping (c) Diversification pf the community's financial/economic base through alternative cash generation ¾ There has not been as much OD input in this project compared to the OD inputs in ATGRCA. The executive committee therefore feels that they need focused inputs from AWF in: (a) Honey processing skills (b) Business skills and knowledge (c) Report and project proposal writing (d) Capacity building Main findings from the Site Visit to the Olgulului Campsite Project Site Olgulului Camp Office, 9:30 to 11:00, 30 April 2002 ¾ The campsite started operating in the early 1980s long before CORE, and was one of the few campsites in the area. Prior to CORE involvement, the local community was not getting any benefits due to financial mismanagement and corruption. ¾ The local community through KWS sought AWF assistance to rehabilitate the camp. AWF has been working with the community for one year. The AWF Enterprise Officer spends 4-5 days in a month on the project. An electric has been erected. Work on renovating the campsite office and construction of tented bandas has started. This work will be completed by June 2002. ¾ AWF assisted the community to develop a project proposal. The community has raised part of the required funds and has helped in fence construction. The campsite manager is now keeping clean records. The campsite has a duka (convenience store) and a meeting place. There are plans to build an amphitheatre. ¾ Olgulului/Lolarrashi has a registered membership of 3,600. An Annual General Meeting is held every year. The Group Ranch Management Committee of elected members manages the revenue, which is used for schools, dispensaries and bursaries. Quarterly meetings are held to discuss issues related to revenue generated and how it should be disbursed. The campsite manager reports to the committee. ¾ The new campsite manager was recruited through an open process with external inputs. He is from the local community and knows the history of the campsite. The number of persons employed to run the campsite is 8, which includes new and old employees. ¾ OD intervention has not taken place yet. Training of the staff and the committee on financial management is required. The campsite does not have a marketing agent. It is known by the word of mouth. The new campsite manager is planning to establish marketing linkages with tour operators. The campsite charges KSH 300 per person per night. ¾ Abercombie & Kent, Ker & Downey and Kimbla Safaris have leased a concession area for mobile camping at a different site (Lolarrashi) and pay KSH 2 million per year to the group ranch. KWS also pays KSH 4 million per year to the group ranch. ¾ A participatory NRM planning from a land use perspective has been carried out with community. A participatory EIA for the campsite has been undertaken with inputs from external experts. A tourism development plan will be prepared. Tree planting to restore degraded areas is needed. ¾ The community hopes that the capacity will be in place to carry on the activities after the CORE Project. Other enterprises envisaged include concession areas, campsites, wildlife farming (ostrich, guinea fowl), gum Arabic, bee keeping, sericulture, aquaculture, intensive agriculture and curios. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 70 Main findings from Focus Group Discussion with members of the Taita Wildlife Forum LUMO Office, 2 May 2002 ¾ Initially the idea of forming the Taita Wildlife Forum came from discussions with EAWLS. Prior to this there had been many consultations and seminars organized with KWS that had given rise to the formation of the LUMO Community Wildlife Sanctuary. Several of the founding members of LUMO had discussed with other ranches around the area the possibilities of forming sanctuaries themselves. Through this growing association with each other, they came to see the value of forming the TWF. Agreement on the forum was reached at a meeting on 11 November 2000. There were elections within each ranch to identify members of the Forum. The Forum’s structure includes 27 members, one for each of the ranches belonging to the Forum (note that LUMO has 3 members, one from each individual ranch) and there is a managing committee made up of 9 members. ¾ The interviewees thought that the common shared objectives that brought them together in the Forum were: 1) the need to fight for their rights as citizen ranches in the area and 2) to have a organization that could serve as a spokesman of the interests of the community. The group estimates that over 75% of the surrounding area is covered with wildlife. Of that area 62% represents the national parks and 13% is to be found on private lands. Given the wide distribution of wildlife in the area, they feel it is essential that the surrounding community have a place to talk in one voice about their access to benefits from wildlife. ¾ Prior to the formation of this Forum there were three groups of ranchers who were each claiming to represent the area. EAWLS was instrumental in facilitating an agreement among rivals to agree to join in one Forum. The memory of this disagreement still remains in the minds of some community members. Consequently, many stakeholders have adopted a “wait and see” attitude regarding the Forum. ¾ Member ranches fall into one of five categories ranches: 1. Five are private ranches (with one individual owner); 2. Several are group ranches where a communal group has put up a shared boma; 3. There are also group ranches that have been formed and managed by the Agriculture Department; 4. There are a few private company-owned ranches; and 5. There are ranches that are essentially undeveloped cattle grazing areas. ¾ Among the problems encountered in Forum, the members cited: ƒ Agreement on their Constitution. They were unsure about the form of constitution that they wanted for the Forum. Through the help of EAWLS they were able to come to consensus in order to adopt a constitution. ƒ Lack of office space. They have been given provisional office space in a dilapidated building belonging to the Agricultural Department. This will need to be renovated to be useful as an office, and they have not yet received the funds to start the necessary renovations. ƒ Difficulties in arranging member meetings. They find it hard to organize meetings of the members due to large physical distances between the ranches and lack of transport. ¾ The group noted the following “successes” since the inception of the Forum: 1. They are able to address conflicts of interest and meld the 3 rival groups into one forum. 2. They have a constitution and are soon to be officially registered. 3. They have been able to negotiate for office space, although the lease arrangements are not yet clear. ¾ The group saw the key challenges for the future as: 1. Getting broad registration among the community stakeholders. Once they are registered, other ranches will pay their fees and register. BUT this will be hard because there is a history of previous organizations that didn’t succeed. Because of this, people will have to believe benefits will truly accrue to the membership. As the communities see the same people in this Forum as in previous groups, there will remain doubt about whether this is really a new group. 2. There is need to build confidence. This time each group ranch has its own committee, which selects a representative to the Forum. The Forum Board is planning to go to each community to explain the Forum and get community members to think about wildlife benefits and opportunities for community employment from ranch enterprise. There are very few ranches that actually have cattle, so given the lack of obvious alternatives, people should understand that conserving wildlife is a shared concern. ¾ The interviews articulated a vision of the future of the Forum where the surrounding areas will have many enterprises employing local people. The group ranch community surrounds the park, and these people will have a real no voice on non-consumptive use rights for wildlife. The Forum will also need to explore consumptive use USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 71 opportunities, as well as arrange easements to ensure wildlife sustainability. In 10 to 15 years, people could also rely on the Forum to grant funds to development projects, and other CBNRM schemes. ¾ The EAWLS representative at the meeting added that the Forum should be able to work in advocacy much like the LWF that is very strong organization. In fact, the Forum members are soon to travel to Laikipia to see how the LWF works. They are considering having four different units like LWF to provide member services relate to security, tourism, marketing, conservation and advocacy. The EAWLS representative sees the phases of developing an advocacy capacity to be: 1. Understanding what advocacy really is; 2. Identifying the most important regional advocacy issues; and then 3. Deciding what needs to be addressed and how The EAWLS representative thought the NWF would take on effective representation at the national level, but not all the regions are OK with this concept. There is certain distrust among members of TWF for initiatives put forward by the LWF. EAWLS has determined to limit the NWF issues to only the crosscutting issues shared by all forums, and to address regional issues only within regional forums. Presently TWF doesn’t have a member identified for the NWF. Regarding the place of KWS in this, the EAWLS representative sees the Forum keeping them informed without having them as participants in the Forum. When asked what specific national themes the Forum was thinking of addressing, the assembled members didn’t have any specific issues to report. Finally, the EAWLS representative suggested policy issues as a theme. The interviewers asked whether the Forum would consider addressing local issues beyond game ranch enterprise, such as HIV/AIDS sensitization. The EAWLS representative noted that they want to link up to this topic in their work and, in fact, have experience doing so with FHI in Mombasa. They thought they could invite HIV/AIDS educators to come to some membership meetings. No one from the Forum raised objections to this idea. ¾ Regarding the CORE project and NRM advocacy effort, the group sees CORE as only assisting them. Once the Forum is running – in another 2 to 3 years – they will be able to advocate effectively for their interests, even up to the government level. An example would be bird shooting. Recently, KWS informed then that they had designated hunting blocks on their ranches, only informing them after the fact. In the future this shouldn’t happen. The question of KWS’ relationship with the Forum will need to be resolved. On one hand, having them in the Forum would give KWS access to lots of inside information. On the other hand, the two groups have had differences in the past, and the Forum needs to have their own group in order to clarify their own positions. ¾ Regarding the future and sustainability of the Forum one interview said, “Whatever we are doing, we expect this to stick for life”. They envision the Forum as a funding entity for community enterprise development activities. The EAWLS representative sees the biggest challenge to be getting sufficient funds for operations. The Forum is not a business; its resources only come from its members. The membership has decided that if members don’t pay, they won’t be represented by the Forum efforts. The concern was expressed that many ranches in the area are so indebted to AFC that they can’t afford to pay membership dues. So they are considering opening the Forum up to other kinds of members, such as hoteliers, tour operators, etc. as a way of increasing the resource base of the organization. The Forum Chairman noted that all the ranches in the area are anxious for this organization get operational. Another member expressed the concern that well-off people who may join an “enlarged forum” may want to take it in another direction so it is very important that the group is clear about the objectives (constitution) and is able to stick to them regardless of influx of membership. Another person reassured the group by saying, “we are aware there will be challenges, and so we need to bring the members together to discuss such issues”. ¾ Will the Forum assist in wider eco-system planning? The EAWLS representative said that if the Forum was willing to help coordinate land use planning in the area, EAWLS could help address issues of conservation of the ecosystem. ¾ When asked if they would do anything differently if they had to do this over again, they said that they would do the planning in a different manner. “We’ve been looking at what other Forums are doing instead of going to the ranches and doing real grassroots planning based on what ranchers want”. The EAWLS representative suggested that they should look for potential members within the larger community and query them about their particular interests and concerns. The idea would be to call them all together in a large meeting to discuss the Forum’s composition and objectives. Instead they brought three competing organizations together to negotiate an internal agreement and moved forward from there. Consequently, many people associate this Forum with the old groups, and this is unfortunate. ¾ When asked about their dealings with the CORE consortium, they reported that they tended to initiate contact CORE. But they said that CORE has sufficient capacity here on the ground to adequately support the Forum USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 72 development needs. They stated that the CORE partners have been there too short a time to say what could be done differently. Otherwise, communication with the CORE group is fine. ¾ They were not aware of other groups that the Forum could work with. ¾ We asked if there would be a better model for managing the CORE project. The group noted that the BCP funding mechanism requires volumes of paperwork and that the USAID paperwork (EDF) looked a lot easier. Before CORE there was the COBRA project, and both came to them to say what they could do. The chairman noted that, “ We have really suffered and we’re glad God sent you here”. For example, some of the problems relate to the benefit sharing that was promised under COBRA but didn’t happen. “Finally there is hope,” he said. Main findings from Focus Group Discussion with LUMO Community Wildlife Sanctuary LUMO Office, 2 May 2002 ¾ It all started in 1991 with Mramba community Ranch. This area suffers the most from human-animal conflict in the District. KWS came to the community to see if they would be interested in starting a sanctuary. The idea was received with some reservation. In 1995, KWS offered KSH 5 million but never made the payment because KWS ran out of money. ¾ In 1997 the 3 small sanctuaries joined up as one in order to get funding from CDTF. KWS financed (under COBRA) a trip to Loitoktok and Mwaluganje where this sort of thing was working. ¾ They were promised a KSH 12 M (including 1.2 M community contribution) grant from BCP, that was to come in 4 tranches. In Sept 2001, they received KSH 620,389 with which they did infrastructure development, hired a manager, 15 game scouts, and account clerk. The 2nd tranche will go for a vehicle, new, larger offices, staff salaries and radio communication. BCP has rethought the project and now wants them to speed up implementation to 2 years as opposed to three. ¾ The purpose of the group ranch is to derive some community benefit from wildlife. The staff includes 17 people: 3 fence maintainers, 12 scouts, 1 manager and 1 accounts clerk. There are the following standing committees: ƒ Board – 14 persons ƒ PIC – project implementation committee = 10 persons ƒ Finance = 6 persons ƒ Tendering = 5 persons ƒ Security = 7, inc KWS, Hilton ¾ They managed to get a grant of 15M from USAID through CORE with an investor already identified (55% for community and 45% for investor) for a tented camp project worth 33M. They will contract an hotelier to manage the project, and 100% of the employees will be community members – any exceptions will by permission only, with expectations that they will eventually train local staff. The grant should be released next month. Community members will contribute 3M (in kind and selling shares). Each ranch has its own system and people buy shares into the project for which they’ll get dividends. ¾ Biggest challenges in moving forward are: 1. Community acceptance of the project – Wondering “Are we really going to see benefits for having given up our land?” 2. Building capacity to manage this kind of enterprise 3. Fighting poaching – pressure for bush meat (mainly antelopes) 4. Sustainability of the project. ¾ What have they been doing in this regard? They’ve been getting assistance from EAWLS and ACC – they facilitate (give transport to get people around in order to hold community meetings). Board Members go as a team to explain to their neighbors what this is all about. LUMO is derived from the names of the three original ranches: Lu - Lualenyi Ranch M - Mramba Ranch O - Oza Ranch USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 73 ¾ Benefits: They want to address community needs in health, water and education. For instance they hope to build new health facilities or improve existing ones; harness water sources; help students with bursaries. These are things they’ve seen from other communities. ¾ When do you think benefits will accrue? They don’t yet. They’re not collecting any revenue yet. ¾ How many jobs will be created? What about women? They have 3 female scouts. Women are on Board and they see opportunities to sell their handwork and development issues interest them directly. ¾ Particular capacities to be developed: They’d like sanctuary manager and scouts to be able to deal effectively with poachers who are becoming more sophisticated. They are trained but need more in the way of firearms and equipment to fight armed poachers. Marketing and natural resource management are other areas for which capacity is needed. ¾ Poaching problem: They see 2 ways to address this problem: 1) go out with KWS and arrest culprits; 2) to talk to these people – they know them as members of the community – about alternative sources of income so that they see other sources. ¾ Bee keeping – SITE is coming out soon. A PCV, Diana, is assisting with micro-enterprises (basketry and beads). ¾ Project sustainability: Beach and land tourism is down. Are they looking at the overall trends in tourism and can LUMO be profitable once CORE & BCP is over? Right now, some of the BCP resources are going to marketing. The downtrend is countrywide, but they are also on the main tourist Tsavo circuit and they believe they can get a piece. They will be operating a two-day forum for tour operators in the next 2 months. They will be getting assistance from ACC and EAWLS. The past two workshops resulted in an investor for a tented camp – they are aware that they might not have gotten that without the workshops. ¾ There think there are other investors who might be interested in working with LUMO. They are also aware that they’ll need a business manager in addition to the sanctuary manager. There is a written plan that covers all this. EAWLS has done some OD work with manager. ¾ What about other products that could be sold at the site? They’ve been focusing on the main enterprise –a sanctuary and camp – and once that is going they’ll address ancillary businesses. Since their project relies on tourism – all things being equal – in 3 years time they should be self-sustaining. The Hilton sanctuary has seen an upward trend since 1998 – but this is an election year, so they expect to see a low numbers. After that, they are quite optimistic. They’ve engaged Hilton in talks about getting payment for users who cross into their sanctuary. ¾ Conservation activities: There are two factors affecting the animal numbers – harsh climatic conditions and poaching. They believe that if they can minimize poaching, the numbers should increase. The forests are getting worse, but fortunately in the sanctuary there are no human settlements. What about human pressure from around the sanctuary? They will need to find alternative sources of fuel. They have talked about alternatives already with the Cross Border Biodiversity Project. ¾ What about youth, e.g. school leavers and graduates? 