KENYA FOREST AND COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
MID-TERM EVALUATION
OCTOBER 30, 2006
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for
International Development. It was prepared by Richard Swanson of SECID
and Karen Menczer and Greg Michaels of PA Government Services, Inc.
Contract No. EPP-I-00-03-00015-00, Order No. 2
KENYA FOREST AND COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
MID-TERM EVALUATION
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect
the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the
United States Government.
3
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary 8
1.0 Introduction 17
1.1 USAID Strategic Framework for Africa
1.2 USAID Kenya Country Operational Plan
1.3 Biodiversity Earmark (USAID/Kenya contributions to biodiversity conservation)
1.4 Mid Term Review: Purpose, Methodology and Scope of Work
1.5 The MTR Team
2.0 USAID/SO 5 Program (Wildlife, Forestry, and Coastal Sectors and Land Tenure) 22
2.1 SO 5 Framework
2.2 Forestry Range Rehabilitation & Environmental Management Strengthening
2.3 Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP)
2.4 FORREMS and KCMP: Key Themes and Underlying Assumptions
3.0 Technical Discussion 28
3.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation 28
3.1.1 Forest Rangeland Rehabilitation Environment & Management Strengthening
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
3.1.2 Kenya Coastal Management Program
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
3.1.3 Recommendations
3.2 Sustainable Nature-Focused Business Development 40
3.2.1 Forest Rangeland Rehabilitation Environment & Management Strengthening
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
3.2.2 Kenya Coastal Management Program
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
3.2.3 Kakamega
Situation
Analysis/Conclusion
3.2.4 Recommendations
3.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation 53
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
Recommendations
3.4 Cross-cutting Issues 57
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
Recommendations
3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting 59
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
Recommendations
3.6 Program Management and Implementation 63
Situation
Analysis/Conclusions
Recommendations
4.0 Major Conclusions 72
4.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation
4
4.2 Sustainable Nature-focused Business Development
4.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation
4.4 Cross-cutting Issues
4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting
4.6 Program Management and Implementation
5.0 Recommendations 76
5.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation
5.2 Sustainable Nature-focused Business Development
5.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation
5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting
5.5 Program Management and Implementation
List of Acronyms 6
Tables:
Table 1: Roles of the FORREMS Partners 28
Table 2: FORREMS and KCMP at a Glance 33
Table 3: Nature Based Enterprises 40
Table 4: Financial Benefits to Communities from Nature Based Enterprises 45
Figures:
Figure 1: Option #1: One Contractor or Grantee 13
Figure 2: Option #2: Two Grantees 14
Figure 3: SO #5 Results Framework 22
Annexes 81
Annex 1: Kenya Forestry and Coastal Mid-Term Review SOW
Annex 2: Team Member Special Report – M&E Indicators
Annex 3: Documents Reviewed
Annex 4: Emerging Opportunities and Directions (USAID/W, GoK, USAID/Kenya)
Annex 5: List of Contacts
Annex 6: Schedule and Work Plan of Review Team in Kenya (August - September 2006)
Annex 7: Summary Description of Partner Institutions
Annex 8: Best Practices/Lessons Learned in CBNRM and NBE Development
5
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AS
AWF
CAP
CB
Arabuko-Sokoke
African Wildlife Foundation
Community Action Plan
Community Based
CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management
CBO Community-Based Organization
CDA Coastal Development Authority
CFA
COP
CORE
Community Forest Association
Country Operational Plan (also Community Operational Plan of CFA plan)
Conservation of Resources through Enterprise
CRC Coastal Resources Center
CTO
DCMA
Cognizant Technical Officer
Diani-Chale Management Area
DCMC Diani-Chale Management Committee
DDC District Development Committee
DEO
EEZ
District Environment Officer
Exclusive Economic Zone
EMCA
EIA
Environmental Management & Coordination Agency
Environmental Impact Assessment
FAT Focal Area Team
FD Forestry Department
FiD Fisheries Department
FORREMS Forest/Rangeland Rehabilitation & Environment Management Strengthening
GoK
GIS
Government of Kenya
Geographical Information System
ICAM Integrated Coastal Area Management
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
INRM Integrated Natural Resource Management
IR Intermediate Result
IUCN World Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)
IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management
JKPB Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach
JKPBSHG Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach Self Help Group
KAHC Kenya Association of Hotel-keepers and Caterers
KCMI Kenya Coastal Management Initiative
KCMP
KEFRI
Kenya Coastal Management Program
Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KMF Kenya Marine Forum
KMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
LMMA Locally Managed Marine Areas
LUP Land Use Planning
LWF
M & E
Laikipia Wildlife Forum
Monitoring and Evaluation
MCM Municipal Council of Mombasa
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MTR Mid-Term Review
6
NBE
NEMA
Nature-Based Enterprise
National Environmental Management Authority
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NK
NMK
Nature Kenya
National Museums of Kenya
NRM Natural Resources Management
OCA Organizational Capacity Assessment
PFM plan
PILS
PMP
Participatory Forest Management plan
Project Implementation Letters
Performance Monitoring Plan
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
SO5 Strategic Objective 5
SOW
TD
Scope of Work
Tourism Department
TIST
TTF
The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program
Tourism Trust Fund
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
URI University of Rhode Island
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WRM Water Resources Management
7
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the USAID Kenya Forestry
and Coastal Management Programs, undertaken between August 5 and September 8, 2006.
The review focused on two of USAID/Kenya’s three natural resource management (NRM)
program sub-sectors, namely the Forestry Range Rehabilitation and Environmental
Management Strengthening (FORREMS) program (2003-2008) and the Kenya Coastal
Management Program (KCMP, 2004-2007). The programs are being implemented through nine
different grant agreements – either project implementation letters with specific Government of
Kenya (GoK) institutions or cooperative agreements with an NGO or private sector group.
The scope of work for this assignment called for a ‘robust review’ of FORREMS and KCMP
activities focusing on six project elements that we present as a major section of the Technical
Discussion chapter of this report. Implementation of these activities has involved a partnership
among government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs) working closely with
community-based organizations (CBOs) to address economic, policy, cultural and human
resource capacity challenges of conserving significant biologically diverse areas within Kenya.
The review team identified a number of priority issues:
• Inadequate level of devolution of authority to CBOs necessary to achieve the biodiversity
conservation and joint management objectives desired.
• Need for strategic approach to bring stakeholders of specific landscape systems
together for common conservation and management goals.
• System structures for program management, grants administration and oversight impede
effective implementation. Specifically, existing systems delay field-based
implementation and hinder the development of harmonized work plans and
empowerment of community members who are most directly linked to the natural
resources needing protection and improved management.
• Independence has not been sufficiently fostered in nature-based enterprises (NBEs) and
CBOs. GoK and NGO partners have been involved on a long-term basis supporting the
development of these organizations and have not developed the clear exit strategies that
would require establishing this independence.
• Need to revise indicators for better monitoring of results and impact assessments.
FORREMS and KCMP programs have benefited from capable and committed field program
personnel from both GoK and NGOs. The level of public-private partnership involvement has
been significant; field teams composed of GoK support personnel, community leaders and
NGOs are working together to solve complex problems linked to biodiversity conservation, with
socioeconomic benefits for communities beginning to appear. Both programs have also
operated under constraints that have limited on-the-ground impact. As a result, the real benefits
to communities have yet to be fully realized. With some refocus and change in overall program
management and coordination, significant benefits and impact should be possible by FY 2010.
Findings and Conclusions
Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation
Achieving biodiversity conservation goals and objectives is a long-term endeavor and must
include the direct participation of all major stakeholders within an identifiable, geographically
limited area where common interests can be developed and maintained over time.
8
While USAID has managed KCMP and FORREMS as two distinct programs, they are in
essence one biodiversity conservation program in which: 1) biodiverse landscapes should be
targeted; 2) biodiversity threats should be identified using a threats analysis; 3) interventions
should be designed to respond to the threats; 4) interventions should be implemented at a scale
where biodiversity results can be achieved; and 5) biodiversity conservation should be
monitored using appropriate indicators. Currently the programs are not being managed this
way. Furthermore, some FORREMS and KCMP activities fail to fulfill the biodiversity earmark
criteria.
Sustainable Nature-Based Enterprise (NBE) Development
NBEs are being developed under FORREMS and KCMP without a consistent analysis of their
compliance with USAID’s requirements for biodiversity programming and without an
assessment of their sustainability or the scale of their impact relative to threats being posed to
biodiversity. While various NBEs being supported by USAID are making valuable contributions,
the benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation or livelihood are unclear, because:
1. they have not been quantified (e.g., lack of biodiversity monitoring),
2. they are not projected (e.g., business plans were not developed in beginning),
3. they are not considered (e.g., biodiversity impacts of NBEs were not explicitly
considered in the formulation of the enterprise) or
4. they have not yet been realized (e.g., NBE has not yet been fully launched).
The scale of NBEs and the benefits they generate may be small relative to the threats posed to
biodiversity conservation and/or the funding provided. Therefore, questions regarding NBE
effectiveness as part of conservation efforts remain unanswered.
A threats-based approach would focus the NBE approach since the NBE interventions could be
designed to minimize those threats. Use of a landscape systems approach will help to ensure
that critical biodiversity areas are captured and interventions are designed to keep the
landscape intact and to maintain or rehabilitate landscape linkages. Awareness-raising about
biodiversity conservation is an important supporting role that NGOs can continue to play.
NBEs are being developed without a clear definition of their ownership structure and therefore
without a clear foundation for the long-term enterprise governance. This ambiguity can reduce
the effectiveness of partnerships between beneficiaries (such as producers and communities)
and sponsoring organizations (NGOs and government entities). It can also sow the seeds for
conflict over the distribution of any surpluses created by an NBE once it becomes successful.
When the primary partners do not have a clear understanding of the ownership of the enterprise
they are building, there can be conflicts in their respective interests about how to manage the
enterprise and its direction. Ownership structure defines not only who receives what
percentage of any surplus but also defines who has the authority to make decisions regarding
the fate of the business. Clarifying the ownership structure of an NBE from the very beginning
creates transparency, gives clearer incentives to each of the stakeholders and provides the
framework for an effective partnership. As such, a well-defined ownership is part of the formula
for creating successful NBEs.
Additional business analysis and technical advice are needed, such as, applying a value-chain
perspective; developing business plans and offering business management advice. Better
analysis and expanded business services would strengthen the efforts to create viable NBEs
that generate added value. First, bringing a “value chain” perspective to an existing or proposed
NBE provides the means for understanding better the challenges and opportunities that face the
NBE. Specifically, a value chain perspective considers all of the factors that, linked together,
9
form the basis of creating value in a particular market. In simplified terms, the value chain is
composed of the following linkages: Input Suppliers 
 Producers 
 Processors/ Packagers 

Marketers/Retailers
Consumers. These links can be examined both individually and
collectively to see where value can be created -- by eliminating obstacles (e.g., lack of technical
expertise for better modes of processing); by reducing constraints (e.g., inadequate capital
financing) or by pursuing opportunities (e.g., links to domestic and international buyers and
markets). Furthermore, a value chain perspective helps promote a market-driven orientation to
the NBE.