1) The jobs they’ve created and will create target the youth – although employment opportunities will be limited; 2) enterprise activities; 3) there will be cultural activities. But they can’t force youth to engage if they’re not predisposed to. They have seen some interest from the youth. They believe in time they will see benefits coming and will become interested in the project. ¾ Why would people want to come the sanctuary? They are 10 times the size of Taita Hills and the scenery is quite unique – it’s nothing like at Tsavo East or West. They also have relics of WWI up in the hills, which will be preserved as historical sites. They’ll have people tour in their own vehicles and also have vehicles for hire from the campsite. They’re hoping to have another facility in Oza starting in the next three months (they have an investor). ¾ How is working with KWS? They don’t have the equipment that KWS has. KWS have done some training, and will do more training of their scouts. As KWS is limited in personnel they must develop their own capacity to manage their own area even though KWS is supposed to do it. ¾ CORE has been very useful, and they would ask USAID to continue CORE for another 5 years to expand this to a large conservation area and take LUMO to greater heights. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 74 Main findings from the Group Interview with KWS Tsavo East National Park KWS Office, Voi, 3:30 to 5:00, 3 May 2002 We met with the Assistant Director for the park, his scientist and his CWF person ¾ Is the awareness creation (CBNRM behavior change based on incentives) hypothesis working? Yes, the communities are starting to realize the value of NRM. Although the warden is just in his fifth month at Tsavo East he feels that he doesn’t know everything about CORE, but that its objectives are very clear and quite focused. The community is aware and there is acceptance of CBNRM principles at least in terms of awareness and attitudes. The communities are coming to KWS with an interest in learning about wildlife management. And they come wanting to know how soon they could come out to their ranches. The issue of elephants is still a real problem yet the people still see an advantage in NRM. ¾ Is the CORE coalition structure an effective management structure? KWS is stated to be the leader but in reality it is not leading. In the CORE coalition they have various partners. When you look at the CORE structure and see the policy element, KWS is the lead agency but in what forum? They are not sure that they are really leading the policy dissemination. So much land next to parks is leased to outsiders – they put up bomas and next there are problems with elephants. KWS’s mandate is to ensure wildlife security. In that area they are the leader, particularly in a place like LUMO. There is room for improvement but they are currently engaged in this. ¾ Is CORE a model for KWS? Does this experience have any implications? For real effectiveness they must have a working structure – they want to see the linkages. This requires that there are people working at the District level day today. But they only meet up with these people in workshops. “The local people are being led, we are not creating the capacity to do the project themselves.” ¾ Let’s look at enterprises versus forums? KWS is not an enterprise development agency; their hands are already full. They are concerned that the expectations will be very high, and especially high on KWS to link up them up with resources once CORE is gone. The Forum is still very new and there is still a lot of work to be done. Advocacy is fine, as long as it isn’t used to subvert the rules or not follow proper technical procedures. For instance, some of the landowners say they have wildlife on their land, but when you go there to verify this you don’t see them. Then they say KWS didn’t do an accurate survey, and they start debating their quotas or ignoring their control of culling. ¾ Should the advocacy element be pulled out of CORE and implemented through another mechanism? At the policy level KWS plays the advocacy role as far as certain policy decisions are concerned. In terms of policy development, they are aware that they can’t exclude the stakeholders. They want to devolve authority, and if they do, the stakeholders will have to have their voice. LWF is strong; if TWF came on strong too they won’t see them as competition for KWS. ¾ What has been done to advance resource monitoring? What are the capabilities on the ground to do monitoring? KWS does a survey every two years. Last year they did a baseline survey of the species, but they haven’t done a vegetation survey yet. They have surveyed elephants inside and outside the park. The counts of the group ranches included all species. They would like to see communities involved in these counts. They weren’t last year, but this year they will be. ¾ KWS sees their future working relationship with the surrounding communities as a complementary one. For instance, community scouts would alert them to problems, i.e. snare lines and such, and they would be able to call on KWS to come assist. But in the long-term – they need to build on devolution of authority – the only problem is that the community actors don’t have the tools. KWS can train up to 100 recruits at a time (normally the training duration for a scout is 1 – 2 months). Arming community scouts with guns is another issue – KWS can train them in firearm use but they need to get the registered guns themselves. ¾ Besides financial benefits, are there other CBNRM benefits? The issue of transparency is important. Kasigau people may wonder how much they are getting from NRM. If you look at Ecotourism, many people would like to do this. They really need to look at the diversification of enterprises. Key to this is first to organize the community as an entity, and then talk about new activities such as walking safaris and cultural experiences. If this could be done you would see a lot of interest and an influx of clients. What about camel trains? Traditionally people here raise bees, and those types of projects can be successful. Even campsites can work. ¾ What about Forestry activities and linkages? In the whole distinct one of the biggest threats is the forested water catchments in the mountains; a lot of support is needed there. Patrols have already been shored up. The biggest problem they’ve seen is charcoal production both within ranches and out, even bordering the parks. One of their major problems is the issue of protecting forests from that destruction. They’re working with other arms of government to launch operations to control these activities within the PA. They’ve got to counteract this threat soon before they are making charcoal right inside the park. CORE should be able to support them with the security USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 75 patrols, as after all it’s a 24-hour job. They have been working with the cross-border conservation project. Their Forest Coordinator wanted some information on their Kitobo Forest. They are fully involved in planning strategies for Kasigau and other forests. Main Findings from the Focus Group Discussion at Kasigau Bandas Kasigau, 2:45 to 3:15, 3 May 2002 With the assistance of AWF and EAWLS we met with the executive members of the five community banda companies. Each company has a board of nine members whom are elected from the company shareholders, and these Board members elect their requisite executives ¾ The group stated that the idea for the community bandas came from AWF. Their business plan includes three businesses for each of the five communities surrounding Mount Kasigau: 1) a banda that sleeps four students for periods of 90 days37; 2) a beekeeping project comprising 50 hives; and 3) a fish culture pond (yet to be developed). The benefits from these enterprises that will accrue to stakeholders will offset their commitment respecting NRM practices within the conservancy. ¾ Payments for the first year and a half have been sent by the investor but have yet to be distributed to the community because there is a desire to have this done during a ceremony officiated by USAID and local government. Despite this fact the group reported that they have realized some benefits. ¾ Another perceived benefit is the opportunity to connect with the visiting students. This brings exposure from outside the community and advances “harmony among mankind”. In addition, the villagers also conduct some local projects with the students. The students are also customers for the local shops that sell local foodstuffs. The group is happy that the CORE partners have taught then about conservation practices such as planting trees and bee keeping. They also feel that they benefit from learning better management practices. Some have received training in tourism, financial management and leadership skills, ¾ They calculate that in one year they get KSH 300,000 from which they subtract dividends and costs, which ends up not leaving enough profit to prosper. One person suggested that if they could get rich people instead of students and get payments directly from the occupants they could considerably increase revenues. When asked if they are in the position to run the whole business themselves that thought yes, except that the hardest part would be to attract and arrange the visitors (marketing and bookings). Another idea for the future would be for the community trust to build something bigger such as a lodge that would be shared by all five communities. ¾ The executives considered benefits other than the Savannah company payment. One will be the beekeeping product that has yet to see production. They believe that the honey market is strong. But the way the honey will be wholesaled, they’re afraid that they’ll get peanuts for honey that will be marketed outside at a much higher price. They figure that in 2 or 3 years once this honey business is well rooted, they will be able to move to do direct marketing for themselves. ¾ The business plan worked out by AWF features as a 1st phase being the bandas, the bee hives in a 2nd phase and then a 3rd phase with fish culture. If the fishpond is a big pond they think they could use it as a water source in times of drought. They are also considering making traditional bags and clothes but these won’t be very saleable to the students who are not interested in this sort of thing. They would do better with spin-off enterprises, if the community trust could establish a larger, higher end lodge. ¾ One problem reported with the project is that some shareholders had unrealistic expectations about the amount of financial benefits that they would derive from the enterprises. The informant stated that the project has met their expectations, but then qualified this with the comment “but I am a Board Member and have full knowledge of the plans”. They clarified that is was difficult for common shareholders to understand the project benefits – some were expecting big money and it isn’t what some expected at this juncture. ¾ As for challenges and outstanding objectives for the enterprises, first and foremost they see the need to educate their stakeholders about the business and the need to eliminate petty poaching. They see the need, but believe the communities have not yet reached the point where people are ready for soil conservation activities. They reported that they need more business experience working with the investor before they will be able to handle the project on their own, and subsequently expand the number of bandas to make the project more profitable for the shareholders. 37 The booking and logistical arrangements of the students is the sole responsibility of Savannah Camps and Lodges, a local investor in the conservancy. The investor promises a set price of $20,000 to the group of communities regardless of occupancy rates. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 76 An expansion will require that each village improve its personnel and business management skills. One input would be to send more people for 2 weeks of specialized training in enterprise management. Another significant challenge is the need to resolve the relationship with animals. For years the perception was that animals were the enemy that should be killed and eaten, but now it is important to change the communities’ attitudes and practices. To this end they would like to come in contact with other organizations that can help them develop an appreciation of wildlife. ¾ Relative to their plans for the future: The group would like to add one or two more bandas in each community to increase profits and fight poverty. We discussed whether they think demand would support expanded capacity and the response was that demand could support a 2nd banda. The occupancy rate of the bands is mixed: sometimes all 5 bandas are full with 4 persons for a 90 day period – and then sometimes there are only 2 or 3 persons per banda. Of course they still get paid based on total beds, not occupancy. ¾ Outstanding challenges include the need to educate the community further on environmental enterprise issue. There is need for material assistance to the community in housing matters as use of local trees and grasses for housing has negative affects on the environment. There is need to strike a balance between socio-economic development and enterprise development. For instance, they would like to get their schools fees paid by donors. They appreciate what’s being done for education, citing that the Moi High School now has solar power and computer equipment. They hope that NGOs could come up with funds for 2 or 3 persons to become personal advisors to the community to train tourism management instead of bringing people in from outside. ¾ Water supply is another issue – a lot of exotic trees are planted that require water. Women are planting more trees both down and up the mountain. They wondered if research efforts could develop species of local trees that would grow faster so that they could reforest barren areas. The water supply in Kasigau is seasonal except for in 2 villages – they would like to see an organization could construct a big surface dam or bore hole to improve their water problems. ¾ The group expressed dissatisfaction with SITE who have not performed up to their expectations. SITE installed the beehives but never came back to help – and they now have insects invading the hives such that within no time the bee colony abandons the hive. They group has been calling SITE and they still haven’t come. They believe that a design change may be needed to counteract this problem. As is, only 1 of 5 hives is producing ¾ The CORE partners normally initiate their communications with the community, although at times the villages do call CORE with their problems. ¾ The community has been working with other organizations, including: Plan Int’l in housing and storage of water; DANIDA for beekeeping (the insect problem is still there but to a lesser extent due to smaller access holes); the Taita/Tsavo Agriculture Program for cost sharing of plows and other agricultural inputs, as well as beehives. ¾ Their relationship with KWS could be better. They