Champions of the new NBEs have emerged in a number of cases. A more systematic
approach could be taken to identifying and encouraging champions, organizing the NBE venture
to take advantage of their contributions and, as appropriate, putting more resources at their
disposal. These steps could enhance the chances for success in the NBE and can create a
basis for scaling up the enterprise.
Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation
Forestry Policy: participatory forest management (PFM) pilots are in line with the new policy;
however, if PFM interventions are not supported during this interim period (before the Forest Act
is fully operationalized), the momentum to implement PFM will be lost.
Coastal Policy: USAID has supported policy development in the coastal/marine sector without
significant results.
Cross-Cutting Issues
Many of the activities already initiated with women and youth groups within the prioritized
landscapes deserve continued support but should be scaled up to a level sufficient to become
financially feasible and can also have an impact on the threats to biodiversity within the
landscape.
The landscape systems approach is the ideal model to achieve results in many cross-cutting
themes within specific ecologically important and threatened areas. Major conflicts among
stakeholders competing for the same natural resources may be prevented or significantly
diminished through building consensus and a common vision for their landscape.
Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting
Current SO 5 indicators for FORREMS and KCMP should be significantly revised or
administered differently. This revision includes a greater focus on biodiversity conservation
goals (i.e. reduced threats to biodiversity as well as better defined, expected impacts for target
communities who will benefit from community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)
engagements (for example, PFM) and NBEs. The implicit program hypothesis is that activities
being undertaken will lessen threats to both protected areas and other natural resources,
including forest and marine reserves. Current indicators provide little useful information of this
kind
FORREMS and KCMP indicators fail to relate their impact on biodiversity conservation.
Possible biodiversity indicators are: (1) a flagship/keystone species that can be monitored
annually and that gives an indication of overall ecosystem health; (2) one or more species of
fish that gives an indication if fishermen’s improved practices (net size) are having positive
effects on fisheries; (3) the state of coral along the coast and (4) the number of
encroachments/illegal activities reported in target protected forests.
10
To develop revised indicators, beneficiaries should be involved in a participatory process to
identify indicators that have meaning for local people and that are realistic and measurable.
Future assessments and decision making with respect to indicators should include reviews with
local community leaders within the target landscapes. If local people, who are the focus of better
and more sustainable NRM practices, do not see improvement or change for the better, then
positive impacts will not occur. Program leaders need to understand how local landscape
stakeholders will recognize ‘improvement’ to their resources base and the benefits they receive.
Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) has already begun a process of this kind with Mukogodo Forest
group ranch communities that could be adapted to other program areas in the future.
Program Management and Implementation
FORREMS and KCMP use the same general approach. Both programs are working with
communities to operationalize the policy and regulatory framework of specific CBNRM/PFM co￾management activities to generate employment, increase incomes and conserve biodiversity in
critical forest and marine areas.
The mechanisms used to finance activities under these two programs have inhibited program
performance. Neither USAID/Kenya’s “Advance System” nor “Reimbursement System” of
financial accounting has worked well with GoK institutions – though KWS and KEFRI have
managed better than FD. GoK partners have been trying to provide on-the-ground support to
both the FORREMS and KCMP program partners but have been seriously compromised by
funding delays and logistic constraints. Furthermore, it was very difficult, sometimes impossible,
for all partners to prepare and execute joint work plans within common sites of intervention. For
example, while PACT Kenya received its funds through the Coastal Development Authority
(CDA), Nature Kenya and LWF both had cooperative agreements directly with USAID that
permitted implementation of their own activities but FD did have access to funding during the
past twelve months.
In contrast, future funding should flow though a central program unit for FORREMS and KMCP
that will be responsible for overall coordination of activities, including managing sub-agreements
for clearly agreed’ upon services from GoK agencies (FD, KWS, KEFRI, NMK, Marine Service,
CDA, Fisheries Department), NGOs and yet-to-be identified private sector enterprise
development agencies and experts. This outcome can be accomplished by either enlarging
cooperative agreements with current program partners or by issuing a competitive procurement
for an overall program leader. Such a procurement should result in more efficient management
of the combined activities and reduce USAID’s management burden. Under this arrangement, it
is important that the central program unit ensure that each relevant partner is involved in
applicable work plan preparation so that funds can be appropriately allocated by program
leaders.
An existing NGO could serve as a management entity to provide overall coordination for a
FORREMS and KCMP program unit, rather than rely on USAID’s direct management or on GoK
management. The Review Team considered Nature Kenya and Laikipia Wildlife Forum as the
institutions in the best position to coordinate USAID funding and activities within their respective
areas, if a two-pronged approach were to be adopted for future combined FORREMS and
KCMP activities. Ideally, however, overall program coordination for a combined FORREMS and
KCMP program would be led by a single organization.
Numerous pilot studies, general resource management plans and inventories of biodiversity
resources have been completed within both FORREMS and KCMP but no clear business or
11
marketing plans exist and efforts to operationalize existing management plans have barely
begun. Doing so must be a priority for future efforts.
Recommendations
Links to Biodiversity Conservation
Use a landscape, threats-based approach, concentrating efforts to achieve greatest
impact, and targeting the following landscapes:
1. Mt. Kenya Forest: Meru or Nyeri District;
2. Mukogodo Forest and four group ranches;
3. Arabuko Sokoke Forest, expand to include Mida Creek (including mangroves), Watamu
and Malindi Marine Park, and associated private and public stakeholders and
4. One additional landscape, depending on resources available and ability to fulfill
landscape approach criteria: Wasini-Shimoni-Vanga: including Wasini Island, Kisite
Marine Park and Mpunguti Marine Reserve and Shimba Hills NR; Diani-Chale
landscape: including Kaya Diani fishing community and Diani-Chale Marine Reserve; or
Mombasa coastal landscape, including Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach (Nyali-Bamburi￾Shanzu), Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park.
A landscape should be targeted based on the following criteria: (1) its biodiversity value; (2)
potential for creating a forum of stakeholders willing to engage and work as partners towards a
common goal and (3) potential to address threats to biodiversity conservation and produce
results. Local partners would define landscape boundaries in a participatory fashion.
Ensure interventions fulfill the biodiversity Congressional earmark language.
Continue to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation, especially to ensure that those
involved in NBEs have the information they need to build sustainable use into their
enterprises.
Sustainable Nature-Based Enterprise (NBE) Development
Apply a more strategic vision and more systematic evaluation of candidate NBEs in
USAID investment decisions in order to assure highest “return”.
Each NBE should be evaluated in terms of its actual or projected performance relative to the
following criteria:
a. Contributes to biodiversity conservation;
b. Improves livelihoods of poor communities (especially those who live near
biodiversity resources and/or use them);
c. Can be sustained by given date without outside subsidies and
d. Is replicable.
Clarify ownership of NBE (and therefore, profit-sharing) earlier in the establishment of
the business. Ideally this should be done right at the beginning to create transparency and give
clear signals to all stakeholders. Long-term roles of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) need to
be specified in the business plan for each NBE to define whether they are interim facilitators or
long-term partners.
Expand business services to new and existing NBEs (identification of markets; linkages
with domestic and international buyers and enterprise management).
Find “champions” – entrepreneurs - and assist them to scale up.
12
Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation
Give priority to completing Community Action/Operational Plans and signing PFM
agreements between CFAs and the FD so that Action/Operational Plans are ready to be
implemented once FD finalizes Forest Act implementation guidelines.
Support development of a “forum” as an outgrowth of the landscape approach in the
coastal/marine environment (AS Forest expanded landscape); and once empowered,
depending on resources and capacity, facilitate the forum to promote the development of
a coastal-marine policy.
Approach to Performance Monitoring
Completely revise or administer differently the 13 indicators currently being used by the
FORREMS and KCMP programs under SO5 to provide clearer guidance to assess
success of field activities in meeting program objectives.
Revise current SO5 indicators to reflect more impact upon target communities who are to
benefit from the program’s CBNRM engagements (for example, PFM plans) and NBEs.
Review indicators with community leaders within the target landscapes.
Document success stories.
Create at least one biodiversity indicator per landscape that addresses key threats.
Program Management/Coordination and Contract Administration
Reformulate institutional arrangements with partners to improve program management,
coordination and contract administration.
OPTION #1 (RECOMMENDED): Establish one program management unit for FORREMS and
KCMP with a commitment to engage in the landscape systems approach using a membership
forum of stakeholders to develop a common vision and work plan along the lines of the
approach applied by LWF.
.
This proposed institutional reformulation would significantly reduce USAID SO5’s management
burden. Ideally, there should be one program management unit for both FORREMS and KCMP
that will coordinate one overall work plan for each landscape system, monitor, report, disburse
funds, and liaise between USAID and partners in various field programs. This organization
would have funds specifically committed to support GoK institutions at the field implementation
level, as well as funds for making grants or subcontracts for specific tasks to NGOs and private
sector entities identified to accomplish specific tasks within a common vision for specific
landscapes, as recommended above. This option could be implemented in one of two ways:
OPTION #1A: Expand an existing Cooperative Agreement to assume responsibility for
overall program coordination.
OPTION #1B: Solicit competitive proposals from national and international organizations.
Expanding an existing grantee’s mandate to become the overall program coordinator offers
several advantages, including ease of startup (by virtue of having a program already in place)
and a record of relevant experience. The MTR Team noted attributes of the LWF program that
could be adapted to other landscapes, which would reinforce and support the work of Nature
Kenya and other existing grantees. The objective of having one program manager, as is
13
One Contractor
Mukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/
Malindi/Watamu MP,MR Landscape
OPTIONAL:
(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape
(2) Diani-Chale Landscape
(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal Landscape
Grants Management Unit
One Contractor or Grantee
Program Manager #1 Program Manager #2
USAID
GOK NGOs
NBEs
proposed under this option, is to retain the current set of grant activities while also better
organizing their collective results.
Soliciting competitive proposals, as proposed under Option #1B, opens up more options for
obtaining program management expertise. It would, however, require more time and
processing than the option of expanding an existing Cooperative Agreement.
Figure 1: Option #1
OPTION #2: Channel all combined FORREMS/KCMP funding activities through one institution
in and around Mt. Kenya area (including Laikipia) and another at the coast. In this scenario, the
most appropriate institutions would be LWF and Nature Kenya; with a commitment by all to
engage in the landscape systems approach being implemented by LWF – using a ‘membership
forum of stakeholders’ to develop a common vision and work plan.
14
Mukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/
Malindi/Watamu MP,MR Landscape
OPTIONAL:
(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape
(2) Diani-Chale Landscape
(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal Landscape
LWF
Nature Kenya
USAID
Grants
Mgmt
Unit
Grants
Mgmt
Unit
GOK NGOs
GOK NGOs
NBEs NBEs
Figure 2: Option #2
Under either option:
LWF and NK currently have Cooperative Agreements with USAID and both have developed
accounting/financial systems that are sound but that would need to be expanded.
A separate source of funding for GoK institutions would be necessary, and managed directly by
USAID, for any central level support USAID might wish to provide these institutions. Such funds
would not be for field-based implementation activities.
A grants management unit or units would be established under the cooperative agreement
holder(s) and would serve GoK, NGO and other grant recipients using separate pools of
funding, with the objective of getting funds as close to ‘ground level’ as possible so that they can
be accessed faster, when needed, as part of one work plan for each landscape system.
Use local expertise whenever possible and provide increased opportunities for local
people whose capacity has been developed through the program as a first option before
bringing in outside expertise. Increased responsibilities for local individuals give the
opportunity to expand their roles as leaders within their communities, as well as extend their
expertise more regionally.
Within specific geographic areas of effort – focus, focus – rather than continue to
support so many partners and so many activities. Focus on a few programs that have real
promise of impact by the end of the project (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to date
and move from planning phase to implementation.
Continue funding capacity building in GoK, where a clear service can be defined, and
where it is specifically linked to CBNRM or a NBE. A special pool of funding should be
available at the national level for GoK logistical support targeted to specific outputs within the
landscape approach. Priority support should be given to fast-tracking FD ability to operationalize
15
existing PFM plans. This support could perhaps be channeled through the soon-to-be recruited
USAID-supported transaction advisor who will be supporting FD’s transition to a parastatal.
16
Mid-Term Evaluation: Kenya Forest and Coastal Management Programs
1.0 Introduction
The timing of this review is significant from several points of view. The Government of Kenya
(GoK) has recently passed new policies, which could significantly impact the relationship
between the Forest Department (FD) and local communities – with an emphasis on
decentralization and local community empowerment to manage natural resources. The FD is in
transition to a parastatal mode much like that of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), using a
service-oriented approach with the ability to charge for its services. The Kenya Forestry
Research Institute (KEFRI) and the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) each have new five-year
strategic plans, which need to be taken into account in future FORREMS and KCMP activities.
Finally, USAID itself is undergoing a new relationship with the U.S. State Department.
While USAID Kenya’s SO #5 strategic framework continues to be a foundational and guiding
vision for overall NRM and biodiversity conservation program development, recent directives
from the newly created Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (S/F) in Washington
D.C. will lead to new changes – including changes to the USAID Kenya’s new Country
Operational Plan (COP) and overall Strategic Framework for Africa, completed in September
2005 and described below.
1 The new Director has charged USAID missions to frame all future
program activities within a new paradigm, which is still evolving. Five priority objectives have
been defined,
2
and USAID/Kenya’s biodiversity/NRM program activities may be placed under
the overall label of “Investing in People”. Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity
conservation programs will be integrated within the program. Before this, USAID had completed
a newly developed Strategic Framework for Africa in 2005. New five-year strategy statements
and corresponding three-year operational plans being developed are now on hold until these
new directions are further clarified. This review will provide new information and
recommendations which we hope will assist USAID as it establishes priorities for future NRM
and biodiversity conservation efforts within Kenya. Coming changes will provide new
opportunities and directions, some of which are explored in Annex 4.
1.1 USAID Strategic Framework for Africa
In September 2005, USAID presented its new thinking about the role of foreign assistance for
Africa.
3 First of all, U.S. strategic and foreign policy interests are placed “front and center, in
keeping with USG recognition that U.S. economic development is one of the three tools of
foreign policy”.
4 Foreign aid would be provided within a new framework with recognized
countries in “transformational development” and countries in “fragile states”. Approaches would
be different for each. USAID/Washington would also, in the future, provide a more directional
role to country-level USAID missions ‘to ensure that funds would be allocated where the
greatest likelihood of significant impact’ could be realized. Kenya is a ‘transformational
1
This new office will serve as an ‘umbrella leadership structure for aligning and coordinating all foreign assistance
policy, planning and oversight’, with the USAID Administrator reporting to State. This brings USAID and the State
Department together in a new relationship intended to reduce duplication, ad hoc decision making, fragmentation of
activities and approaches and bring greater coherence, strategic impact, and accountability among programs,
policies, and goals (State Department cable dated May 13, 2006).
2
(1) Peace and Security, (2) governing justly and democratically, (3) investing in people, (4) economic growth, and
(5) humanitarian assistance (Ambassador Randall Tobias, Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, Administrator of
USAID, “Focusing U.S. Foreign Assistance to Support Transformational Diplomacy”, May 2006.
3
Strategic Framework for Africa, USAID, Washington DC, September 28, 2005.
4
Strategic Framework for Africa, page 1, 2005.
17
development’ country. Among the priorities: supporting the effectiveness of African institutions
to promote ‘a vibrant private sector and democratic governance’. Crosscutting issues such as
governance, gender, urbanization, youth, and lessening the impact of HIV/AIDS must be
addressed, as appropriate, in all programs. Use of indigenous expertise is strongly encouraged
and efforts to leverage private sector involvement and donor harmonization and coordination
considered critical. Finally, key U.S. foreign policy goals for Africa were defined to include: (1)
improved human rights and good governance, (2) expanded trade and investment though the
private sector, (3) counter-terrorism, (4) conflict prevention and mitigation, (5) HIV/AIDS
prevention, and (6) natural resource protection.
1.2 USAID Kenya Country Operational Plan
USAID/Kenya’s most recent Strategy Statement, submitted to USAID/Washington in December
2005, covers the period 2006-2011. The Mission’s Operational Goals are to: (1) foster a
healthier, better-educated, and more productive population and (2) increase the effectiveness of
Kenyan institutions in promoting a vibrant private sector and democratic governance. While
Kenya has the foundation for sustainable development, it also demonstrates elements of
fragility. The country is surrounded by fragile states and has porous borders; many of its
citizens have been marginalized politically, socially, and economically over a sustained period of
time; it has significant populations that are food insecure; and there is a history of localized
conflicts over resources. Conflict mitigation, humanitarian assistance, and support to
marginalized and vulnerable populations are therefore integrated into the Kenya country
program. The Strategy Statement identified a number of development constraints.
5
1.3 Biodiversity Earmark
The FORREMS Program and KCMP are entirely funded through the Congressional earmark for
biodiversity. With the increasing scrutiny of funds attributed to the biodiversity earmark
(including a possible audit by the General Accounting Office, as earmarks in the health sector
have experienced), USAID/Kenya will be held to a more stringent definition of activities that fall
under the earmark.
5
(1) Democracy and Institutions of Governance: Kenya’s democratic promise has been tarnished by the reality
that personal rule within the executive continues to eclipse the rule of law.
(2) Weak Governance and Corruption: Kenya has experienced moderate economic growth over the past two
years and it has adopted a number of economic reforms. Nonetheless, the country continues to suffer from an
economic malaise, caused in part by mismanagement and corruption.
(3) Low Levels of Investment: The levels of new foreign and domestic investment have not increased as much
as expected following the 2002 elections; low productivity-low income is directly related to low labor productivity,
which is correlated with the educational and health status of the population.
(4) HIV/AIDS: HIV/AIDS affects the well being and productivity of the individual, the human resource losses
weaken governance and national institutions, and the need to treat those affected, including orphans and vulnerable
children, results in the re-allocation of public and private resources away from productive investment.
(5) Rapid Population Growth: Each year more than a half million young Kenyans enter the labor force, and the
formal sector is only able to absorb a small percentage of this growth with most people finding employment either in
the informal sector or on increasingly small parcels of agricultural land.
(6) Gender: While progress is being made in addressing gender inequities as evidenced by the efforts to expand
educational opportunities for girls and the debate over women’s rights associated with the recent constitutional
referendum, there is much to be done.
(7) Environment: Kenya’s extraordinary biodiversity and its habitats are under continual threat from the
pressure of rapidly increasing human populations and the illegal exploitation by loggers, fishing trawlers, and
poachers. The quality of many agricultural, grazing, migratory, and forested areas is declining due to overuse and
encroachment. Farming continues to expand into marginal areas, resulting in decreased yields, degradation of land,
and increased conflict among resource users.
18
A process is being put in place whereby operating units will self-certify that their biodiversity
attributions meet the code and regional bureaus will be held responsible for assuring this
standard and for maintaining documentation.
6 The USAID geographic Bureau Environmental
Officer will be required to review and concur that activities attributed to the biodiversity earmark
are appropriate. According to FY 2006 USAID/EGAT/B guidance, to be considered a
biodiversity program, the following criteria must be met (emphasis added):
• The program must have an explicit biodiversity objective. It is not enough to have
biodiversity conservation result as a positive externality from another program.
• Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity.
• The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation.
• Site-based programs must have the intent to positively impact biologically significant
areas.
1.4 Mid Term Review (MTR): Purpose, Methodology, and Scope of Work
1.4.1 Purpose:
As described in the original Scope of Work (SOW) for this mid-term review, USAID/Kenya has
requested that the review team:
(1) Review the relevance of USAID’s forestry and coastal management activities and results relative
to programming changes in USAID’s NRM sector. USAID/Kenya NRM program will focus on
conservation of biodiversity.
(2) Provide recommendations for re-orientation and modification of approaches, and priority
activities, as necessary, so that the Mission’s forestry and coastal management programs
optimize their effectiveness during the remaining years and fit within the biodiversity guidelines
and the new Africa Bureau Strategic framework; and
(3) Review the effectiveness of the overall implementation approach, including use of several
partners to implement the FORREMS and KCMP programs; potential means for enhancing
overall program implementation effectiveness, including identification of activities that can be
integrated; and at the same time achieve the Mission’s overriding objective of conservation of
biodiversity.
This review is therefore expected:
“To revisit the assumptions, parameters, and expected results to be achieved under (USAID’s)
on-going programs, with a view to revising the activities as appropriate to effectively respond to
emerging issues and opportunities”.
7
1.4.2 Methodology:
The PA Consulting, Inc. review team used a participatory and collaborative approach, through
four phases. Phase 1 consisted of developing an understanding of the overall program under
review through developing an operational work plan at a joint meeting with USAID and program
stakeholders, leading to a Schedule and Work Plan (cf. Annex 6).
8 Phase 2 involved two weeks
of data gathering and identification of key issues among stakeholders and community level
6 April 2006 NRM sector council meeting minutes, USAID.
7 USAID/Kenya Forestry and Coastal Programs Mid-Term Review Scope of Work, August 2005, p. 6.
8
Initial meetings were held in Nairobi with program leaders of government departments (Forest Department, Kenya
Wildlife Service, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, National Museums of Kenya, NEMA, CDA), NGO partners
(African Wildlife Foundation, Laikipia Wildlife Forum, Nature Kenya, PACT/Kenya), and USAID/Kenya SO 5 program
management about overall initial strategic directions and future plans. An initial version of the proposed Draft Report
Table of Contents was prepared, with each section assigned to specific members of the team to take the lead in
drafting and coordinating input from the other members of the team. A proposed schedule of meetings and field visits
was discussed jointly with USAID and major stakeholders.