call KWS when there are animal conflicts and sometimes they do come out but by then the offending animal is usually gone. They will come if someone is hurt but it will take a long time. They estimate that KWS only shows up 10% of the time that they report that animals are destroying crops or houses. And when they do come to chase away the animals, eventually the offenders just come back. They never compensate regularly when crops are damaged or people are killed. They think KWS should recruit someone from there and pay them to protect or construct electrical fences around farms. They perceive that KWS will certainly come when an animal has problem. KWS seem more interested in protecting their animals than crops and people. They will show up late or never when houses or crops are damaged but if an elephant is killed many KWS cars show up in no time. They conclude that their relationship with KWS is negative. ¾ Is there a link between the project results and conservation? They think that there is a link. For instance, some of the banda students go out to do game viewing and so the wildlife are a draw for the project. They see stronger links to plant conservation – people who come here are interested in having a bush experience. They conclude that they need to conserve the vegetation in order to continue attracting visitors. When it comes to trees they said that they are rich here in forest resources and that many of the natural species there have medicinal uses. ¾ Forest cutting is not a problem there. You only see tree destruction out in the lower bush and they believe that this will require greater control in the future. They believe that trees are a rainmaking source so the decline of forest cover is a serious concern. ¾ They explained how they are in between East and West Tsavo National Parks, and that they live in the corridor used by elephants. They think one way to mitigate this situation would be to install electrical wire along the corridor to solve this problem for once and all to keep them from destroying community property. They see that there have been some improvements in the local environment. People cut down fewer trees and there is growing understanding of the need to conserve their environment and animals. This awareness has brought some changes. There has also been a slight improvement in social activities through collaboration with the students in their farms USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 77 Notes from pre-visit briefing from AWF AWF has worked to establish a registered Tsavo Trust to manage the Tsavo Conservancy. CORE-AWF’s work is to facilitate development of the Trust management and wean itself out of its current role. The membership is a mixed group of private owners and group ranches. AWF considers that development of the conservancy will take 3 phases: 1. Rukinga & Taita and outlaying ranches brought into agreement (done) 2. Kasigau communities brought into agreement (done) 3. Inclusion of nine outlying southern and northern remaining ranches – each has their own managers and executive. Their engagement will be necessary to pull the whole area into a unified body – to be known as the Tsavo Conservation Trust. Tsavo Conservation Trust has 9 entities lined up, and three other areas still remaining to join. These landowners, those that have land leases to Savannah, have yet to be convinced to officially join the trust. The major investor in the area is Savannah Camp and Lodges Ltd. They are behind three enterprises: ƒ Eco-lodge ƒ Taita discovery center – research tourist and education ƒ Eco-friendly apparel company The groups have joined a common funding proposal for consolidating management for the area. The proposal, written by Savannah, aims at getting a grant from the outside which would underwrite security networks, surveillance systems, road development, water development, etc. Main findings from Group Interview with KWS at Shimba Hills National Reserve KWS Reserve HQ, 9:30 to 10:30, 4 May 2002 We met with the Assistant Director of the South Coast region and his CWF person and scientist who work locally with CORE activities. CORE is following up on work initiated by COBRA and is focusing on KWS Shimba Hills Reserve and the Mwaluganje Elephant sanctuary, which is receiving capacity building and enterprise development. ¾ CORE has provided funds for maintenance of an elephant fence and enterprise management. One serious issue in Shimba Hills is frequent human-elephant conflict. They have received funds for development of a management plan and they have a first draft in place. USAID has also provided funding for animal census and this survey has been finished. In a nutshell, they think that they are doing pretty well. They noted that they also “supervise” the Mwaluganje, too, and it is doing well. ¾ They thought that the CORE organizations started on wrong footing – they came with right objectives but injected their views, which included saying that KWS is failing to do certain things. CORE thought they would come and make some significant difference in Shimba Hills, but there are still no new enterprises around there from CORE’s efforts. Unless they see certain new and significant changes there, they would give CORE just a 5 out of 10. ¾ The Mwaluganje work is just a follow-up on a previous success story, and CORE basically jumped on the band wagon. CORE said that they are addressing weaknesses in the project, and it is true that KWS doesn’t have the capacity for developing enterprise activities. “We do have a gap in capacity and so they can fill the gap. But we cannot talk about CORE without talking COBRA”– that put up roads, gates and systems using funds from KWS (COBRA). Now these funds go through the CORE partners – that’s OK. ¾ Mwaluganje was running, although KWS was running it for them so KWS needed to train personnel and provide marketing. This included: 1) training a warden; 2) training rangers; 3) there is a marketing strategy in place. But they thought the point is that the accrual of benefits has nothing to do with CORE. A problem in Mwaluganje is that they have shareholders, but that one group doesn’t include stakeholders in the ecosystem - it represents only one small part. They say that we need to look in other places around the Reserve to see where else there be a fence. CORE should be looking at new enterprises in other places to get others involved in NRM and eventually provide coverage on the ecosystem ¾ Mwaluganje is a success story for conservation from KWS’ point of view – for the people’s point of view they were looking for the benefits they are receiving. And those who are not members (stakeholder) are not happy – what about them? USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 78 ¾ Anything else not working? CORE says they want to help capacity building but for the training of rangers, KWS wasn’t quite ready to do that. Has Mwaluganje generated real revenue? - not yet. ¾ What about Benefits? They said that we should look at how many people are benefiting. In a real sense, the number of people benefiting is not large as Mwaluganje is small. In fact there still are problems, for instance, some elephants get around fences, and when elephants get out, there is damage that is done which overshadows these benefits. There are other indirect benefits, e.g., a primary school (built with COBRA funds), and other donors have come to the area. There is a donor-funded bursary fund not limited to Mwaluganje members, but for all the community. Although the success of the Sanctuary created appreciation, it was the community that attracted the donor here. ¾ When they think in terms of impacts in the coming five years plan they wonder if the results will be sustainable. “Will we always have a CORE but with a new name? Will the rejoining land be willing to do what Mwaluganje has done?” Farming pressure is going to continue as will conflict. If the benefits are short term, how long will the community be satisfied? ¾ They think that EASWLS should have been given a bigger role in advocacy. EAWLS do this work from within or outside of the CORE structure, although outside might be better. KWS is a victim and the community needs to understand this problem. They explained that they have no political spokesman and so they are limited in explaining their position with the community. Some people look at KWS as only being interested in the elephants not the people, which isn’t true. “Look at what’s going on at Shimba - all those resources - and we are still getting hit by the community”. They see that KWS knows its own work but are not here for advocacy purposes. The politicos come and criticize KWS for only caring about animals, and they need someone else to stand up for them and explain what they are doing. (Advocacy as community education). ¾ They support the idea of CORE being composed of many different organizations with each having a specialty that they can concentrate on. ¾ They think that the CORE management structure is a good model with good objectives. They are only concerned about the capacity to do this. “If you talk about managing Shimba you must have the right warden”. There is a problem here, saying to the community that they have $$, and then people come to the warden with unrealistic expectations. The CORE project promises that there is money, but then they don’t see it. We address PAC as a conservation problem and don’t make promises about $$. There needs to be much closer coordination of the grant procedures so that people really understand the possibilities and procedures. There is a question of competence of these people. CORE started on the wrong footing without consultation and then KWS made some comments, and now it is getting better. “When CORE goes, all this will fall on the warden”. There have been problems with the procedures and disbursement of funds. When CORE came, they said they needed training of Mwaluganje personnel. They have had so many workshops – “If you look at how much has been spent in workshops and staff travel and compare it to what has gotten to Mwalugenje”……. ¾ Are we making an impact in the environment? For Shimba in particular, CORE hasn’t addressed it at all. They explained that KWS have surrounded this area with an electric fence but because the elephants are essentially confined, the level of degradation is increasing. Elephants are knocking down the high canopy forest. They’ve tried to reduce the problem by reducing the elephant population and Mwalugenje has increased space but there is simply no more space to be added. CORE hasn’t really affected the ecosystem. There has been some success on maritime resources: the reefs are OK, the human factors are contained, and fish numbers are up. One positive thing is that local fishermen want to expand the maritime reserve because they want to keep out harmful fisherman. These kinds of program are very good because they are helping people improve the environment; for example, there is a wetlands boardwalk where women are conserving the mangroves by selling crafts to tourists. What is working at Wasini as a community enterprise is what they want to see in Shimba. ¾ There has been too much in the language of capacity building. CORE needs to shift to focusing on the communities and to find the shortest way to implement activities. There have been too many trainings, as some of them are repetitive. We need to identify one or two training experts to do the training specific to an enterprise. The feeling is “First place the enterprise and only then do the capacity building along with the enterprise”. Main findings from Focus Group Discussion at Mwalugenje Elephant Sanctuary Sanctuary Office, Shimba Hills, 11:00 to 12:30, 4 May 2002 ¾ Initially those who were working at KWS talked with the community about what to do about the elephant conflict problems. It took 5 years to convince community to fence off land and while the fence established the sanctuary they had no mandate to benefit from the area. In 1982-3 CWF was created within KWS and talks started about USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 79 developing the area. Some villagers were concerned that KWS really wanted to turn this into a park and push them out. In response the Coastal Development Authority was brought in to reassure the people and this made a breakthrough. In 1994 the sanctuary was ready to open. They started with free entry to interested tour operators and then eventually started charging fees once the popularity of the place was established. ¾ The group reported that this is truly a community project and not a government project, although KWS continues to be very closely involved in its management. The current, but outgoing, manager is an ex-KWS warden and sees his role as one of attracting donor support for the project. (Researchers observed within the group that the manager and KWS person tended to dominate the meeting and discussion despite repeated requests that everyone needed a chance to speak). ¾ What are the perceived successes of the projects? The group easily articulated several kinds of benefits, including: 1. Seminars to educate members how to manage a sanctuary properly. 2. Elephant related conflicts have been reduced. 3. Increased visitors leading to increased revenues. Mwalugenje is considered as a model project and it is very highly visited by others to see how it is run. 4. Employment of the youth. All employees have always been community members. Their policy is that all employees should be chosen from among shareholders. A shareholder committee does the hiring. 5. Other income generating projects are coming up, including: o Beekeeping (planning in advanced stage), o Elephant dung paper manufacture, o Women’s group making traditional artifacts here to sell on the Internet, and a o Curio shop is being planned (fly-tying). o They are also looking at ostrich farming. 6. A reduction of cultivation on the slopes has occurred. These negative practices used to be prevalent and soil erosion is now going down. 7. Share holding of land is increasing – more community members are offering land to the sanctuary. There have been several private landholder offers on the table but because adjacent land holders raised objections this expansion hasn’t worked out 8. The project activities have opened them up to visitors and contacts with other countries – Uganda, SA, USA. 9. Also other donors are interested in assisting the community e.g., the bursary fund 10. The creation of community classrooms 11. Increased management capacity within the organization over time 12. Cultural revival is on the way – community is thinking of ways to expand use of sacred areas previously considered too dangerous to use because of elephant presence. ¾ Board member and scouts have benefited from training. But Board members who were trained are no longer on the board, so that is a negative situation. ¾ Are benefits equally distributed? Yes, they are fair because members get one share per acre of land contributed. Furthermore seminar participants are chosen from shareholders and managers equally. ¾ Challenges to the project: ƒ Security is not up to date; there have been robberies at the gate – KWS no longer ensures armed security – and visitors may not be secure within the park as there is no armed security. ƒ There is an issue of illegal impala hunting. The community has killed any and all new species introduced into the park by KWS – although KWS did these translocations without properly involving the community. ƒ One section of the community is still experiencing elephant conflict and they don’t understand how this is happening ƒ On straying of wildlife into community - they have not to date agreed on where to place the electric wire. In certain sections the wire is ineffective because it doesn’t have enough power or there could be a problem with the fence itself. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 80 ƒ In some cases they encounter breakdowns of a visitor vehicles and they don’t have any repair capability to offer them. They think KWS should help. ƒ Gross revenue is a problem as donor funds are starting to dry up. We discussed the question of whether the project had donor dependency, but the conclusion was inclusive. ƒ They need a heavy-duty truck to transport materials for sanctuary maintenance. ƒ They need radio communication equipment between 3 gates and main office. ƒ They have a marketing strategy but they need donor money to implement it. (Throughout the discussion they did not seem to have any discomfort with the notion of donor dependence and don’t seem to be able to disaggregate capital development funds and revenues). Quote: “KWS gets subsidized by government and we trying to do what KWS does so we need subsidies too”. ƒ They want their own office as the one they use belongs to KWS. ¾ Relative to CORE partner relations: They just been contacted by the partners and have not contacted them on their own. When CORE started, the partners came there on a courtesy visit. The committee told them what they needed – training and such. The CORE people attend board meetings and the group thinks that they have a good collaboration with them. They cited problems with KWS not being responsive to them, for instance in the development of their brochures. ¾ Other organizations that they’ve worked with: Aid and Wildlife Trust (UK); Coast Development (back in ’83); National Museums of Kenya’s Coast Forest Conservation Unit (they wanted to remove the elephants from the eco￾system). The sanctuary manager tried to work with Plan International but he said, “I realized I couldn’t get anything out of them”. ¾ Visioning- 5 years from now: They are happy with what’s happened and they want to work together to see what they (community and donors) can do. They have a management plan for the Shimba ecosystem but they depend on donor funds to implement it. Based on way things are happening there will be more shareholder interest in the future and, if benefits increase, even more interest in project. If these issues can be resolved they see no reason why project can’t continue for the long-term. The community is showing more interest and if shareholder incomes increase and they get increased donor resources they believe the project will grow. This will hold true as long as there is interest inside community and external factors relative to security in the country stay constant. ¾ They report that last year they grossed 5.3 m shillings but stated they didn’t calculate profits because they didn’t subtract costs from revenues. 