19
project beneficiaries at each of the field implementation sites of both FORREMS and KCMP
programs along the coast, near Mombasa, and at sites around Mt. Kenya.
9
Week four initiated Phase 3, which involved analysis of lessons learned and the preparation of
the Draft Report. Phase 4 began with the review team’s PowerPoint presentation and
discussions of key conclusions and recommendations from the Draft Report with sixteen
program leaders of USAID and stakeholder groups managing and implementing FORREMS and
KCMP. Those present included key representatives from USAID, Forest Department, Kenya
Wildlife Service, Nature Kenya, Laikipia Wildlife Forum, KEFRI, PACT Kenya, and TIST
Kenya.
10 The Draft Report was submitted to USAID for review.
1.5 The Mid Term Review (MTR) Team
The evaluation team consisted of three US professionals with extensive development
experience, backstopped by PA Consulting support in draft reviews and final document
formatting. No team member had any direct prior experience with either the FORREMS or
KCMP programs in Kenya. As such, the team was able to conduct a truly objective examination
of the program and its performance and impact to date. The team members brought the
following expertise and had the indicated roles:
• Dr. Richard A. Swanson, economic anthropologist, project management specialist and
review team leader, focused on overall monitoring and evaluation/assessment
methodology, with a secondary focus on institutional and organizational capacity building
needs and internal USAID management of this program.
• Ms. Karen Menczer is the MTR Team’s biodiversity specialist with the primary focus of
assessing the links and contributions of FORREMS and KCMP to biodiversity
conservation; and a secondary focus of assessing the programs’ support to GoK’s
enabling environment for biodiversity conservation.
• Dr. Greg Michaels, environmental economist and business management specialist
focused on constraints, opportunities, and models for enhancing competitiveness of
nature-based enterprises and economic analysis of natural resources use and
management.
• Mr. Walter Weaver of PA Consulting provided technical review and quality control from
the home office. Mr. Rick Thibault served as the branding specialist to provide
deliverables that are fully compliant with USAID branding and accessibility requirements.
This team collectively brought to this review many years of professional experience with ‘what
works’ and best practices learned in CBNRM programs and NBE development activities from
many parts of the world, but specifically in Africa. It was through this prism that FORREMS and
9 One team member visited ICIPE’s activities in Kakamega to bring in new ideas from programs there. To assess
impact, document performance, and develop recommendations, the team sought to corroborate its information base
by using multiple data sources to develop conclusions and recommendations. The team obtained its primary data
though reading of available project documentation (cf. Annex 3), interviews with both key individuals and focus group
discussions (cf. Annex 5), and direct field observations (cf. field notes). The team compiled extensive information
from these meetings.
10 At this meeting, we sought to build ownership of the final product through verbal and written comments, reviews,
and questions from participants. Requests were made to participants for elaboration or modification of issues of
concern so that they might be considered and possibly integrated by the Team Leader into the Final Report in Phase
4. The draft report was given to USAID/Kenya, who furnished electronic copies to the above key partners for their
review. With the subsequent departure of the team from Kenya, the Team Leader received continuing input from
team members who by this time had returned to their home bases, via – email communications - particularly with
respect to core conclusions and recommendations. USAID and other program stakeholders also sent comments on
draft and debriefing meeting issues.
20
KCMP activities were observed and conclusions and recommendations drawn. Annex 8
provides a brief summary of these ‘best practices’ as background.
21
2.0 USAID/SO 5 Program
USAID Kenya’s Strategic Objective # 5 program includes three natural resource management
program sub-sectors – a continuing wildlife program (with PACT USA as a lead contractor) plus
the current FORREMS and KCMP programs. This Mid-Term Review focuses on the latter two
programs.
USAID Kenya has been a long-term supporter of Kenya’s rich biodiverse resource areas,
through both GoK wildlife management programs and NGOs work with local communities in
improved natural resource management systems associated with wildlife (e.g. ZEBRA and
COBRA, and then CORE programs). Until FY 2001, the focus remained on wildlife. However,
beginning in FY 2003, USAID Kenya initiated the FORREMS and KCMP initiatives, following
lessons learned from the CORE project. These programs were intended to ‘impact forest-based
enterprises and empower constituencies to implement the Environmental Management and
Coordination Act (EMCA)’ of 2000.
11
USAID initiated support to forestry and biodiversity conservation initiatives in Kenya in FY 2002,
under both FORREMS and KCMP, to an increasing number of both public and private (NGO)
institutions through its Strategic Objective #5: “Improved Natural Resources Management in
Targeted Biodiverse Areas by and for Stakeholders”. Geographic focus was in:
(1) Jomo Kenyata Public Beach activities, Fishermen and Boat Associations (KCMP)
(2) Diani Chale: Mwaepe Fishing Group (KCMP)
(3) Wasini Island, Woman’s Board Walk, with Shimoni and Kisite (KCMP)
(4) Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve (FORREMS)
(5) Mukogodo Forest (FORREMS)
(6) Mt. Kenya Forest Reserves (selected)(FOREMS)
(7) Laikipia-Samburu (FORREMS)
(8) Taita-Taveta (FORREMS)
The current SO 5 framework (cf. Figure 3 below) specifies funding from FY 2001 through FY
2010, with the end date of September 30, 2011. In developing its recommendations, the
Review Team therefore assumed this four-year future time frame to undertake possible
modifications and reorientation of current program activities. Beginning in the current fiscal year,
funding levels were requested at about $6 million/year within this Strategic Objective. This
funding would support the on-going efforts of FORREMS, KCMP, as well as on-going activities
within the wildlife sector (with KWS, and others), and provide a ‘transaction advisor’ within the
Forest Department to assist in their evolution into a parastatal, along the KWS model. Current
future projections, within this SO, for FORREMS and KCMP are about $1 million/year (about
$700,000 for FORREMS, and $300,000 to KCMP).
12
All GoK institutions on both FORREMS and KCMP have received their funding through Project
Implementation Letters (PILS), which initially were based on a 3-month revolving fund system,
but were then changed to a reimbursement system (based on receipts). Nature Kenya and
LWF had cooperative agreements directly with USAID, while TIST received Global
Development Alliance funding.
Long-term expected impacts of the current SO 5 include (1) an increase in the number of
hectares benefiting from sustainable natural resource management practices in targeted areas,
11
Forestry Report, USAID Kenya Activities, (undated).
12
Actual funding levels received by USAID Kenya can be very different from those requested or anticipated,
depending on annual appropriations by Congress and changing socio-political realities.
22
and (2) an increase in the number of concerned community households and individuals actively
associated in these efforts. USAID seeks:
(1) “Vibrant, community-based, civil society organizations that advocate for biodiversity
conservation and who are undertaking conservation measures;
(2) An improved legal and policy framework to support natural resource management;
(3) A national biodiversity strategy developed, and 1.5 million hectares put under improved
natural resources management, and
(4) Constituencies for public/private sector investment in natural resource management.”
13
13
Strategy Statement for USAID/Kenya: FY 2006-2010, December 2005, p. 6.
23
2.1 SO # 5 Framework
This SO 5 Strategic Framework provided the overall matrix through which both FORREMS and
KCMP program activities were to be monitored and eventually evaluated. Indicators developed
were supposed to help in program management and assessing eventual impact, and reporting
to USAID Washington. The effectiveness of these indicators to provide the necessary
Figure 3. SO 5 RESULTS FRAMEWORK
IR5.1.1
Appropriate NRM tools and
technologies adopted
IR5.1.3
Improved local
decision-making based on
monitoring and analysis
IR5.1.2
Integrated community
NRM plans established
IR5.1.4
Nature-focused business
practices improved
Organizational capacity
of target CBOs improved
IR5.1.5
Intermediate Result 5.1
Site specific initiatives
for NRM implemented
outside protected areas
Intermediate Result 5.2
Encroachment and
subdivision reduced
[SO7, MOA, MLS]
Intermediate Result 5.3
Improved management
of protected areas
Strategic Objective 5
Improved natural resources management
in targeted biodiverse areas
by and for stakeholders
IRs to which USAID
contributes but is not
primarily responsible
USAID to take
material responsibility
Intermediate Result 5.4
Environmental policy
and legislative reform
advanced
I.R5.4.1 Policy
departments within
selected GoK
environmental
institutions
strengthened
I.R 5.4.2 Constituencies
supporting improved
NRM strengthened
I.R5.3.1 Improved
availability and
analysis of data for
decision making
24
management and monitoring information will be discussed under the M&E sections below and in
Annex 2.
2.2 Forestry Range Rehabilitation & Environmental Management Strengthening
FORREMS is a five-year (2003-2008) program that is strengthening GoK institutions by
providing capacity building, technical assistance, and material support to improve forest
management, rangeland conservation, and environmental management. It is working with
community NR user groups to build organizational capacity so they can actively participate in
conservation and in development of NBEs. SO 5’s support to community beneficiaries is
intended to provide incentives and build advocates for improved NRM and biodiversity
conservation.
FORREMS’ geographic focus areas are: Mukogodo Forest and associated group ranches; Mt.
Kenya Forest Reserve and associated communities; Arabuko Sokoke Forest and associated
communities (Kenya’s north coast); and other areas (none visited by the MTR Team), including
Rumuruti forest ecosystems, Aberdares, Ngong Hills, and Taita Hills. (See Table 2 in the
following section).
Government partners are: Forest Department, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Kenya
Wildlife Service, National Museums-Kenya, and National Environmental Management Agency.
NGO partners are: Nature Kenya, ICIPE, Ideal Business Links, TIST, Laikipia Wildlife Forum,
and [soon to be awarded] Green Belt Movement. Annex 7 contains descriptions of these
organizations.
2.3 Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP)
KCMP is a three-year (2004-2007) program to enhance coastal management and combat
pressure along Kenya’s coastline, using an integrated coastal area management (ICAM)
approach. KCMP strengthens ICAM outside marine protected areas to demonstrate tangible
governance and community benefits; expands stakeholder capacity and participation in the
ICAM process; and builds a constituency that can support and catalyze coastal policy dialogue.
USAID supports NBE development in the coastal region as a means to alleviate poverty and
reduce the pressure on natural resources, with the ultimate aim of conserving the coastal zone’s
critical biodiversity; and mitigates environmental impacts to the coastal and marine environment.
KCMP targeted three geographic sites: Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach; Diani-Chale; and Shimoni￾Vanga (including Wasini Island). Site-specific KCMP interventions within these zones are
described in Table 2.
USAID partners in the KCMP are the Coastal Development Authority (CDA, a GoK parastatal
institution) and PACT-Kenya. CDA provides overall KCMP project coordination and monitoring;
provides TA in coastal development; and with the wider KCMP team, assists in implementation
of activities. PACT-Kenya provides capacity strengthening in organizational and enterprise
development.
2.4 FORREMS and KCMP: Key Themes and Underlying Assumptions
The following assumptions and themes underlie FORREMS and KCMP:
25
(1) Poverty is the main driver of unsustainable and illegal natural resource exploitation. “Poverty
is a direct result of natural resource degradation that comes from too many people making
unsustainable demands on a resource base that is shrinking in quality and quantity. Poverty
also perpetuates and drives this degradation”.
14
(2) Expanding human populations, especially into marginal areas, is leading to increasing
conflicts—human-wildlife conflicts and conflicts among human natural resource users
(3) When stakeholders are empowered to make decisions about natural resource use—and
when they are actually benefiting from natural resource use (tangible benefits derived from
commercial or subsistence uses, and intangible benefits mainly related to cultural values), they
will become better stewards of the environment and can be the strongest advocates for
biodiversity conservation.
(4) Severe constraints restrict opportunities to expand and diversify rural incomes. There are
few economic pursuits apart from subsistence farming in which rural residents are engaged; for
example, 69 percent and 82 percent of the rural populations in Mt. Kenya and Malindi coastal
zone respectively depend on subsistence farming for their livelihoods.
(5) Livelihoods must be diversified to relieve pressure on the natural resource base.
(6) Conflicts over natural resources and the inter-related nature of the natural resource base
point to the landscape as the appropriate level within which to work with stakeholders and
beneficiaries, and at which to manage conflicts and resources.
These common themes run through both FORREMS and KCMP and are the basis for
interventions. The underlying assumption, or hypothesis, of both programs is that by
empowering stakeholders to participate in the management of the natural resource base, and to
benefit from natural resources, they will become better stewards of the environment and
advocate for conservation. To achieve greatest impact, both FORREMS and KCMP embrace
the landscape approach, although with varying degrees of success (as described below).
As defined in the FORREMS Activity Approval Document, a ‘landscape’ is a geographic area
that contains inter-related ecological, social, institutional, and enabling conditions.
15 The Wildlife
Conservation Society defines a landscape as, “an area large enough, with the appropriate
composition, configuration, and connectivity of habitats to support functional populations of the
biodiversity present and to preserve ecosystem services for both wildlife and people.” The MTR
Team adds to that definition: ‘including the appropriate stakeholders, both socio-economic,
cultural, and political’.
A landscape approach “forces an integrated analysis of a target area’s characteristics, of its
potential for development and of the subtle relationships that influence the health of the
whole”.
16
In a landscape approach, a landscape area is targeted based on its biodiversity value;
stakeholder willingness to engage and work as partners towards a common goal; and potential
for interventions to address threats to biodiversity conservation—the potential to produce
results. Key to the landscape approach is that a promising landscape is targeted and
interventions are at appropriate scale to address the identified threats. All stakeholders—GoK,
14 USAID/Kenya, AAD 2002
15 USAID/Kenya, June 12, 2002
16 USAID/Kenya, June 12, 2002.
26
NGOs, CBOs, and the private sector, including the full range of stakeholders with subsistence,
commercial, and cultural interests in the area (hotels, banks tourism agencies, etc.) - are
mobilized and incorporated into the decision-making process to arrive at common purposes and
goals.
27
3.0 Technical Discussion
3.1 Linkages to Biodiversity Conservation
3.1.1 FORREMS
The roles of the FORREMS partners are shown below.
Table 1: Roles of the FORREMS Partners
Institution Role in FORREMS
Forest Department Key partner for forest management, conservation, and monitoring; partner with communities
in PFM pilots; provides TA to communities and NGOs.
Kenya Forest Research Institute Research and inventories and dissemination of research findings and technologies to
communities and NGOs; monitoring NRs; providing technical advice to CBOs and NGOs in
PFM and rehabilitation techniques
Kenya Wildlife Service M and E role for FORREMS’ partners; key partner in wildlife management and conservation
in forest areas.
National Museums-Kenya Provides technical guidance in the development of Arabuko Sosoke NBEs, and assists in
identifying markets; organizes and strengthens ASF CBOs working in NBEs.
National Environmental
Management Authority
Mitigates and monitors environmental impacts of development activities and
implements/facilitates rehabilitation of degraded lands; builds capacity of District
Environmental Committees and District Environmental Officers.
Nature Kenya Program management and coordination of FORREMS’ activities in Arabuko Sokoke Forest;
works with CBOs to strengthen their organizational capacity so they can more effectively
engage in PFM and NBE development.
Ideal Business Links
(Subcontractor)
Provides targeted assistance to link products to markets
ICIPE (Sub-awardee) Provides technical expertise in product development and value added technologies
TIST Mobilizes community groups to plant trees and track status for the bio-carbon market; and
empowers groups to undertake community development initiatives.
Laikipia Wildlife Foundation Mobilizes Mukogodo group ranch communities and strengthens their capacities to engage
in improved rangeland and dry forest management and development of NBEs; and provides
overall direction for management and conservation activities in the Mukogodo area.
Depending on the site, FORREMS’ interventions include producing natural resources
management plans; conducting natural resource inventories; producing business plans for
NBEs; capacity building for GoK institutions and CBOs that are working in NBE development
and NRM rehabilitation of rangelands and natural forests; on-farm tree planting; establishing
nurseries; developing water sources, working with CBOs to strengthen their capacity to develop
and manage NBEs; preparing pilot PFM initiatives and advancing policies on forestry and the
environment. As part of its institutional strengthening, FORREMS provided important logistical
support (computers, furniture, vehicles) and infrastructure to the FD, KWS, KEFRI, and NEMA.
Situation
1. Landscape Approach and Biodiversity Value
As stated in the FORREMS AAD, implementation should “embrac[e] the landscape approach.”
FORREMS target sites were chosen based on a landscape system, and in part, because of
their biodiversity value. Briefly, the landscapes and the biodiversity value at each site are
described below:
28
(1) Arabuko Sokoke Forest (ASF) is the last large remnant of north coast forests that once
dominated Kenya’s coastal fringe. It contains globally important biodiversity, regulates fresh
water flow to Mida Creek and associated mangrove forests, which provide fish nurseries and
important habitat for birds, migratory and resident, and acts as a nutrient and sediment trap that
protects the Watamu coral reef. As described in the FORREMS Performance Monitoring Report
(2005), the Watamu/Arabuko system “is the only place in Kenya where reef, beach, creek, and
forest occur together in this way, offering considerable potential for a landscape approach….”
The Arabuko Sokoke Forest has been targeted to pilot PFM. It is recognized that “the long term
future of the Forest depends crucially on the support of the local community and their leaders
and politicians for its conservation”.
17
(2) Mukogodo Forest Landscape: The Mukogodo Forest Landscape covers a total of
approximately 58,496 hectares, and is made up of the Mukogodo Forest Reserve (30,189
hectares) and four surrounding group ranches (28,307 hectares), Kuri Kuri, Makurian, Lekuruki,
and Il Ngwesi. The Mukogodo Forest Landscape is one of the largest dryland forests remaining
in Kenya. As described in the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, the area is rich
in plant life and wildlife. The Mukogodo landscape consists of closed forest, closed woodland,
open forest, open grassland, open scattered trees, very open scattered trees, and degraded
grasslands. It contains 66 families of commonly used plants.
18 Wildlife includes many species
of interest to tourists. Thirty-four large mammal species, 11 small mammal species, and 209
bird species are found there. The Mukogodo Maasai have had a long relationship with the
Mukogodo area and the forest provides dry grazing pasture for the local Maasai community and
the neighboring pastoral community. It is the one of the few forests in Kenya where the
community has been managing the forest without a permanent presence of the FD. According
to local FD representatives, the Mukogodo Maasai have been doing this quite well. The forest
remains intact.
(3) Northeastern and Eastern Mt. Kenya Forest Blocks (Marania, Mucheene, Upper and Lower
Imenti, Meru, and Ruthumbi in Meru and Nyeri Districts) is a montane forest area rich in
biodiversity and a critical water catchment area, containing significant economic and cultural
value. FD manages significant plantation resources in the Mt. Kenya forest. Bamboo, montane
grassland, and moorland can also be found here. The area is rich in wildlife species and is
considered an ‘Important Bird Area’. The main threats to the forest are from fire, livestock
grazing, vegetation damage by elephants, and pressures and human-wildlife conflict from the
growing human population in forest adjacent communities.
According to the FORREMS AAD (June 2002), the forests on the lower northeast and eastern
slopes of Mt. Kenya are part of the newly established Mt. Kenya National Reserve. FORREMS
interventions at Mt. Kenya (see Table 2) are implemented based on administrative units (Meru
and Nyeri Forest Districts and their associated Forest Stations). While a political delineation,
the Meru and Nyeri Forest Districts would be considered two separate landscapes for means of
implementing and monitoring activities.
2. The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST)
The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST) is a FORREMS partner that
works outside the target Mt. Kenya landscape with the intent of off-setting pressure on natural
forests by encouraging woodlots and other tree plantings to replace collection of firewood,
17
Kipepeo Butterfly Project, Gede, Malindi, 2006.
18 Mukogodo Focal Area Team, June 2006
29
cutting for construction material, and charcoal production. A relative late-comer to the
FORREMS ‘family of partners’, TIST, like other program NGOs, has had its programs
constrained by FD’s lack of expected logistic support at the field level and delays in
implementation of CBO forest management plans that could have permitted efforts in restoration
of degraded lands around Mt. Kenya currently controlled by FD. As a result, efforts have
focused on the small individually controlled plots of community small groups outside protected
areas and forest reserves. Nevertheless, growth in the number of partnering small groups, with
their well-tended nurseries
19
and closely monitored trees, has been fairly dramatic.
3. Congressional Biodiversity Earmark and Threats Analysis
Funding for FORREMS is attributed to the U.S. Congressional biodiversity earmark. The
biodiversity earmark language states that activities should have a “primary objective of
conserving biodiversity in natural and managed terrestrial aquatic ecosystems. Activities should
be identified through an analysis of the threats to biodiversity.” In addition, the four criteria listed
in Section 1.3 must be fulfilled to comply with biodiversity earmark requirements.
Threats to biodiversity have been identified in Arabuko Sokoke, Mukogodo, and Mt. Kenya, and
in general are related to poverty, increasing populations and wildlife-human conflicts and
conflicts among human natural resource users, unsustainable use of natural resources, and fire
(mainly in Mt. Kenya). TIST activities aim to respond to biodiversity threats emanating from
illegal and/or unsustainable collection of firewood, charcoal production, and cutting of wood for
other purposes.
4. Participatory Management and NBE Link to Biodiversity
PFM pilots in Mukogodo, ASF, and Mt. Kenya are designed and implemented to respond to
specific biodiversity threats and are clearly linked to biodiversity conservation. Besides benefits
to communities from natural resource use and management, FD benefits by having community
support for tree nursery management and tree planting, clearing areas for windbreaks, and to
strengthen FD forest guards by providing community guards.