90% of their earnings go to shareholders and they have 100% donor subsidized road maintenance, office, water and fuel. ¾ At the end there was ANOTHER appeal for increased donor resources. They stated that they were not interested in being donor dependant and they have to first get to a level to be self-sustaining and thought they might look at ways to cut costs or reduce the percentage of their budget that is donor dependent. However they admitted they don’t see this happening for another 5 or 10 yeas. The meeting was attended by 12 committee members, 1 KWS person, the EAWLS person and the local PCV. Main findings from the Group Interview with KWS Narok KWS Office, 11:00 to 1:30, 3 May 2002 ¾ The Warden's perception of CORE project is that it is working well. He attributes his good understanding of the project to his previous involvement with COBRA. In his view, CORE is seen as a continuation the latter. ¾ The Design of CORE needs to continually be sensitive to the slow but steady shift of the Masai community from pastoral to sedentary life. It is therefore important to: 1. Prepare the community and CORE partners, as well to be aware of the process that will lead to attitudinal change that could be longer than the life of CORE 2. Ensure smooth and cohesive collaboration and networking with the CORE partners and other development agencies operating in the project area. Collaboration will be crucial in achieving the goal of the CORE project, i.e., conservation through enterprise. 3. Clarify the role of each CORE partner to the community leaders. Now there seems to be a fair amount of confusion among community members. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 81 4. Put in place mechanisms for addressing the volatile politics of the Mara region 5. Explore creative and innovative mechanisms of involving the youth gainfully and proactively ¾ Now, CORE is touching the cream (leadership) of the community. More and accelerated efforts will be needed to ensure that the inputs of the larger community in articulating their views in the consultative process of consensus building are accommodated. Furthermore, the benefits to the individual community members do not seem to be clear. This clarity is needed in order to ensure that the goal of NR conservation is achievable in an atmosphere where benefits are transparent, there is equity, and where stakeholders feel sufficiently empowered to make informed decisions on conservation and enterprise development ¾ Key challenges to the CORE project from the warden's (KWS) point of view include: 1. Subdivision of Group Ranches. The main issue is - what are the caveats in sharing resources and balancing the livestock units with wildlife to match the carrying capacity 2. Mushrooming of settlements around protected areas and community conservation areas and how to address the problem ¾ The potential for more enterprises exists and opportunities can and should be explored. However, such enterprises must be culturally relevant. This may call for resource mapping. These include inter alia: ecotourism, rock climbing, cultural and heritage sites (museums) ¾ CORE partners should move out of the periphery of protected areas and concentrate on the wildlife dispersal areas. ¾ The warden feels that advocacy within CORE should be the responsibility of all CORE partners while KWS takes the leadership. ¾ OD work in CORE is seen as important, needed and appreciated. However it needs to be reconfigured, targeted and better directed by the CORE partners who have obvious comparative advantage Main findings from the Group Interview with the Narok County Council Narok County Council, 12:00 to 1:15, 3 May 2002 ¾ Narok County Council is happy with the CORE project ¾ Masai are naturally and historically conservationists. The CORE project is therefore helping the Masai revive and modernize wildlife and NR conservation and reap attendant benefits ¾ The CORE project is rekindling hope for the Masai by encouraging and supporting enterprise development as well as NR conservation ¾ Human - wildlife conflict is a recent phenomenon amongst the Masai. It can be attributed to (a) competition for resources and (b) cash entrenchment in the Masai economy ¾ Key Problems facing the Masai community in implementing projects such as CORE are: (a) Lack of equity (b) Land tenure ¾ The Narok County Council owns all open land in the district but does not own or control the Group Ranches ¾ There is no explicit policy or national guidelines on land use. As a result, there is no integrated approach to land use in the district by different development partners ¾ NCC finds it easier to pursue wildlife management as opposed to agricultural production ¾ KWS owns and controls NR in protected areas and gives use rights to wildlife related enterprises except land. However, KWS has no obligation to work with NCC. Therefore, the relationship is one of cooperation and collaboration that entails mutual good will. ¾ NCC is stakeholder in of NR in the district. Therefore, NCC can, if need arises, circumvent local politics. NCC is also the trustee for the Government as well as the local community ¾ "The survival of the Masai Mara Group Ranches depends on the Masai outside". Therefore, all Masai in the district are stakeholders for the entire Mara and therefore must benefit from revenue earned from wildlife. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 82 ¾ The Masai Mara is managed and supervised by the Masai Mara Management Committee, with NCC acting as the convener. ¾ In order to ensure sustainability of CORE after the project period, NCC would suggests the involvement of NCC in formulation, implementation and evaluation of the project. ¾ Major challenges for NR conservation in the district are: 1. Better understanding of the Masai culture 2. Economic texture of the Masai -'They are rich but poor". The NR at their disposal is not fully capitalized, instead it is camouflaged poverty in the midst of plenty. 3. Lack of integration of resources in order to create and maintain an ecological and economic equilibrium that can be sustained. Main Findings from the Focus Group Discussion with the Koiyaki - Lemek Wildlife Association Mara River Camp, 2.30 pm, 4 May 2002 ¾ The idea of the forming a Group Ranch was introduced by CORE about one and a half years ago ¾ The Collaboration with CORE is going on well and the members understand the CORE project objectives. ¾ The work of ACC has hastened the consultative process. However, the members wished to see greater flexibility with ACC in addressing more issues out of their present conservation related agenda. ¾ The group highlighted three aims for the Koiyaki-Lemek GR (a) Attainment of complete harmony and unity among previously warring members (b) Better understanding of the process and what it will take to be a fully operational group ranch capable of reaping benefits from conservation efforts (c) Reaching full agreement on the extent and boundaries of the conservation area and the attendant logistics ¾ With the help of ACC through BCP, a land use plan was developed and completed long before CORE and is in place ¾ Issues relating to encroachment by human settlement on Protected Areas are under active discussion with relevant authorities including KWS, ACC and GR leadership ¾ The benefits of the CORE project as articulated by the GR members include identifying opportunities for diversifying and strengthening the household and community income base, and the development of spin-off enterprises such as beadwork, bee-keeping, and cultural manyattas ¾ The group lamented the downtime in the OD work but they also appreciate the purposes served and the enhancement of understanding The Key challenges the members have to deal with in the days ahead include: (a) Ensuring that there is a full commitment to conservation of NRs and that conservation is agreed and endorsed as an objective by the entire community (b) Ensuring that there is clear understanding of cost and benefits of the changes that must be made by the GR members in natural resource management for meaningful conservation to be realized (c) Preparing the various GR management committees through OD so that they can explain to the members what it will take to realize the goals and objectives and bring about behavioral change anchored in good will. In addition, the committees need to be empowered and facilitated to do their work effectively and expeditiously (d) Identifying opportunities for diversifying and strengthening the household and community income base (e) Improving/building a strong financial base that will support and sustain the operations of the GR especially at the initial stages (f) Demarcating a good network of tourism circuit routes around the conservation areas to minimize damage to the environment USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 83 (g) Taking decisive and stern action to ensure that a complete ban on charcoal burning and tree cutting is implemented (h) Preparing and implementing a water shed management plan to augment the land use plan (i) Ensuring minimum disturbance to Mara River and other campsites (j) Securing support and educating communities on modern methods and livestock and range management and attendant benefits (k) Document and inventory heritage and cultural sites in the project Other Community concerns include: ¾ The need to bring about a paradigm shift and behavioral change commensurate with the development aspirations, and that will support conservation efforts sustainably in the project area as well as other crosscutting issues such as HIV/AIDS pandemic ¾ Develop markets for Masai cultural products ¾ Need to develop local slaughterhouses to encourage Masai to increase off-take of livestock and reduce grazing pressure on land ¾ Need to upgrade the productivity of Masai livestock through better management and introduction of superior genes ¾ Need to develop local training institutions to address the wide array of skills development needed in the area ¾ Development of appropriate compensation schemes Main Findings from the Focus Group Discussion with the Siana Conservation Association 6:30 pm to 8:00pm, Friday 3 May 2002 ¾ Siana Trust is made up of Siana Wildlife Conservation Association, Siana Women Group Association, and Heritage Hotels (represented by the Manager of Siana Camp). ¾ The objectives of the Siana Trust are to conserve natural resources and develop related income generation enterprises. ¾ The group members have identified and marked out a conservation area intended to be free from livestock and out of bounds for human settlement ¾ This is a Trust Land and the members are working towards the formation and registration of Siana Group Ranch. This process has so far taken over a year. To date, the Narok County Council holds the land in trust, and the land is still in their hands until it is adjudicated and a Title deed is issued to the Siana Group Ranch. ¾ The process of securing the Title Deed is a matter of priority and urgency for Siana Conservation Association. ¾ All past boundary disputes have been amicably settled ¾ The members lauded the work of Peter Lembuya from AWF and pleaded to AWF to allocate more of his time to the project. AWF facilitated the formation of Siana Group Ranch. This was speeded up by awareness-raising through study tours to other successfully running group ranches in Amboseli. Currently, Peter has 8 days in a month allocated to Siana, half of which is taken in traveling to and from Nairobi. The members felt that spending of more time by Peter in Siana would expedite the requisite consultative process with the community and accelerate the acquisition of a Title deed. ¾ Members felt that the revenue from lodges and other tourism activities, currently being collected by the Narok County council, is theirs. ¾ The Masai depend on livestock. They see livestock as their bank account. Conservation and attendant tourism activities constitute an additional bank account that has potential to become bigger with time because of the potential cash income ¾ The benefits of conservation as articulated by members include: (a) Adding value to conventional tourism to attract ecotourists (b) Enhance and contribute to biodiversity conservation (c) Control and minimize vehicle movement in the conservation area USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 84 (d) Ensure increased economic/financial value from wildlife - the second account for the Masai. This second account will encourage the Masai to decrease their livestock and hopefully bring about an ecological equilibrium ¾ The Siana Conservation Association members would like to see more local people employed in lodges in order to benefit from the tourism related facilities ¾ Key constraints mentioned include (a) Lack of office space and facilities (b) Poor mobility to facilitate easy access for consultative process and administrative tasks (c) Lack of managerial skills among the group ranch officials (d) Lack of clarity on whether or not the community will get compensation for relocation from the conservation area and who will pay for it. Expectations were raised by ACC for compensation but no follow-up action has been taken Main Findings from the Focus Group Discussion with Ol Chorro Oiroua Wildlife Association May 5, 2002 ¾ The Chairman and General manager were at the meeting, as well as village elders, and several women from the beadwork facility. The presentation was at the Mara Safari Club, and was attended by a member of ACC. ¾ Ol Chorro Oiroua could be the poster child for the project. They talked about how they prosper from tourism, and couldn’t be clearer about the connection between conservation and their pocketbooks. They explained about the money they received from park entrance fees ($27), and how that totaled up to more than KSH one million from the Mara Safari Club alone. They explained how carefully these funds were audited to make sure they got what was their due. ¾ They explained about the process of creating the trust, that some shambas had been removed as a part of this process, and that eight families were current shareholders in the community trust. There had been fourteen families, but ten were pushed out, two more joined, and then another two, and thus the current eight. ¾ The structure has been worked out over time to create what they feel is an equitable arrangement for the community. 50% of the revenue goes to members as dividends, and 50% goes to “management”. When pressed as to how this “management” fee gets spent, they explained that there was a board of 8 directors who decide where this money will go. There are 30 game scouts to pay, and all kinds of projects to fund, including a bursary scheme for students, medical fees, water towers, and schools to build. ¾ They explained how they are always “brain-storming” to find ways of increasing their revenue. And they discussed the idea of a Rhino Sanctuary at one of the AGMs, and are looking for funding to pursue this. In fact, they had a list of projects they would like funded, and seem to be quite savvy as to how to get development aid to build enterprises for themselves. ¾ When pressed, they agreed they could become self-sufficient within 2 to 4 years. But obviously they would prefer to obtain whatever “free money” they could in the coming years. So they had a list of projects that they would like to see funded. ¾ They explained that ACC had been doing a very good job. However, they would still like to see continuing implementation of a strategic plan including technical assistance, ranger training, and other activities such as fence building and trust building, especially in order to create a rhino trust. ¾ They also discussed creating a Mara Conservation Trust, where community members could buy land that was being sold, so that it wouldn’t leave Masai control. ¾ Concerns included reducing conflicts, training, additional money for improving roads, fencing, communication equipment, and dams. They were also concerned about Tsetse flies, lions attacking wildlife, additional security, and other varied issues concerning community welfare. ¾ An intriguing element of the community was their support (initiation?) of a project of bead making and transformation of tourist visits to Masai cultural manyattas. They explained that they had created the Masai Mara Cultural Manyatta Management Association, which was now active. The purpose of this association was to create additional freedom and independence for Masai women, and to stop the exploitation that occurs when tourists visit Masai Manyattas in the Mara currently. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 85 ¾ The main idea is that all the Masai communities in the Mara would join, and that women from all those communities would receive training in beadwork, as well as support in selling those beads. They would then market the beadwork collectively, throughout the Mara, then in Nairobi, and hopefully, internationally. They were quite confident that the quality of this beadwork would be vastly superior to the fakes that were lamentably being sold currently as “genuine” Masai beadwork. There is already a cultural Manyatta that has been built to “manufacture” the beadwork. Women from throughout the Mara would be welcomed there to receive training, to have their wares displayed, and to benefit from the association. Lodges and camps would be urged to support the manufacture and sale of that beadwork. ¾ The second idea is to have all visitors buy a special “Manyatta Visit” pass before they arrive in the Mara, and then visit one of the various Manyattas throughout the Reserve. Presuming there was no negotiating or bargaining to get the drivers to visit the Manyattas, the revenue could thus be shared equally amongst all the Manyattas. They seem keenly aware that these visits currently do not go well for the Masai, and realize that this is also the case for the tourists. With this association, they hope to stop visits that do not express their culture well, and end the exploitation that currently occurs. ¾ I visited the Manyatta after the focus group, and there are a number of families living there. It is early and therefore rough, but there is a clear idea expressed in the Manyatta, and some expertise displayed from the women there. One woman was clearly the group leader, and she asked one of the experts to modify a Masai belt for me. The woman worked incredibly quickly and produced a fine finished piece in very little time. ¾ Interestingly enough, because of Masai culture, the leader of the Association and the Manyatta is a man. He is a Masai, and was educated in the UK. He speaks as if he knows marketing and understands how to create ways of distributing the beadwork. ¾ This Group Ranch is doing extremely well, and could probably be entirely self-supporting at this time, if they wanted to be. Main findings from Individual Interview at Laikipia Wildlife Forum LWF Office, 10:15 to 11:30, 6 May 2002 ¾ LWF is an open membership organization formed 1992 in response to a KWS initiative to engage landowners to conserve wildlife. They decided to focus not strictly on wildlife but on the whole ecosystem. LWF has 6 units, each with a resident elected head. There is a Community Conservation Officer in the head office as well as an accountant and director. They are still dependent on donor support, which comes from CORE and two other donors. They also receive income from members and from a bed night levy. LWF was a recipient of previous USAID grant prior to CORE. This new grant is administered by Pact and it has enabled them to move from a volunteer organization to a professional organization with developed capacity. They are working across 5 areas with the following programs: 1) community conservation; 2) a wildlife management project that includes a wildlife cropping program working with KWS (PAC and fencing actions); 3) a tourism development program – support to tourist sector –and doing collective marketing; 4) an education program; and 5) a security program (they operate and maintain a security network right across the district) ¾ Examples of LWF community work: Unlike CORE members they don’t address the community with a specific approach or agenda – they are one of them, and the community expect services from them ¾ CORE funds support office staff for one year. ¾ Challenge: To get more than 5 of the 50 operators to pay bed levies – trying workshops to convince people to cooperative. ¾ CORE hypothesis working? Yes but there is a limit to the kind of entree that will be successful – ecotourism and beekeeping. ¾ CORE is operating separately in the northern Masai area of Laikipia independent of LWF elsewhere CORE is working in collaboration with the Forum. We have a CLO (Community Liaison Officer) in each unit who acts as sort of PR men. They help develop community project ideas that are then written into proposal by the head office and proposed to donors for funding. Pact is going to be involved in training these CLOs. ¾ Sustainability: When CORE partners leave, LWF will be left with it. LWF is very appreciative of the development opportunities that CORE has provided them. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 86 ¾ Conservancy development: They do not feel that CORE partners are talking to each other enough. Each group ranch is going to have very different enterprises in order to not compete with each other and there hasn’t been enough coordination in the beginning. Kijabe and Koija each have a lodge. There is no room for other lodges in the area – “we’re maxed out”. ¾ Major successes in CORE efforts: Involvement in each group ranch has been a success. You’ll see that at Koija CORE input is minor – the investor’s done the most of the work. ¾ Challenges: Linking up with other donors post-CORE. There’ll always be a donor community out there trying to help. ¾ Another challenge will be building linkages between private ranches and the communities. LWF was originally composed of big white-owned ranches but it doesn’t matter now. LWF is trying to link up with communities, and these big white ranchers actually support this work and see that the whole district needs to come together along common interests. ¾ Advocacy strategy: LWF came out badly from their strategy being leaked to the press. Consequently LWF has moved away from national level advocacy efforts. They are concerned that their regional organization could expose itself too much on the national stage. They are keen to see the NWF reborn – they hope to link up with the Machodoes and Nakuru forums, both of which are strong. ¾ They would like to see more collaboration with CORE partners and have made a point to meet with them. CORE is not easy for people to understand with so many players working on many different things. The role of each partner needs to be clearer. Take Kurikuri for example – beekeeping meant AWF, and Pact came in to do the training. And then Pact also built the office. ¾ They spend far more time responding to financial queries to Pact than when we had a direct grant from USAID, but on the other hand they’re receiving non-direct support from Pact such as training for community members. Pact is also organizing a site visit to Mwaluganje. ¾ NRM planning potentials? People will be willing to set up large land areas for NRM. SARDEP (Dutch) has done a lot of funding NRM with certain duplication of efforts with CORE. Convincing traditional people to de-stock will require that there are banks that provide ways for people to amass capital in a trusted fashion other than through livestock. Main findings from Individual Interview at KWS Laikipia KWS Office, 12:00 to 1:00, 6 May 2002 ¾ Within CORE’s management structure there was a FAT including KWS, ACC, AWF, Pact, SAMED, LWF, although they didn’t quite incorporate the local community. This worked well in the beginning but then it become difficult to bring everyone together as the organizations’ members all work in different areas, such that the logistics of bringing the FAT together proven to be too challenging. Now these meetings have fizzled out. Last meeting they had was in Oct ‘01. Prior to that they had 2 or 3 meetings a year. They only see each other individually at HQs. Ideally they’re supposed to coordinate all CORE activities – with KWS working on conflict resolution, ACC works on enterprise, etc. But there seems to be confusion on who is doing what except for people-animal conflict (PAC) work, which can be quite political. For PAC they get some CORE funding to support when they go out to intervene in conflict situations to the communities, including a fuel fund, game scout training and preventive measures such as electric fences ¾ Is conservation working better here? The major problem is animal-human conflict - there are many lion and elephant on private lands. They are trying to put a fence between large ranches (with animals) and small farming communities. ¾ How is CORE working? CORE tends to go to areas where COBRA and the partners were already working. But in areas where there are small-scale farmers, there is no interest in living among wild animals. So far as CORE is concerned they’ve elevated thinking among pro-conservation groups to develop conservancies, and this might encourage survival of wild animals. The question is, “are the benefits large enough to sustain the community?” Most rangelands here are in bad shape and work needs to be done. CORE needs to concentrate on other (non￾ranch) community members to bring them into the NRM fold. KWS is looking at two agricultural projects, including an aloe project (with ICIPE and KFRI) and they hope to get resources from BCP to expand these activities. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 87 ¾ LWF is also trying some small projects. They wanted LWF to spearhead this aloe project but there were technical issues. LWF is limited financially but they are trying to get funds to be able to do conservation/development projects. LWF also feels the heat from small-scale farmers in the area. ¾ The project interventions here must be big enough to sustain themselves within the ranch community – or turn to the farming community to see how to get them on board with NRM practices. Unless they can find good incentives for the whole community, this whole scheme won’t work. Despite that, there has been a lot of crop failure over many years. They’ve tried to form cooperatives to address the problem of smallholders. Security is also an issue for livestock because the neighboring Masai and Samburu will come and steal it. ¾ Advocacy vis-à-vis KWS? Issues of sport hunting are nonstarters because of the law. Furthermore, hunting would require dealing with a lot of safety needs beyond their means. They’ve found communities collecting ostrich eggs, and that is a concern. Advocacy at the level of KWS should focus on conservation – they can create conservation awareness. (The interviewee did not address advocacy in terms of advocating pro-conservation policy on the national level). ¾ Are revenues from tourism driving economic development in Laikipia? An example: Samburu group ranches have absolute right over their land. They’ve set out a large area of land and they will make a lot more money. Ecotourism is not applicable to every community here. It can only work in a certain ranches – it cannot work all around the district. ¾ Sustainability? What is the way forward? They need to change their strategy to integrate the players into smaller working units. One CORE partner may be doing the same thing as another in different places – there is too much replication. They need to see how to better organize to get best use of resources. KWS needs to look at how well its communication projects have worked. If there is a way to enhance tourism where it is appropriate they should do so. They need to empower communities to manage their wildlife. ¾ One thing KWS has shied away from is community development projects like schools etc. They’ve changed to focus on enterprise, and that is still not the answer. They need a variety of different tactics not just one approach. One obvious activity they need to consider is natural resource use-rights. ¾ Forestry: KWS is only responsible for indigenous forest surrounding Mount Kenya. The forest plantations under the area are not under LWF’s mandate – that’s the purview of the Forestry Department. Main Findings from the Focus Group Discussion with Koija Group Ranch Koija Group Ranch, May 7, 2002 ¾ There were approximately six individuals who came to a focus group at a local school classroom. The interview was conducted in Swahili. ¾ It was explained that CORE brings them together in many different ways. CORE has provided education and training, such that they see the benefit of managing their land and resources. Because of CORE intervention, they were able to push through the issuance of their title deed. They explained with this sense of ownership, they are in control, and keep anyone out that they want to keep out. This is a big help when it comes to getting rid of illegal grazers. ¾ CORE helped them to see the benefits of conservation. They explained how benefits accrue by doing this. The group explained that they realized that they had been overgrazing on their land, that the animals had gotten sick, and that this was very bad. ¾ They explained that too much grazing created very bad conditions, and that they could do better by taking care of wildlife on their land. Thus they are reducing their cattle herds. They explained that before, when it rained, you could see the effects of the denuded land, that it was degraded, and that there was a great deal of surface runoff. ¾ They explained that the Star Beds provided additional benefits to the community. ¾ They said that while there was not a lot of money yet, they have evidence that it will come. The benefits will include cultural centers, women selling beadwork, and many other examples of community benefits. ¾ They explained that there really was no option for them, as they were livestock herders, but couldn’t prosper on the land the way they used to. They said as there was no option, they would de-stock, and consider wildlife their second ‘bank account’. When pressed, they explained how the old days were like the “dark ages”, that there was no hope. Animals were getting sick and dying, disease came in, and the land was getting worse and worse. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 88 ¾ They discussed the building of the Star Beds, the training they needed in livestock management, and talked as if they knew about integrated resource management. ¾ When asked how they got some of these ideas, they described the study tours they had taken to the Masai Mara, Nyeri, and other similar group ranches. ¾ There was no confusion about service providers. But they would like to be taught more about the benefits of wildlife. They want to know what else they can do to maximize the return on their land. ¾ They explained that the sentiments that they expressed were representative of the group. Main Findings from the Individual Interview with Loisaba Ranch Koija Campsite, 9:00-11:00am, May 7 ¾ Tom Silvester is a rancher who made a deal with an Italian family to lease their 61,000-acre ranch for fifteen years. He initially started ranching in November of 1992, but realized that a lot more could be done with the local community, and began negotiating for a different kind of lease (beginning in April, 1998), to take over the entire property, and primarily operate a tourist lodge. In securing the lease, he bought the 1700 head of cattle that were there, built a house for the overseas investor he had attracted, restored the main lodge, and began the idea of a “Star Beds” facility on his property as an additional tourism attraction. This new product would represent a few more bed nights to sell, and an additional benefit for tourists already coming to the lodge (a chance to “stay in the bush for a few nights of your holiday”). ¾ He realized he needed to do more with the local community, and began looking for projects that could benefit the community. He then engaged in a conversation with AWF, and the collaboration for building a new “Star Beds” facility in Koija Group Ranch began. To hear him tell it, AWF heard about the Star Beds and the good work Tom was doing with the community, and asked if they could be involved in expanding benefits to the local community. ¾ He discussed the partnership agreement with me, the business prospects, the structure and background of Oryx, Ltd. (the holding company that owns and operates the lease and the business), and the background of the Italian family that owns the property. He explained that he was a good “corporate citizen”, and described many of the projects he was involved with. ¾ The Lodge at Loisaba has fourteen beds, and there are four beds in a Star Beds configuration on the Loisaba property, overlooking some cliffs. He notes that these facilities are not as desirably located as are the ones in Koija. His hope is that guests will want to stay at each of the Star Bed facilities, and that he could almost make a mini-circuit of the property, with different attractions at each site. He lamented that his guests often decide to try the Star Beds for one night, and then don’t want to leave the Star Beds to return to the Lodge. ¾ He discussed the fact that this structure in Koija was truly for the community to benefit, and pointed out that he would be much better off building the additional beds on his property, keeping all the revenue. However, he feels he should be a good corporate citizen and support the community whenever he can, and when the opportunity to work with CORE and obtain funds to build the property in Koija came through, he thought it was too good an opportunity to pass up. ¾ Further, he continually expresses the knowledge and understanding that local people really need to benefit, if only for Loisaba to succeed. He hires Koija group ranch members as Loisaba staff, and supports the community in many financial and non-financial ways. He talks about the improvements he has made to the land at Loisaba, and describes the 500 acres surrounding the Koija Star Bed facility as a first start at rehabilitating the entire group ranchlands. He very much thinks of the entire area, and talks of NRM management for the region, hoping that this concept can take on across the region. ¾ The structure at this moment is to charge $265 per person, per night, all-inclusive, for the Star Beds at Koija. Of this money, $50 goes to the community, and $35 goes to a conservation fund. Both of these payments go into a bank account for the Koija Community Trust, managed by a board composed of Tom, AWF, Elders of the community, and others. It has not yet been worked out what projects will receive funding from the community bank account and what will happen with the money in the conservation trust fund. However, there will be full transparency, with two signatures required for any checks that are written. ¾ Activities at Loisaba include rafting, horseback riding, night walks, game drives, bush dinners, camel walking, mountain biking, and bird viewing. They have programs for kids including astronomy, a swimming pool, and many other activities. Full price at Loisaba is $385 per person, per night. Right now he typically has a stay of two nights, three days, and wants to increase this to four or five nights. He’s also talking about starting a “classics camp”. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 89 ¾ He talked about working with the community, and having one man whose sole job is community liaison, full time. Unfortunately, this man was out of town. Tom told me that no matter what else happened, each of the staff was paid for every single guest, and that the community received income from every single visitor on the fixed rate schedule described above. He was pleased to be able to do this, frequently pointing out that there was no risk to the community, which weren’t asked to share in any expenses whatsoever. Thus the experience would be one of pure benefit for the community. ¾ When asked about the financing, he was quite angry, as he apparently hadn’t realized the accounting “nightmare” (as he put it) that it would be, working with USAID. He expressed particular distress at a conversation with a senior PWC individual; whom he said accused him of “defrauding the American taxpayer”. He needed to “front” the cost of virtually the entire lodge, paying for all the construction costs and activities, and USAID was apparently not used to paying a contractor. The particular upset seemed to be that he was acting as the contractor, and USAID didn’t want to accept receipts from him. As is understandable when acting as one’s own contractor, there frequently were no receipts. Too, USAID was unable to guarantee that he would receive the funds until the very end, and this certainly made it difficult to plan and build the facility. The final cost was approximately $40,000. ¾ After many similar stories, he did laud Wangechi (AWF) for her efforts in making it all happen. However, he still is upset as he hasn’t received all the final money, he has discovered that USAID won’t pay VAT, and he reckons that this money has been extremely expensive for him. When asked, he said “never again”, vis-à-vis new money, and working with USAID. I don’t know that this was the final word from Tom. ¾ One particularly distressing story was the time that the US Ambassador came up for a check-signing ceremony; only there was no check, and no promise of a check. And to add insult to injury, he was told that the US Government would only pay $75 per night. Thus after raising the expectations of the community, he was left with no money, no certainty that he would receive additional money, and a large conservation and community contribution to make from his own pocket. And large expectations to manage after September 11. ¾ He did show us one page of accounting, enumerating the guests and the deposits made to the bank account to date. ¾ When it came to describing efforts to market the facility, he expressed a great deal of doubt that he would be able to do this as effectively as needed. He is exploring a joint marketing association of approximately 10 similar Ecolodges, and knows he needs a great deal of help in marketing. He asked for marketing strategies, and feels this is the next (and most crucial) step in the community Ecolodge. ¾ He described a series of enterprises that could arise from the lodge, including the possibility of aloe (there was a researcher from UCLA there looking at the potential), beads, and other businesses. He quoted the chief of the village explaining that when a wild dog took his goat, he smiled, and expressed that the wild dog was also his “bank account”. ¾ He mentioned other spin-off businesses for the community, including warrior dancers (the “Ewaso Morani Dancers”), and various other cultural events. ¾ He lamented the lack of a land use policy, but discussed how the Masai realized that with over 16,000 Masai and 2,000 cattle, this was not sustainable on the acreage of the ranch. They were voluntarily reducing their herds. His overall goal is to integrate the entire area, so that it is balanced, and returned to sustainable use. ¾ He wondered why there wasn’t support in terms of a local slaughterhouse or cannery, as he feels this would be a great help to the local Masai. He also discussed the various other Ecolodges, and what was happening as far as he was concerned in the tourism industry in Kenya. Main Findings from the Focus Group Discussion at Il Polei Cultural Manyatta 7 May 2002 ¾ KWS and LWF established Il Polei Cultural Manyatta in 1998. The El Nino rains of 1998 that followed damaged the huts in the cultural manyatta. Il Polei group Ranch is a member of LWF. ¾ In 2001, Il Polei approached CORE for assistance to renovate the damaged huts through LWF. A proposal was written. In April 2002, a grant of KShs 2.7 million was received to renovate the huts. ¾ Three huts have been renovated with cedar posts. The new huts can last for about 10 years. The old huts built could only last for about 5 years. Tourists can stay in the huts and undertake camel safaris to the conservancy. ¾ The conservancy was established in 1999. A total of 8000 acres was set aside for conservation. The conservancy has 3 campsites. An average of 60 tourists visit the manyatta each year. Marketing the manyatta and the campsites is a problem. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 90 ¾ A private company, Let's Go Travel, assists with marketing. The charges for the campsites are KShs 2,000 per group per night. Sensitization missions are also undertaken to the neighboring ranches with Abercombie & Kent providing the transportation. A marketing strategy has been prepared and this will be implemented from June 2002. ¾ Eight new huts are planned for a museum, an office block, kitchen, dining hall and tourists' accommodation. ¾ Nine group ranches have gotten together and formed Naibunga Group, which has set aside 75,000 acres aside for integrated management. ¾ Problems experienced by Il Polei include limited finances, insecurity from bandits (need for home guards to be trained and the acquisition of radio communication systems), and marketing. ¾ KWS has assisted in training game scouts but these have not been employed. ¾ Il Polei is set up as a shareholding enterprise where members pay KShs 100 for registration and KShs 500 for each share. The community will have controlling shares. ¾ Il Polei and Munishi Group Ranches have formed a joint company called Munipol Conservation Company Ltd., which has not yet been registered. An MoU on shareholding has been signed providing for 26% of the shares to Il Polei Group Ranch, 26% of the shares Munishi Group ranch and 48% of the shares to individuals. This scheme ensures equity in the distribution of benefits. ¾ The funds from the cultural manyatta are used for school bursaries and the running of a dispensary. ¾ SARDEP is also assisting Il Polei with OD, NRM, legal framework, networking, proposal writing, financial management and formulation of a constitution. ¾ There are 4 women's groups that are involved in beadwork, jewelry and crafts. The crafts generate more revenue than that received from tourism. Main Findings from the Focus Group Discussion at Kuri Kuri Group Ranch Tuesday, 7 May 2002 ¾ The Lands Commission formed Kuri Kuri Group Ranch in 1975 during the adjudication of land. Kuri Kuri Women's Group was formed in 1989. The group ranch representatives met CORE officials in a seminar on wildlife conservation organized by Laikipia Wildlife Forum in 2000. The ranch representatives invited CORE to work with the community. KKGR became a member of LWF four years ago. ¾ In 1994, KWS conducted a PRA with the Kuri Kuri community on wildlife conservation. The following year, KWS helped the community through COBRA to establish a cultural centre, a campsite and to close a deal with an investor called Tropical Nature. Three beekeepers groups received grants: Kuri Kuri (KShs 110,000), Bukish (Shs 100,000), and Doldol (Shs 100,000). KWS also assisted the community with the construction of a water tank (Shs 100,000) and three classrooms. ¾ The lease arrangement with the investor, Kathurima, was discontinued when the community realized that it was not benefiting much from the land that had been leased. KKGR, CORE and Tropical Nature (Kathurima) held a seminar on CBNRM at Ol Chorro Oiroua in 2000 where the community asked CORE for assistance on a number of wildlife-related projects. The assistance requested was for construction of an eco-lodge at Siol (not established yet) and finding an investor (ongoing). ¾ KKGR put aside 5,000 acres for conservation of wildlife. ACC has assisted in the formation of a beekeepers cooperative society, road rehabilitation form Kuri Kuri to Siol (CORE paid KShs 50,000 and the community raised KShs 25,000), construction of group ranch office and furniture, and provided 10 Langstroth hives. ACC also assisted the cooperative to establish a honey refinery and market honey. The first honey harvest was sold for KShs 92,000. The cooperative does not know as yet whether the honey business is making profits. The honey has to be collected from distances of up to 40 kms using hired vehicles. ¾ The community and a lawyer with the help of Pact/ACC prepared a draft KKGR constitution in December 2001. Members will ratify this draft constitution during an AGM to be held on 18 May 2002. Membership fee for the GR is KShs 50. Not every member of the group ranch pays the membership fee. Every person over 18 years can apply to be a member. The membership fee for the beekeepers cooperative is KShs 500. ¾ Pact/ACC has trained the community members how to develop themselves using available resources; how to conserve wildlife; how to manage finances; on leadership and responsibilities; and how to keep records of transactions. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 91 ¾ The community's strengths include ability to resolve conflicts within the community and how to conserve natural resources (no forest guards). For example, in Mukogodo Forest during some ethnic clashes, elders from three Districts, namely Isiolo, Laikipia and Samburu, met and agreed that each of the communities would confine its activities within their boundaries. The community's weaknesses are: lack of skills to utilize local resources and to keep records; mixed leadership roles; financial mismanagement; and poverty. ¾ The GR is divided into three zones: conservation area, forest area and settlement area. Planned activities include 4 apiaries, 250 Langstroth hives, 10 tonnes of honey per year, an ecolodge at Siol, and tented camp at Cholomai Caves. Soil erosion outside the GR is a major concern of the KK Resource Management Area Committee. The GR is part of the wide LWF conservancy. KWS is expected to address the area's major problem of human-wildlife conflicts. Main findings from the Focus Group Discussion at Kurikuri with the Naipotake Farmer Cooperative – Mukogado Honey Enterprises Kurikuri Group Ranch Office, 1:30 to 2:15, 7 May 2002 ¾ Prior to the formation of the cooperative there were three groups of beekeepers in the Kurikuri community. They saw the advantage of forming a cooperative to improve production, do joint processing, and facilitate marketing. The target number of members is 200 persons. To join the cooperative each member must first belong to the group ranch, and then pay KSH 500 to join the coop. The coop put together a proposal to CORE for capital investment and start-up cost funds last year and got an EDF grant (KSH 1.2 million). The operation includes demonstration beehives (two kinds) and a honey refinery with two local paid staff members. ¾ The first year’s processing of honey has been sold through SITE yielding KSH 92,000 for the year, out of which several thousands went to pay for transportation of raw honey to the processing center. Transportation of raw honey from the beekeepers to the center is a financial problem and they are looking at maybe using mules to bring in the stock. The group has a concern about having sufficient working capital to be able to afford to buy raw honey – currently there is a large quantity undelivered from the field for lack of adequate cash flows to purchase honey while they wait for their sales payments to come through. SITE picks up the honey so transportation of the value-added product is not an issue. The group also expressed concern that the six months of start-up staff labor costs allowed by the grant is soon going to run out, and staff costs will need to come out of revenues. One response is to start moving smaller quantities of honey. ¾ The group thinks that NRM has its obvious benefits. And they believe that the coop offers many advantages over a lot of small units working independently. They value the assistance that ACC has given them in business planning and management. After receiving ACC counsel they went and opened their own bank account and have registered their business. ¾ A concern expressed was that once they sell the processed honey to SITE, they have little money with which to buy raw honey. ¾ Successes: They are happy for this honey refinery because this is an immediate means of income for the community. A farmer can bring in honey and walk about with shillings without waiting. Plus the coop will eventually be in a position to pay dividends ¾ They also value the training they have received. They now understand what is required to sell export quality honey and know how to do the refining as well as how to run the business. ¾ The quantity of bee production was a problem before SITE’s intervention. Before they only had 50% occupancy but with SITE’s introduction of smaller capture hive they have increased occupancy to about 90% in only a few months. ¾ They are considering increasing the coop’s profits by putting up coop-owned hives. ¾ What is not working? Transport of raw honey to the refinery is a problem. Drought conditions cause the hives to be abandoned or the colonies to die. (They do have a dam nearby so this should not be a problem.) ¾ They see that the coop is still very young and so has yet to fully turn a profit and there is some concern about how they’ll pay staff salaries. ¾ Benefits: They don’t anticipate significant financial benefits until they are at higher production and processing capacity. They expressed hope that they could get their marketing partner (SITE) to pay higher prices. They buy USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 92 raw honey at KSH 80 a kilo and sell the processed goods at 120 plus they sell beeswax at KSH 190 a kilo (there is potential for high profitability). ¾ They are happy with the assistance they’ve received from ACC who have helped them with finding a marketing partner, learning basic accounting, stock management, etc. ¾ Sustainability? They think that if they could increase the number of hives this project would be very sustainable, especially if they can address the transportation problem. They see the need for more training (on quality production) and exposure to other bee keeping projects (ACC is planning a study tour). ¾ In five years they see a profitable business that will be paying dividends to the membership. The coop would also be involved in production (have its own hives). And the management of the enterprise will be such that they will have a larger staff, employing more local people. Main findings from the Focus Group Discussion with CORE-Pact technical officers Wednesday, 8 May 2002 ¾ CORE hypothesis is working. Many group ranches did not have conservation areas at all. Now these conservation areas are in place. People are also articulating what they have been taught which they will practice later. Community is also taking responsibility in PAC fence maintenance. ¾ There is less hostility to wildlife in the focal areas. People are now concerned about wildlife welfare. The 1st bank account is livestock. The 2nd bank account is wildlife. For example, several wildlife associations split from Narok County Council to ensure that more revenue accrued to them directly. ¾ OD activities have worked well in Ol Chorro Oiroua. There are now benefits from conserving wildlife. An Ecolodge is in place with Lonrho as a partner. In Mwaluganje, the number of shareholders has increased from 153 to 210. This means more land set aside for conservation purposes. ¾ The links OD-enterprises-natural resources are being established, but there is narrow understanding of OD work among enterprise officers. A portion of the proceeds from enterprises is used for conservation work such as rehabilitation of degraded areas and tree planting. There is a lot of interest in the field on information about the projects and many requests for information are received as a result of CORE networking and communication. ¾ In Masai Mara where CORE is "implementing the land use plan" there is positive behavior change. Benefit sharing is based on acreage. The Manyattas Cultural Association ploughs 50% of the benefits back to investments. There are two types of financial benefits: individual benefits and corporate benefits. Other benefits are security, watering points and school fees. ¾ Other options for generating benefits for the communities? Livestock development (community development assistants need to be present at CORE meetings to address range conditions and destocking issues), investment in bonds and shares, trust funds to purchase land to expand conservation, soap making, aquaculture, sisal basketry, Aloe cultivation and butterfly farming. A land use survey for Mwaluganje revealed that income from the Wildlife Sanctuary was KShs 1,500, Agriculture KShs 800 and Livestock KShs 1,000 per acre per year respectively. Potential for improved benefits exists. ¾ Lessons from COBRA "for conservation programs to have an impact, a time span of 20 years is required". There is a need for exit strategies to be thought out long before CORE ends. A period of 6 years is required for CORE, i.e., 4 years initial period and 2 years extension. In Laikipia the 3 CBOs involved in CORE do not create a critical mass in a region with many group ranches. Additional CBOs to scale up the project are required. ¾ LUMO is just beginning, and does not have a sanctuary yet. Mwaluganje has a marketing strategy in place but this needs to be implemented. In Masai Mara, CORE has targeted 3 group ranches, Ol Chorro Oiroua, Koiyaki-Lemek and Siana. More time is needed in Siana. Funds for enterprises after OD work are also needed for Siana. To have a critical mass in Masai Mara, an additional 2 or 3 group ranches need to be targeted. ¾ In Amboseli, additional group ranches need to be brought on board in order to have a critical minimum. ATGRCA is a key challenge for CORE especially on advocacy, general development and financial management. OD work is needed both at the group ranch level and the association level. ¾ There is limited understanding of what advocacy is at KWS. It is necessary to develop an advocacy strategy, identify policy issues with communities and involve parliamentarians in advocacy. Issue-related advocacy should be the main focus. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 93 ¾ Close mentoring of the communities is essential. LWF has trained Community Liaison Officers (CLOs) and deployed them to the group ranches. There are no CLOs in Amboseli. There is a need to identify such people in Amboseli, Masai Mara and South Coast. CORE could pay CLOs at the beginning and the group ranches could pay CLOs at the end of the CORE Project. ¾ Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) are doing good work in Mwaluganje, Amboseli (Olgulului) and Laikipia, especially on enterprise projects. More PCVs in the focal areas would help advance the projects at no additional cost. ¾ The number of CBOs requiring assistance is large. There is also a high level of illiteracy. Following the OCA and OD work, the CBOs are keen to see tangible projects. Some quick successes are needed to keep the CBOs interested, e.g. Koija starbeds, Kuri Kuri office block, and bee keeping enterprises. ¾ Technical officers cover long distances and the roads are not good. There is a need to bring in other donor development agencies to address such infrastructure problems. ¾ There is a problem with partner coordination. FATs do not meet as often as they should. Planning of activities should start at the FAT level. Sequencing of activities is a major challenge among the partners. There are limited opportunities to exchange information and lessons learnt. ¾ Year 2002 is an election year and the project activities are likely to slow down because of electioneering and political meetings. ¾ Integration of CORE project activities with other donor activities, projects and programs is not working. Examples here include BCP, UNDP, SARDEP and KWS's other donor-supported projects. Topics Discussed with the CORE-Pact Manager and Pact Director Pact Office, May 8, 2002 Two members of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary finding with Pact management. Topics included: ƒ The development and functioning of the coalition. ƒ Where the project is working best in terms of NRM impacts. ƒ The advantages of having field staff on the ground versus using TA in a “consultant” mode, and the notion of developing a cadre of local mentors. ƒ Project impacts and management: efficiency versus effectiveness. ƒ Questions of NRM coverage in the focal areas – whether CORE needs to expand the current sites or interventions to achieve NRM level impact. ƒ The need to address other factors such as population pressure, perhaps by linking CBOs with other sectors of expertise, e.g., mobile health units. ƒ The functioning of the PSC and the EDF grants program ƒ Pressures on technical officers to rush the deal in connecting investors with communities. Topics Discussed with the CORE-Pact sub-grantee directors (ACC & EAWLS) Pact Office, May 8, 2002 The team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary findings with the director of each organization in a group interview. Topics included: ƒ Plans for ACC to start supporting NRM planning with each of the CORE-supported CBOs and the rapid response support currently available from Pact. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 94 ƒ The need for resources to develop marketing capacity among CORE-sponsored enterprises. The notion that investors’ marketing capacity is adequate and is stifling enterprise development. ƒ Areas for improvement in the CORE management structure. ƒ Problems of delays in releasing funding for sub-grants and their implications on project performance. ƒ The need for better consultation among CORE partners to avoid slipping into crisis management mode ƒ How all but Amboseli FAT are not really functioning and the implications of this on project relations, project coordination and sustainability. ƒ Contrasting pluses and minuses between the BCP funding structure and the EDF ƒ Whether national level advocacy activities should be pulled out of CORE ƒ Challenges in moving needed amendments to the Wildlife Policy Main findings from the Focus Group Discussion with CORE-AWF technical officers AWF Office, May 9, 2002 ¾ CORE hypothesis is working but it has not been easy. There are no textbook solutions. The impact of CORE can now be seen on the ground. More time than provided for in the project is required. More resources are also required. ¾ Marketing is a major issue that needs to be addressed immediately especially as it relates to ecotourism. With regard to enterprises, ACC and AWF work at different and specific sites. SAMED covers all areas. ¾ CORE coalition has problems in synchronizing activities between partners. Enterprises and biodiverse areas do not always overlap. The trend has been to set up enterprises first and to get NRM to fit in. Enterprise-NRM link is not clear. ¾ There are several challenges that face the project: 1. Expectations are high at all levels. 2. Making the coalition work effectively. 3. Acceptance of other partners by KWS. 4. Political interference. ¾ AWF had expected to implement the whole CORE Project. Other members of the coalition make coordination difficult. The link with District Development Committees has not been forged well. Integration of CORE project activities with other development activities is crucial. ¾ There has been a lack of baseline data for reference in measuring change in all areas, even in those areas where COBRA was involved. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of the project activities are also lacking. Initial Environment Examinations (IEEs) are now being carried out to address the shortcomings. ¾ Once the communities set aside land for conservation, there is an immediate need to look for other options to improve their livelihoods. Poverty issues need to be addressed first. ¾ All participants were in agreement that the resources they have to work with are limited. There were no CORE funds set aside to train implementers, i.e., to cater for peer learning. ¾ The CORE project is faced with policy level constraints. Whose land is it? Whose wildlife is it? There is policy ambiguity and no clear direction. Land use plans are lacking especially with regard to wildlife conservation. User rights regarding wildlife utilization are not clear. NRM planning linked to traditional NRM systems needs to be addressed. ¾ CORE coalition structure with PMT, PSC, GMT, FAT is creating problems in the flow of funds and needs to be looked into. The relationship with BCP has not been good with long gaps before funds are released. ¾ In order to end dependency, exit strategies need to be worked out. Regarding the enterprises, the major concerns are ownership, community buy-in, marketing, benefit sharing, and management. ¾ Tourism development analytical studies are needed. Tourism development planning has to be based on the carrying capacity in the project areas. Market research and tourism promotion strategies are also needed. Links between ecotourism and non-tourism conservation activities need strengthening. Serious efforts also need to be made to address non-tourism based enterprises. ¾ There was broad consensus that neither CORE technical officers nor CORE management had sufficient tourism industry knowledge to be of much help to the tourism enterprises. Further, there was concern as to whether this expertise actually existed in Kenya. It was agreed that this was a critical intervention that needed to be addressed by CORE. ¾ There was also broad agreement that these enterprises had to succeed, and that therefore it was critical that they receive the technical support necessary to ensure sustainability. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 95 ¾ Some officers wanted to see additional amounts of money provided for enterprise development. The EDF fund is only $1,000,000, and at least one technical officer was frustrated, feeling that with a much larger fund, much greater interventions could be made. Topics Discussed with the CORE-AWF sub-grantee directors (ACC, SAMED and PWC) AWF Office, May 9, 2002 Two members of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary findings with the director of each organization in a group interview. Topics included: ƒ The services and level of effort each group delivers within the CORE structure ƒ The functioning of the PSC and the EDF grants program – limitations created by the fact that PSC members don’t get to see the sites and can’t adequately assess the validity of grant proposals. How this causes frustrating delays for everyone. The fact that the EDF is currently overly obligated although considerable funds are not dispersed yet, due to the need for clarification in proposal process. Suggestions of ways to avoid future grant obligation backlogs. ƒ The need for more innovation in the enterprise initiatives and proposals ƒ Lack of adequate expertise in tourism. Need for quality training and better segmentation of CORE-supported projects ƒ Need to educate technical officers in the finer points of tourism development ƒ Need for more and varied marketing expertise – not through new permanent staff but through visits and consultations ƒ Need to establish an audit function to follow-up on SAMED’s training. Technical Officers cannot serve as auditors. ƒ Need to build a local structure that could support and coordinate community tourism enterprise – acting like a CBO’s CATO ƒ Problems that low literacy has on CORE activities – the need for integrating CORE’s key business and NRM messages within adult and primary education curricula. Topics Discussed with the CORE-AWF Senior Program Officer AWF Office, May 9, 2002 A member of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary finding with AWF’s Conservation Enterprise Director about CORE enterprise development activities. Topics included: ƒ The background to the investor and private sector relationships ƒ Questions about the “formula” or criteria used by AWF to determine whether a deal is a “good deal” or not ƒ Problems with evaluating business deals, and whether AWF could be a neutral party in negotiations ƒ Limitations of the current structure, and the reason for delays in funding ƒ The theoretical background to the structure currently in place for funding enterprises ƒ The history behind certain investor/partner conflicts ƒ The need for improved relationship management ƒ The idea of an improved way for the PSC to review proposals ƒ The lessons that have been learned to date USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 96 Topics Discussed with the AWF Vice President for Programs AWF Office, May 9, 2002 The team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary finding with the director of each organization in a group interview. Topics included: ƒ Concerns about integrating ecosystem coverage within CORE’s work in each focal area. ƒ The value of bringing in other tools besides enterprise and what other players are doing in Kenya using tools such as land trusts and conservancies. ƒ How instead of an “exit strategy” we need to be thinking of an “evolution path” to sustainability and how this path needs to include NRM planning in areas well beyond the bounds of each CBO ƒ The vital need for an NRM fund that would allow respective CORE partners and the CBOS and partners they are working with to plan and implement NRM plans. How the only way to effectively do NRM planning within each CORE CBO is to allow those who are already working with the community to facilitate the process instead of bringing in yet another partner. Main findings from the Focus Group Discussion with KWS M&E Unit KWS HQ, May 9, 2002 ¾ It was expressed that KWS is the lead organization for policy and database management relative to NRM. They reach out to communities on a provincial and regional level. KWS must articulate policies, provide protection, and focus on conservation throughout the country. KWS must be involved in a leadership role at a national level. KWS is a member in NEMA (the National Environmental Management Authority), and this establishes its link with GOK agencies. This is how NRM interests are represented on a national level. ¾ On a grass root level, FAT (focal area team) meetings keep each region involved. Local wardens have responsibility for their individual areas, and attempt to provide an enabling environment for development. They are also responsible for monitoring and evaluation throughout the country. Elephant seem to be the key species that cause human/wildlife conflicts, and they are monitored closely. It was noted that rhinos do not come into conflict with humans. Most rhino populations are enclosed in sanctuaries and even where they are free ranging; they do not come in conflict with humans. However, humans (poachers) are still the potential threat to rhinos. ¾ When questioned about partnerships with other CORE members, there were complaints about poor communication, and lack of coordination. One individual felt that KWS was occasionally not as involved as they should be in certain projects, and felt CORE partners were partly to blame. Clearly the FATs were not working, as coordination didn’t happen in the field as KWS thought it should. Further, strategic decisions from the individual CORE partners’ management groups were not being passed down to the field. ¾ KWS provides data to individual wardens and communities to assist in short term and long term planning. They also perceive that they create an enabling environment for development. They are very much aware of their mandate, and see that they are taking a positive step. This enabling environment seems to be the primary partnering that they provide to CORE. ¾ They are very pleased with the technology that the CORE project resources have allowed KWS to use. 54 out of 60 Senior KWS employees have already been trained in using the latest M&E technology. 45 out of 54 line monitoring staff have also been trained. 13 computers are now connected via LAN. They distinguish that there is a lot more training that needs to happen, particularly on data analysis. But they are very proud of their animal census work. This helps them decide what strategies to use, particularly for translocations. They have obtained funding for their Rhino initiative. There is excitement about the power of these new diagnostic and analysis tools. Finally, KWS reports that overall KWS staff has also been more sensitized. ¾ They talk about training the trainers, and complain a bit that the KWS military structure doesn’t allow for free communication. This has held back training as expected and they are now planning a new approach where individuals from a given rank across all the rhino units will be trained and expected to train their rank equivalents, thus training all the ranks. ¾ Overall, they are saying that the animal count is down, and certain important trends are beginning to be seen. The ecological monitoring unit can create accurate animal census, and they can monitor vegetation. Although the count is down and vegetation cover is on a slippery slope, overall, they feel that they are holding on. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 97 Topics Discussed with the KWS Senior Warden Nairobi NP KWS HQ, May 9, 2002 Two members of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary finding with the Senior Warden and CWS head. Topics included: ƒ There is need for proactive engagement of KWS in CORE activities, which fall within the project area and involve communities. On a number of occasions, KWS has been sidelined by partners in the planning of projects that deal with communities, only to be asked by the CORE partners to join them at a late stage. Institutional interests are a reality in a project such as CORE. However, these interests should not be allowed to take precedence over the greater CORE objectives. ƒ Human wildlife Conflict around the Nairobi National Park is a major problem. The park is adjacent to growing population of private landowners who keep livestock. The wild cats (lion, leopard, cheetah, etc.) cause great havoc when they go into the private land holdings. KWS is working closely with private landowners to address the problem. ƒ The need for closer coordination of CORE activities and information sharing between and among CORE partners was highlighted ƒ The need to set criteria for downsizing CORE if need arises was mentioned. KWS feels that it may have to employ a set of criteria, different from other CORE partners, with human wildlife conflict being s major concern. Since KWS is in more places in the country and has a wider national mandate than CORE partners, devolving from any of 5 focal areas after CORE funding is not easy to envisage right now. Topics Discussed with the KWS CWS Core Leader KWS HQ, May 9, 2002 Two members of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary findings with the leader of the CORE coalition. Topics included: ƒ The comparative performance, progress and challenges in terms of NRM impacts among the five CORE focal areas. ƒ KWS’s efforts to devolve NRM responsibilities outside Parks to CBOs. ƒ KWS’s leadership of the coalition and how the CORE PMT is truly working re: teamwork. ƒ The need to improve the engagement and leadership of KWS at the field level. The dysfunction of the FAT structure is a significant problem. It is working in Amboseli so we know it can work. Having the PMT meetings revolve through the field locations has helped, but this alone is not sufficient to render the FAT operational. ƒ Lessons-learned about training local game scouts was applied to the same sort of training under CORE. Now KWS only trains scouts when it is clear the trainees will have a paid position and supervisory support once they return to their community. The training has also been modified to accommodate the lower levels of literacy that have been encountered among some community trainees. They are considering developing a simpler course to develop “junior scouts” that could work under community scouts. Topics Discussed with the KWS CWS Assistant Director KWS HQ, May 10, 2002 Two members of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary findings with the head of KWS Community Wildlife Service. Topics included: ƒ In a meeting with KWS Assistant Director of the Community Wildlife Program, a discussion was had about the KWS/CORE relationship. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 98 ƒ It was brought out that human/wildlife conflict was the single most egregious problem that KWS has to deal with. One of the real benefits of CORE is that the resources have been able to be used to monitor these conflicts, so that trends can be seen over time. A baseline was established in 2000, and based on research in 2001, it was clear that increases had taken place in various areas. This information was very useful to KWS. ƒ It was clear from the discussion that KWS has a strict hierarchical structure, and that the employees consider themselves civil servants, and as such, not able to comment or interact relative to policy matters. Thus it was expressed as being totally unacceptable to have a partner in a meeting with KWS coming up with an advocacy issue directed back to KWS in any way. Even having a meeting that could be called an advocacy meeting was a problem. It was pointed out that one Warden was almost fired for being at such a meeting. ƒ It also came out that communication was often quite poor amongst the partners. Examples were given of partners sending researchers into parks, reserves, or group ranches without communicating with KWS. It was pointed out that this was a great problem, as the Warden must account to the local DC about all activities in his brief. In addition, it was pointed out that frequently, the researchers would not know about what was happening in the group ranch at any particular moment, and during elections or other political events, this was not a good thing ƒ Part of this outcome was clearly that the structure of FATs is not working. Meetings are not happening, or partners are still in Nairobi and not able to get to the field for these meetings. While it was good that partners were supporting KWS in its community outreach efforts, these were clearly supposed to be KWS initiatives, as it involved their mandate. As such, when a CORE partners begins a project in one of the threatened regions and doesn’t fully consult and inform a KWS warden, grave damage can be done. ƒ It was expressed that “KWS is not very good at enterprise”. One individual felt that communities could learn lessons from COBRA, or go to Tanzania, or to Zimbabwe to see Campfire projects. Because of the problems expressed above, the evaluation of CORE’s overall success was low after the first year, or right around the time of the Warden’s near firing. Main findings from the Individual Interview with DFID DFID Office, May 13, 2002 Three members of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary finding with the head of DFID’s NRM programs, Mr. Mark Rotich, and Mr. Martin Leach, Senior Rural Livelihoods Advisor ¾ Mr Rotich was familiar with the COBRA project during his days with the Forest Department and interaction with KWS. Both officers pleaded their ignorance on the CORE project, as neither of them had sufficient information on CORE; ¾ DFID would be interested in learning more about the CORE project. In addition, the concept is applicable to DFID's projects. Since DFID is involved in similar projects involving IUCN and AWF, there is good reason to exchang information between CORE partners and DFID in order to explore opportunities for possible collaboration, especially in the areas of advocacy with but outside of CORE ¾ The two officers wished to see USAID a major player in the informal NRM and Environment Donor Group. They also felt that there are opportunities for USAID to play a key role in discussions. In the future, USAID and DFID should explore avenues to facilitate proactive exchange on information and involve other donors to ensure constructive linkages. The donor group includes: the Dutch Government, Belgian Government, European Union, DFID, Danish Government, World Bank, SIDA, FINNIDA, and JICA. This group needs to function better and cut down on financial, time and human resources wasted by different donor agencies on development issues and agenda ¾ DFID's Natural Resource and activities are for now confined to (a) NGOs involved in Forestry Action Network (b) Recently approved Pathways for Environmental Action in Kenya (PEAK) (c) Environmental Legislation ¾ DFID has a Small Grants programme that is open and supports varied NRM and wildlife initiatives. In addition, DFID is open to supporting actual on the ground activities at the community level. ¾ DFID is already working with Group Ranches in the Lake Magadi (Ol Donyo Sabuk) area helping to improve their rural livelihoods. This is an excellent opportunity for CORE to collaborate with DFID. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 99 ¾ Major thrusts in DFID programmes are: (a) Governance (b) Addressing constraints in service delivery and wider issues of legislation (c) Environmental Policy ¾ Other key areas that DFID plans to support are: (a) Access of relevant information to the general public (b) Programme to support and forge working relationships with stakeholders (c) Government of Kenya in community forest management initiatives ¾ Recent accomplishments of DFID's work in Kenya include: (a) Draft Forest Bill (b) National Environment and Management Act and its Operationalisation Main findings from the Individual Interview with the EU’s Biodiversity Conservation Programme Coordinator EU Office, May 13, 2002 Three members of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary finding with the head of the EU Biodiversity Conservation Coordinator. ¾ BCP was established one year and a few months ago. It is one of the programs under the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF) created between EU and GOK to alleviate poverty. CDTF started as social program. Biodiversity-related projects were not addressed under CDTF hence the establishment of BCP. ¾ The interviewee encountered CORE for the first time in Laikipia where he was a Research/Planner for KWS. After he joined BCP, the relationship between BCP and CORE became stronger. ¾ BCP currently implements 11 projects with 4 objectives - awareness, biodiversity conservation, human-wildlife conflicts and community development. Interaction between BCP and CORE occurs in community projects. BCP interacted with CORE first in Taita-Taveta when the LUMO community submitted a proposal to BCP. CORE was also interested in assisting the LUMO community. It was agreed between CORE and BCP that CORE would support capacity development and that BCP would support infrastructure development. ¾ CORE is also supporting a tented camp in the LUMO area. In Shompole, ACC is strong on the ground. ACC assisted the local community to identify an eco-lodge project whose proposal was developed to an acceptable level. ACC worked with the community to make sure that the community got a fair deal. ¾ BCP has received a proposal to set up a research facility from Makuria in Laikipia. BCP needs a business plan form Makuria. CORE will facilitate the formulation of the business plan. In LUMO, BCP and CORE are complementing each other's efforts. ¾ CORE is a member of BCP's technical advisory committee. James Ndirangu of USAID and Christine Guchu-Katee of AWF sit in on the committee. ¾ In LUMO, the first tranche of the funds was released. There was a delay in releasing the second tranche because LUMO could not account for 75% of what they had received according to the reporting formats. The delay was caused by lack of transparency on the part of LUMO. The problem has now been resolved and the second tranche of KShs 4 million has been released. ¾ In response to the question as to what the turn-around time is between receipt of the reports and the release of the funds, the interviewee said that the turn-around time is 10 days maximum, if the reporting is all right. ¾ There exists no formal working relationship between CORE and BCP and the relationship is more of "a gentleman's agreement". ¾ With regard to the CORE hypothesis, the local communities are receptive to the assistance provided by CORE partners and BCP. They are aware of the benefits from wildlife. This has come about after sitting together with the organizations involved in NRM. The positive change in the environment is slight, with some major gains in certain areas. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 100 ¾ The greatest gains have been recorded in Laikipia, mostly through NGOs following the establishment of Ecolodges and cultural manyattas. ¾ In order to determine sustainability after the CORE Project, CORE and BCP need to re-define what they mean by sustainability. If it means ecological, economic and social sustainability, then there is a need to re-focus the issue of sustainability, especially in relation to the benefits from NRM. Presently, the benefits from ecotourism-related enterprises are " a drop of water in the ocean" when the total number of group ranch members is taken into account. ¾ There has been an observable attitude change in favor of improved NRM among the local communities in the realms of enterprises and human-wildlife conflict resolution. ¾ Total funds in BCP are KShs 400 million for the period 2001-2005. Already 40% of the funds have been used. BCP has received many project proposals, and good ones too. The demand for BCP support is high. The majority of the projects are ecotourism focused. ¾ EU has established a Tourism Trust Fund (TTF). This fund does not fall under CDTF and has a larger amount of funds than that availed to BCP. BCP is referring successful projects for funding to the TTF. ¾ In conclusion, CORE partners, BCP and other donors "can do better if they were talking with each other, not at each other". There is a need for a formal forum, involving these organizations, to exchange experiences, information and lessons learnt. Topics Discussed with Jake Graves-Cook, Kenya Tourism Federation One member of the team discussed a variety of issues and preliminary findings with Mr. Jake Graves-Cook, chairman of the new Kenya Tourism Federation, a federation of 7 Kenyan tourism associations. He is also President of the Kenya Ecotourism Association He has a company called Gamewatchers Safaris, and a company called Porini Safaris, which enters into leases and pays for the operation of those leases. Essentially, Gamewatchers operates safaris, and pays Porini for the use of the land, and Porini hires the game scouts, pays the communities, and is responsible for the lease. Over about 7 years, Jake created a reserve, called the Selengei Conservancy. This is an area around Amboseli Park called the Nyeri desert. He explains that it is an area not suitable for livestock. He explains that 7 years ago, animals were essentially “wiped-out”, and that lions in Amboseli had all been poisoned, and that he wanted to make a difference. So over about two years, he had a lot of meetings and discussions, and worked with the Masai to come to an agreement on a way to use the land for wildlife. Essentially, he is paying KSH 500,000 per year to lease the land and a $16.50 per person entry fee, each of these increasing 10% per annum. The lease is for fifteen years. He has built water holes and dams, 70 kms of roads, nursery schools and secondary schools, and repaired broken water pipes. He employs ten rangers. The lease was done directly with KWS, and is a legal entity. He claims that now the reserve has over 11 cheetahs, and has seen elephant where none had been seen for many years. There are fourteen lions, and he claims there is now greater biodiversity in Selengei than there is in Amboseli. He is quite keen on creating conservancies, particularly on large tracts of semi-arid land around parks and reserves. He is not interested in community development interventions like OD. He seeks to make deals that are “good for communities”, such as building nursery schools and secondary schools, fixing broken water pipes, and other types of infrastructure interventions. He points out that there is a lot of public land that mobile-tented safari operators lease on an occasional basis from KWS. This land is available, but this way of operating is not sustainable. He wants all public campsites around parks and reserves to become conservancies, so as to better protect and sustain the land. Topics of discussion included: ¾ Jake's overall view of tourism and conservation, and some of the long-term problems in Kenya. ¾ Jake's feelings about NGOs and community development. ¾ Strategies for future conservation work and cooperation amongst all the players. ¾ How tourism can be a tool for conservation and the future of tourism operations in Kenya. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 101 Topics Discussed with Steve Turner One member of the team discussed a variety of issues with tour operator Steve Turner. Topics included: ¾ Steve's experience with the CORE coalition and his overall background and approach to conservation; ¾ Steve's efforts to create a wildlife corridor between Tsavo East and West; ¾ The value of marginal rangeland and new strategies to bring this land into a conservation framework; and ¾ General conservation strategies, the Campfire Programme, the Mara, and many other aspects of development. USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 102 Appendix H: Strategy Session Agenda for the Final Extension Phase June 17 at the Safari Park Hotel Overall Goal of the Session The assembled group of CORE partners will use this full day session to: ƒ Take stock of the Mid-term Evaluation results; and ƒ Identify and agree on implications for the next phase of the project Specific Objectives Proposed for the Session ƒ Query and debate implications of the evaluation findings and recommendations ƒ Share technical plans and new information relative to NRM planning ƒ Discuss best ways “to lock in the course” of the CORE project for optimal results ƒ Identify recommendations and/or implications for the CORE partner work planning exercise that will proceed the strategy session Note: The Strategy Session is not intended to serve as a: ƒ Another opportunity to revise the Mid-term Evaluation Final Report (The final version was submitted on May 28, 2002), Nor ƒ An occasion to redesign the CORE project’s tactics It was agreed that prior of the Strategy Session the following actions will need to be taken: ƒ CORE partners with conduct analyses of their budget situations and confirm this information with USAID ƒ USAID would look into its budget options and explore practical opportunities for leveraging funds outside of SO 5. Anticipated Number and Breakdown of Participants: ƒ PMT: 10 persons ƒ Pact and AWF leadership (Bill and Helen) ƒ PSC: Barbara ƒ USAID SO 5: 3 persons Approximately 15 people Tentative Schedule - Time: 9 AM to 5 PM – lunch will be provided 9:00 ................Welcoming Comments and Validation of Session Goals and Objectives 9:30 ................Presentation of Major Evaluation Recommendations ƒ Update of revisions from “draft” to “final” ƒ Questions for clarification on the recommendations ƒ Comments from USAID – “what recommendations resonate with them or not.” “What considerations are on the table (or not)” 10 AM............Time for partner technical presentations, i.e, NRM planning activities, etc 10:45 AM.......Coffee break USAID/Kenya SO 5 CORE Mid-term Evaluation Report ANNEXES - page 103 11 AM............Small group work – Concerns about implications of the points presented and contributions for next steps 12 AM............Small group presentations and plenary discussion on “the way forward” 1 PM...............Lunch 2:30 PM .........Small group discussion by partner coalition to review workplans to craft specific questions/concerns 3:15 ................Coffee break 3:30 PM .........Report-outs 4:00 PM .........Group conclusions ƒ Final comments from PMT and USAID 5:00 PM .........End of session