Ongoing and potential NBEs include: butterflies/pupa, mushrooms, honey production, silk
production, aloe, and tree nurseries (Arabuko Sokoke); coral garden boardwalk, fishermen
associations and dhow operator groups (at Diani Chale and Wasini Island- Kisete); at pasture
bulking, herbal pharmacy, eco-lodges, honey production, opuntia, and aloe (Mukogodo Forest);
and tree nurseries, tourism, fuel wood collection, and honey production (Mt. Kenya).
Local community leaders of the Dida Forest Management Plan committee should be given the
financial support to help other communities along the peripheral zone of the entire reserve to
accomplish similar plans. This group’s plan should be the first one to be formally accepted and
put into action – possibly by January 2007 – by the Forest Department, which has developed a
good working relationship with these people in joint partnership and management of the
adjacent forest reserve.
5. Biodiversity Monitoring/Indicators
19
Those viewed by the Review Team during their field visits to several of the best TIST ‘small groups’.
30
FORREMS indicators are: #1, land use change in target areas (hectares) and #2, number of
stakeholders benefiting from involvement in improved NRM. FORREMS partners stated that
data collection is difficult and felt that the indicators failed to reflect actual results.
6. Biodiversity Awareness-Raising
Most stakeholders at the three target sites (ASF, Mukogodo, and Mt. Kenya) were aware of
biodiversity conservation and threats to conservation. Those involved in NBEs were also
aware, although many lacked information on sustainability issues and the link of NBE
development to biodiversity conservation.
Analysis and Conclusions
1. Landscape Approach and Biodiversity Value
FORREMS has targeted landscapes that contain critical biodiversity. Arabuko Sokoke Forest
and adjacent communities are part of a landscape system that includes Mida Creek and Malindi
and Watamu Marine Park and Reserve. FORREMS interventions have targeted ASF and
adjacent communities, but not the downstream landscape components. Since ASF activities
are part of FORREMS rather than KCMP, the focus has been the forest. The landscape
systems approach would expand boundaries of the ASF area to include marine and coastal
components, including mangroves. This approach would ensure the inclusion of significant
coastal and marine biodiversity, which is affected by upland activities (ASF), and would bring
additional stakeholders to the table, including many in the private sector with interests in (and
impacts on), the coastal-marine ecosystems. Greater private sector inclusion would also bring a
potential for financial resources (such as the major hotels, for example, Hemingway’s), which
would be required for a sustainable landscape forum.
Mukogodo Forest and the four group ranches combine to form a clear landscape system. The
area contains critical biodiversity that is threatened. Stakeholders (community, GoK, NGOs,
CBOs, and the private sector) have been mobilized and are working towards common goals;
and interventions are designed to reduce threats to biodiversity.
Mt. Kenya’s landscapes (Nyeri and Meru) contain critical and threatened biodiversity. Clear
interventions (fire management, fencing to protect land from elephants, tree nurseries, and
PFM) have been identified to reduce biodiversity threats. However, due to the early stage of
PFM and also, to a gap in USAID funding, stakeholders have not yet been fully mobilized and
specific PFM interventions have yet to be identified.
TIST activities are implemented outside the Mt. Kenya landscape but aim to decrease pressure
on Mt. Kenya forest resources. From the MTR Team’s site visits and interviews, it appears that
TIST activities were not well incorporated into Mt. Kenya FORREMS activities and the link with
biodiversity threat reduction in the Mt. Kenya landscape is limited. Considering the need to
concentrate on target landscapes to reach a scale where real results are produced, TIST
activities should be refocused to become part of the Mt. Kenya landscape systems.
Furthermore, if TIST activities are contributing to threat reduction in the Mt. Kenya landscape,
this impact has not been demonstrated and should be.
2. Congressional Biodiversity Earmark and Threats Analysis
31
The biodiversity earmark requires that four criteria be fulfilled. Except for criterion #3, the
program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity (see 4 below), FORREMS
interventions at the three sites comply with biodiversity earmark requirements.
TIST activities are in essence agro-forestry interventions In regard to the biodiversity earmark,
the program does not monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation. Site-based
programs are not positively impacting biologically significant areas. TIST promotes the benefits
of trees to small landowners and communities — providing a food source, improving soil,
decreasing erosion, regulating temperatures and providing construction material and fuel wood.
Where this approach has been applied, it appears to be having a positive impact.
3. Participatory Forest Management and NBE Link to Biodiversity
PFM, although only at a pilot stage, is already building a constituency for biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use of resources. CBOs in many sites visited by the Review
Team are waiting impatiently for FD authorization for their legal right to begin to implement the
PFM plans already completed.
4. Biodiversity Monitoring/Indicators
FORREMS’ indicators fail to provide information on biodiversity conservation results and revised
indicators, preferably one for each landscape, should be formulated.
5. Biodiversity Awareness Raising
These efforts are especially important for NBE participants to ensure they have information on
resource sustainability and that they are aware of the links of the NBE with biodiversity
conservation.
6. Appropriate Programming
For both FORREMS and KCMP, there must be:
• An explicit biodiversity objective. It is not enough to have biodiversity conservation result
as a positive externality from another program.
• Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity.
• The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation.
• Site-based programs must have the intent to positively impact biologically significant
areas.
3.1.2 KCMP
KCMP’s interventions include organizing and strengthening CBOs that work on coastal issues,
coastal area management, and NBEs; securing two fish landing sites, and constructing
infrastructure at the sites, including slipways, fish depots and improved sanitation systems;
constructing two modern fishing boats at a cost of about $100,000 each; constructing 32 rain
water harvesting (RWH) systems with a total capacity of 397,000, and training masons in RWH
construction; strengthening the Kenya Marine Forum (KMF) as a community trust responsible
for advocacy on marine environment issues for the Kenyan coast; supporting the development
32
of NBE business plans and implementing target business plans; rehabilitating sand harvesting
sites; and supporting the production of management plans and action plans. These
interventions are described in Table 2 below, showing the areas where KCMP is working and
the specific activities taking place at each site. Team notes also provide greater details for the
sites visited.
FORREMS and KCMP at a Glance
Table 2 below shows the target landscapes for FORREMS and KCMP interventions. The
overall landscape is shown in bold and the major components of that landscape, where
interventions are taking place, are listed below. The activities being implemented and partners
working at each site are shown.
Table 2: FORREMS and KCMP at a Glance
Geographic Area Activities Partners
FORREMS
Arabuko Sokoke Forest
Landscape
Train forest guards, forest management plan FD, KWS, KEFRI
-Mida Creek and -Marine
Reserve (Mida)
No activities implemented
-AS Forest Peripheral
Zone
Rehabilitate sand mining sites: tree planting and fencing NEMA
-AS buffer zone
communities
Organize communities, develop NBEs, pilot PFM FD, KWS, NK, NM-K
Mungungani Forest Support gazettement NEMA
Mukogodo Landscape Mukogodo Forest Integrated Management Plan FD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, LWF,
AWF
Group Ranches (4) 5 water projects; 2 eco-lodges; NBE development, rangeland
rehabilitation
FD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, LWF
Mt. Kenya Landscape Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan KWS, FD
Meru District Fire management; forest rehabilitation FD, USFS
Nyeri District (includes
Aberdares)
Fire management; forest rehabilitation FD, USFS
Other forests
Rumuruti Forest
ecosystems
Ngong Hills Fire management FD, USFS
Taita Hills
KCMP
Mombasa coastal
landscape
Strengthen KMF; support of annual marine events; coastal change
data
KMF, CDA
Jomo Kenyatta Public
Beach
(Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu)
Organize CBOs, conduct beach traders survey; form JKPB Trust and
Management; support to artisanal fishing enterprise: construct fishing
boat, construct fish landing site and associated infrastructure; two
deep freezers for fishermen; business plans and implementation of
target BP actions; open up public access road, landscaping.
CDA, Fisheries Dept, KWS,
PACT-Kenya
Mombasa Marine
Reserve and Park
Encourage appropriate fishing practices (Marine Reserve) Fisheries Department
Diani-Chale landscape Strengthen KMF; support of annual marine events; coastal change
data
KMF, CDA
Kaya Diani fishing
community
Construction of fishermen meeting banda and sanitation block,
securing fish landing site-Mwaepe Fish Depot; empowerment of
artisanal fishers to develop enterprise, two deep freezers for
fishermen, boat construction; improvement of beach access road;
rehabilitation of DCMT office, members trained and strategic plan;
business plan for eco-tourism and other enterprises; training in
Fisheries Dept, CDA,
PACT-Kenya
33
business management; RWH tanks
Diani-Chale Marine
Reserve
Encourage appropriate fishing practices and sampling/analysis of
water quality.
Fisheries Dept., CDA
Wasini-Shimoni-Vanga Strengthen KMF; support of annual marine events; coastal change
data
KMF, CDA
Shimoni-Vanga Zonal projects steering committee; identify gaps in baseline
information; community ecotourism enterprise; LMMA-3 interventions;
Shimoni Slave caves developed as ecotourism activity, RWH tanks
CDA, Fisheries Department,
PACT-Kenya
Wasini Island Leveraged funding for eco-tourism development, bee keeping
activities
CDA, PACT-Kenya
Kisite Marine Park and
Mpunguti Marine
Reserve
No activities implemented, though the Kisite Private Boat (Dhow)
Operators Association (KIPBOA) is actively seeking linkage within a
supporting structure.
Shimba Hills NR No activities implemented
Situation
1. Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) and the Landscape Approach
KCMP uses the ICAM approach, which encompasses a network of inter-related coastal, marine,
and upland resources and the associated political, social, and economic components. The
ICAM approach is intended to be a holistic management tool for the sustainable development of
coastal and marine resources incorporating multi-sectoral and multi-institutional collaboration.
The ICAM process involves: selection of an area; resource mapping; stakeholder identification;
issue identification through consensus; integrated planning; program preparation; program
adoption; funding; program implementation; and monitoring and evaluation.
20
The ICAM approach and the landscape approach are somewhat similar. KCMP pilot
interventions are scattered over three coastal-marine landscapes. Marine Reserves and Parks
benefit indirectly from KCMP activities since many of the threats to these areas originate from
land-based activities.
In the ICAM approach, biodiversity value is one criterion used to identify target areas and
interventions. The KCMP target sites contain significant biodiversity (sea turtles, mangroves,
coral reefs, and the “big five of the ocean”- dolphins, whales, whale sharks, manta rays, and
dugong), as well as commercial fisheries, and other key economic activities, and are linked in a
network of marine, coastal, and upland resources:
• Diani-Chale, on the South Coast of Kenya, is rich in biodiversity, including coral reefs,
sea grass beds, mangroves, sacred forests, abundant marine and terrestrial wildlife,
including sea turtles, dolphins, colobus monkeys, and rich in endemic species of birds,
other wildlife, and plants. It is also an area with historic buildings, subsistence farms,
plantations, artisanal fishers, and tourism attractions—white, sandy beaches and
beachfront hotels. The Diani-Chale coastal forest is fragmented and highly threatened.
The Diani Marine Reserve, covering over 250 hectares, is located in this area.
• Shimoni-Vanga-Wasini Complex: contains rich marine life, including endangered sea
turtles, dolphins, whales, and economically valuable commercial fisheries. Coral reefs,
sea grass beds, and mangroves are found offshore. Kisite Marine Park and Mpunguti
20
ICAM-KCMP Power Point presentation, August 15, 2006.
34
Marine Reserve are located in this area. The Shimba Hills National Reserve is the
upland portion of this landscape system.
• Mombasa Coastal Landscape: Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach, Mombasa Marine Reserve
and Park: Mombasa is the outstanding feature of the landscape in this coastal area and
the urban character affects water quality and quantity, and results in resource user
conflicts. The Mombasa Marine Park and Reserve, while located adjacent to this urban
environment contains important biodiversity and is part of the network of coastal and
marine resources found along Kenya’s entire coast.
2. The Congressional Biodiversity Earmark and Biodiversity Threats Analysis
Funding for the KCMP is attributed to the U.S. Congressional biodiversity earmark. The
biodiversity earmark language states that activities should have a “primary objective of
conserving biodiversity in natural and managed terrestrial aquatic ecosystems. Activities should
be identified through an analysis of the threats to biodiversity.” In addition, the four criteria listed
in Section 1.4 must be fulfilled to comply with biodiversity earmark requirements.
Rather than a threats-based analysis, ICAM uses a consensus approach. The ICAM process
calls for identification of issues through consensus and an integrated planning process. This
differs from a biodiversity threats-based approach wherein threats to biodiversity are identified
and these drive interventions.
3. Participatory Management and NBE Development
Opportunities for participatory management are limited in the marine areas since KWS’s
legislative framework does not recognize this methodology; however KWS makes exception for
demonstration activities in community-based management.
KCMP has strengthened NBEs, as well as enterprises that are not nature-based. Support to
NBEs includes the local women-led ecotourism site at Wasini Island with its coral gardens
boardwalk; Vikwathani Maenderero group (Wasini) eco-tourism site; bee-keeping; and artisanal
fishers. Other enterprises that have received KCMP support include tubers and hawkers.
The MTR Team visited Mida Creek Community Conservation ecotourism site and walkway, an
initiative that is not funded by USAID/KCMP. This NBE activity has a clear link to biodiversity
conservation, and also, it is raising incomes, educating people, and building advocates for
environmental conservation.
4. Biodiversity Monitoring/Biodiversity Indicator
KCMP Indicators are #1: coastal and marine area under improved conservation or management
(hectares); and Indicator #2: Number of stakeholders benefiting from involvement in improved
ICM. Reporting on these and other SO 5 indicators has been inconsistent and frequently
lacking. KCMP partners stated that this information failed to reflect their ‘actual results’ (cf.
discussion of M&E indicators below, and in Annex 2).
5. Raising Awareness of Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity conservation awareness is part of many KCMP interventions. KCMP’s support of
annual marine events and programs has likely contributed to this awareness, as has the
35
program’s mobilization of stakeholders as part of the ICAM framework. Most stakeholders
interviewed by the MTR Team stated their concerns for the environment, biodiversity
conservation, and especially for the decreasing fishery resource. Most stakeholders were
aware of how their actions affect biodiversity.
Analysis and Conclusions
1. ICAM and the Landscape Approach
Although ICAM calls for a holistic approach to the sustainable development and management of
coastal and marine resources, some KCMP interventions have been implemented in a
piecemeal fashion. In part, this can be attributed to the lack of focus of KCMP interventions—
they cross several landscape systems rather than focusing on a single landscape where there
would be greatest promise to produce results. Once a degree of success has been achieved in
one landscape system it can be replicated in the next system (access to funds notwithstanding)
rather than supporting myriad pilot activities across several landscapes without reaching a scale
at which impact is achieved.
The three target sites contain significant biodiversity and the KCMP aims to ‘positively impact
biologically significant areas’. It thereby fulfills one of the biodiversity earmark criteria.
However, many KCMP interventions appear to be “one-off” activities, and not tied to a holistic
framework, such as a landscape. Therefore, the long-term impact of these activities is
questionable. With the limited funding available to KCMP, it is difficult to produce biodiversity
conservation results across three landscape systems.
2. The Congressional Biodiversity Earmark and Biodiversity Threats Analysis
The biodiversity earmark criteria states that #s 1-4 must be fulfilled, however KCMP
interventions fall short of fulfilling #s 2 and 3: (1) the program has an explicit biodiversity
objective; (2) activities were not identified on an analysis of threats; (3) indicators for biodiversity
conservation are not being monitored (see 4 below); and (4) site-based programs have the
intent to positively impact biologically significant areas (although the degree to which positive
impact has actually been realized is questionable).
As stated, a threats-based approach was not used in the KCMP, and therefore, for many of the
KCMP interventions, it is unclear exactly what biodiversity threats are being addressed and
what biodiversity conservation impacts would be expected. The consensus approach to issue
identification and integrated planning may fail to identify the significant threats to biodiversity,
and thereby responses needed to reduce the threats may be overlooked. For example:
(1) Artisanal fishers are a strong voice along the coast and several of the KCMP interventions
have responded to this group’s issues (need for infrastructure, capacity strengthening and
enterprise development); (2) provision of rain water harvesting technologies is driven by the
needs of upland residents (outside of Mombasa, where residents do not use rain water); (3)
support for hawkers and tubers (Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach) responds to the needs of a
typically marginalized sector; and (4) ecotourism development support to Vikwathani
Maenderero is being considered because of the proactive nature of the group, rather than
because of a clear biodiversity threat/response.
36
Some KCMP interventions have been implemented in response to significant threats to
biodiversity, for example, promoting improved fishing practices and discouraging the more
destructive methods. However, the contribution to biodiversity conservation from the
interventions mentioned above (as well as others) is questionable.
3. Participatory Management and NBE Link to Biodiversity
KCMP’s participatory management opportunities are limited due to KWS’s management
jurisdiction over the mangrove resource (in partnership with FD) and marine parks and reserves
(in partnership with Fisheries Department).
Wasini Island’s ecotourism enterprise has a direct link to biodiversity conservation.
Nonetheless, this link could be strengthened by raising awareness of biodiversity conservation
among Wasini Island stakeholders (see 5 below) and by strengthening the eco-tourism activity
(for example, cleaning the village and the near-coast and beach where tourists disembark from
their boats). The Kisete Private Boat Operators Association with their dhows for transporting
tourists to the nearby marine park and reserve, as well as Wasini Island, is a key private sector
stakeholder group that has not been adequately integrated into what could be a Wasini-Kisite
landscape forum.
The Vikwathani Maenderero Group’s proposal to construct an eco-tourism facility could
contribute to biodiversity conservation (however, it is unclear what threats the initiative is
addressing). In addition, the link of this intervention with coastal and marine biodiversity
conservation is weak. They are not part of a locally defined ‘landscape forum’ group that are
collectively addressing the biodiversity threats of their area.
The link between biodiversity conservation and enterprise development for the hawkers, tubers,
and boat operators is also weak. While income generation initiatives can indirectly have an
effect on biodiversity conservation, to be attributed to the biodiversity earmark, a more direct link
is necessary. The beach cleaning activities of the hawkers and tubers are a commendable
effort but not one with a direct effect on biodiversity conservation. These individuals could have
a role within a better-defined ‘landscape forum’ group for their area.
The fishermen described their self-regulating activities and Fisheries Department described the
partnership with the fishers to manage and monitor fishing. However, the link between
providing modern fishing boats, infrastructure at fish landing sites, and business plans to
biodiversity conservation is unclear. The link could be strengthened with improved data
collection and monitoring of biodiversity indicators (see 5 below).
The biodiversity earmark language recognizes that NBE development activities can be
attributed to the biodiversity earmark. USAID FY 2006 guidance states that “protected area
management (including marine conservation); community-based natural resource management
where conservation is the primary goal; and enterprise-based conservation” can be attributed to
the biodiversity earmark.
4. Biodiversity Monitoring/Indicators
KCMP indicators 1 and 2 do not provide an adequate picture of the program’s biodiversity
impact.
37
5. Raising Awareness of the Importance of Biodiversity Conservation
Fishermen, tourist dhow boat operators, ecotourism operators, hawkers and tube vendors
expressed an interest in and awareness of biodiversity conservation.
3.1.3 Recommendations
1. Interventions should focus and concentrate on landscape systems where: (1) critical
biodiversity resources are present; (2) stakeholders are willing to work together in partnerships
to achieve a joint vision of biodiversity conservation within a framework of sustainable
development and (3) responses to biodiversity threats have good potential to produce success.
2. While KCMP’s three target sites contain rich biodiversity, the limited funding available
favors focusing efforts on landscape systems that fulfill the three criteria cited above.
Interventions should be at a scale where on-the-ground results can be realized, rather than
supporting numerous pilot activities.
3. Future interventions should be designed and implemented with the aim of fulfilling the
biodiversity earmark language. Using a biodiversity threats-based approach and designing and
implementing activities in response to threats would result in greater biodiversity impact.
4. A stronger link between NBEs and biodiversity conservation should be made. Support
to NBEs can contribute to biodiversity conservation by: scaling up so that they provide actual
opportunities to diversify the economic base and relieve pressure on natural resources and
ensuring a direct link of enterprise development to biodiversity conservation. This link can be
made by relieving pressure on the natural resource base and/or addressing specific threats
and/or building advocates for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity monitoring and continued
biodiversity awareness-raising should be a part of NBE development.
5. Possible indicators are: (1) a flagship/keystone species that can be monitored annually
and that would give an indication of overall ecosystem health; (2) one or more species of fish
that would give an indication if fishermen’s improved practices (net size) are having positive
effects on fisheries; and (3) the state of coral along the coast.
6. Efforts in biodiversity awareness-raising are commendable. They should continue being
directed at stakeholders within the target landscapes and supporting interventions that will
strengthen community capacity to participate in natural resource management and GoK efforts
to implement PFM.
7. TIST activities must fulfill the biodiversity earmark requirements by responding to
identified biodiversity threats (in addition to other criteria, Section 1.3); and work with partners
within target landscapes. TIST management clearly wishes to work in such collaboration.
8. It is important to continue to support PFM in Mukogodo, Mt. Kenya, and Arabuko Sokoke
Forests. These efforts are responding to threats from growing human populations and pressure
on the resource base; fire; overgrazing; and wildlife-human conflicts; and illegal and/or
unsustainable use of resources. FORREMS should target landscapes (Mukogodo Forest and
four group ranches; Mt, Kenya, Nyeri or Meru Districts; and Arabuko Sokoke/Mida Creek and
associated marine parks and reserves) and support the PFM process at these target sites. In
the case of Mt. Kenya, PFM would be supported at the forest station level (Community Forest
38
Association-Community Action Plan level produced at the forest station level). SFS support for
fire management should continue forest-wide, across both forest districts.
9. Apply the landscape definition adapted by the MTR Team by combining the WCS
definition (an area large enough, with the appropriate composition, configuration, and
connectivity of habitats to support functional populations of the biodiversity present and to
preserve ecosystem services for both wildlife and people) with the requirement that the
appropriate socio-cultural, economic, and political components be included. Landscape
boundaries are for all partners to define together.
10. Focus future FORREMS and KCMP efforts more consistently within a landscape
systems approach, using the Laikipia and Mukogodo Landscape systems model in bringing
together all key stakeholders into ‘a fee-paying membership forum’ to develop a common vision
of what needs to take place to address NRM and biodiversity conservation priorities within the
zone. This permits better harmonization of work-plans of various stakeholders within the
landscape and avoids duplication and permits greater coordination at all levels. Developing a
similar forum for other landscape systems would be ideal (e.g. Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida
Creek/Marine Park/Reserve landscape, Wasini-Shimoni-Kisite Landscape, possibly Diani-Chale
Landscape), each with their adjacent marine parks and reserves.
11. Target the following landscapes:
Central Kenya Landscapes
(1) Mukogodo Forest: Landscape approach targeting Mukogodo Forest and associated
four group ranches with interventions at the group ranch level, specifically in support of
Operational Plans and targeting interventions that are aimed at reducing threats to
biodiversity.
(2) Mt. Kenya Forest: Landscape approach targeting Meru or Nyeri District. Support for
interventions aimed at reducing threats to biodiversity at the forest station level in
support of CFAs and CAPs. USFS fire management interventions can continue forest￾wide. Focus on a few Forest Stations and their CBOs, and rather than try to cover all
the Forest Stations and CBOs within the district. Major deciding criteria should be ability
to completely scale up activities within one Forest Station before moving to another.
Coastal Landscapes
(1) Arabuko Sokoke Forest: Expand landscape to include Mida Creek and Watamu
Marine Reserve and Malindi Marine Park and associated stakeholders. Interventions should
be aimed at reducing threats to biodiversity.
(2) Target up to one other landscape based on available resources and potential to fulfill
landscape criteria.
• Diani-Chale landscape: including Kaya Diani fishing community and Diani-Chale
Marine Reserve
• Wasini-Shimoni-Vanga: including Wasini Island, Kisite Marine Park and Mpunguti
Marine Reserve.
• Mombasa coastal landscape, including Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach (Nyali-Bamburi￾Shanzu), Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park (considered by Review Team as
extremely difficult prospect).
12. Unless directly linked to a landscape systems approach of the kind observed at
Mukogodo Landscape, discontinue all new water capture efforts and leave these to other
39
programs that can deal with them on a much more aggressive and replicable manner, with clear
targets (i.e. 30 % of all households with cisterns in specific geographic areas in water deficient
areas).
3.2 Sustainable Nature-Focused Business Development
Nature-based enterprises (NBEs) can contribute or support biodiversity conservation when:
1. Alternative livelihoods are created and/or reinforced that reduce income generation
through extraction of biodiversity resources (“mining”). Example: cultivation of natural
camphor by populations who formerly relied more on forest resources for income
generation.
2. Domesticated production replaces production made possible through “mining”
biodiversity resources. Example: mondia cultivation.
3. Income generation occurs through non-extractive (sustainable) use of biodiversity
resources. Example: beekeeping in forest.
The following business initiatives, currently operating or being initiated, have varying degrees of
linkage to biodiversity conservation. USAID funding is being or has been provided to those
activities marked with an asterisk (*):
Table 3: Nature Based Enterprises
• Ecotourism: lodging * • Ecotourism: attractions * • Butterfly pupae *
• Beekeeping * • Silk: wild * • Silk: domestic *
• Natural camphor cultivation • Mondia cultivation • Aloe vera *
• Aloe secundiflora * • Tree planting * • Fishing *
• Fish market * • Boat operators * • Beach activities *
• Rainwater harvesting * • Casuarina * • Opuntia (Prickly Pear) *
• Elephant dung paper * • Herbal pharmacy * • Oyster Mushrooms *
3.2.1 FORREMS
Situation
1. The Kipepeo Butterfly Project, managed by NMK, after 14 years has been held up
regionally and internationally as a ‘model’ of community based natural resource management
and leader in ‘nature based enterprises’. It took until 2000 to break even with butterfly pupae
production and sales (2000), which are destined to butterfly houses in Europe, Japan, and the
USA. Production in 2005 was 200,000 pupae, for which markets were found for only 50,000.
Butterfly farming currently focuses on 10 species, of which some bring considerably higher
prices than others (but are also more difficult to raise). Prices could range from 30
40
shillings/pupae ($0.42) to 100 shillings ($1.40). Any one-butterfly grower may have one or more
‘butterfly huts’. The market appears to be seasonal – summer months in Europe, US, and Japan
are best periods for sales. The Review Team observed several men and women, at different
locations, carrying butterfly nets around with them – since butterfly are currently laying their
eggs in the forest.
21 The total number of butterfly growers around AS has grown to an
unsustainable number of close to 800. This has resulted in some groups closing their
membership ranks, and also eliminating those who produce few pupae for those willing to
produce more and higher quality pupae. New market outlets are needed. Kipepeo, with its
various initiatives, appears to be helping approximately 5% of the forest adjacent communities,
according to information cited in one of its proposals. The Review Team was told that among
the butterfly pupae farmers there were several who had become outstanding leaders in their
communities – and actually led their community groups in this endeavor. A couple of these were
each producing about 10% of total production in the project.
2. Nature Kenya has established the concept of a common marketplace for all NBEs in
Arabuko Sokoke (bee-keeping, butterflies, silvi-culture). The marketplace for AS products is
being developed. They have butterfly and honey networks (CBOs, formed into networks, and
these are models for other NBE CBOs). All networks would be linked to the market with a
common brand (Arabuko Sokoke) and a percentage of the profits would go to forest
conservation. With the activity committees, communities can take part in the governance in the
businesses. The Kipepeo Project Community Based Organization, based at the Gede Ruins
National Monument near Malindi, is a partnership between government (provided the land for
the buildings), communities and NGOs. Kipepeo provides TA, QC, marketing, and its entire
budget is supported from income generated from sale of butterfly pupae.
3. A private sector business person in the same area, unrelated to the Kipepeo project, has
captured 50% of the market of Kenya pupae exports from this region and frequently purchases
pupae from Kipepeo community butterfly pupae growers – though at a somewhat lower price.
Kipepeo producers use this outlet themselves because this person pays cash for their pupae,
while Kipepeo only provides a return when (and if) pupae are sold.
4. NMK has a proposed $500,000 budget from USAID for a “butterfly house” in Mombasa,
a place where some of the unsold pupae could be sent and used for expositions and to attract
tourist who would pay a small fee to see them. Of this, $100,00 has already been obligated to
study the feasibility of this venture.
5. Misitu Women’s Group: bee keeping, farm forestry, bees, silkworms. 15 members.
Merry-go-round loan system was the start of the group. NK started working with the group in
2000 and used merry-go-round funds to get 10 hives, then were given 30 hives. With the
drought, bees left and then the group diversified to tree nurseries. In 2004, the group raised
casuarina seedlings and sold 9000 (all in 1 consignment which was linked to them through
KEFRI). Casuarina has allowed the group to give loans to very poor households. Now they
are raising mulberry trees for domesticated silk worms. ICIPE has promised to buy the cocoons.
Ultimately, there are plans for silk processing to take place at the Kipepeo ‘Market Place’.
6. Honey: One problem is volume. 3000 liters is their limit so far, and markets need 10,000
- 20,000 liters. The potential for beekeeping within this forest and mangrove landscape is very
21 Competition in this industry is fierce. Some regions of the world produce more sought after species of butterfly. In
Tanzania, the butterfly egg laying season begins earlier than in Kenya, so they are able to get to the market sooner.
Tanzania producers also, knowing the prices being asked for in Kenya, undercut these prices to gain market share.
41
high and volume should not be a problem, if approached at the proper scale. Currently, AS
beekeepers cannot deliver this much so they are limited to the local and regional markets.
Whether or not realistic international markets exist is unknown. Nonetheless, honey profits
have allowed community group beekeepers to give loans to the next level of poor households.
These groups clearly understand the link between forest and bees, and they also volunteer for
tree planting in the forest. Hives used include the Kenya Top Bar Hives and Langstroth
(stacked super) hives. Consideration should be made to use the African Long Hive – better
than Langstroth hives for management of bees when harvesting. Kipepeo plans for beekeepers
to transport comb honey taken from their hives to the distant Kipepeo Market Place for
extraction and bottling are flawed. Hand-operated extractors, already purchased with USAID
funds under FORREMS, should be made available locally to different groups for the 1-2 days
needed to harvest and extract locally their honey. Then the bulk honey, in closed plastic
containers, can be more easily transported to the Kipepeo Market Place for further processing
(if necessary), bottling and sale. In this form, beekeeper groups also have the alternative to sell
their honey to another outlet, depending on prices received. As it is, when asked, beekeepers
did not know, when asked, how much honey they had already sent to the Kipepeo Market Place
– they only know the amount of ‘dividends’ they had been given follow delivery. This system
does not permit these beekeeper groups to become the entrepreneurs they could become in
this potentially important industry. They need to be linked to at least one of Kenya’s excellent
honey private sector honey companies, like Honey Care or Kenya Beekeepers, Ltd.
7. Mushrooms: There are 8 mushroom huts around AS, 4 of which were funded by USAID.
Forty-eight hotels have been surveyed for the use of mushrooms. All use button, pre-packaged
mushrooms, not fresh, but a few hotels were interested in the fresh oyster mushrooms produced
at AS. Hotel demand depends on the daily menu. Mushroom production began in May, and
hotels’ high season starts July, so efforts are still being made to get hotels on board. So far only
4 hotels have placed orders. Solar driers are also being explored, given the perishable nature
of the product. One entrepreneur sells dried mushrooms to Nairobi markets and gets 500 KS
per kg. Dried mushrooms can be channeled to humanitarian food aid markets. Future efforts
might consider what the local hotels or other potential consumers want (demand) in terms of
mushrooms, and seek to supply this rather than a product they clearly don’t seem to seek.
8. Mida Creek ecosystem: MC Conservation Committee (MCCC). Encouraging ecotourism
in this area through ASSETS: Arabuko Sokoke Ecotourism Scheme. The group has been able
to complete an attractive (and challenging) ‘swinging bridge’ board walk over mangroves, with
excellent interpretive signs along the way that provide information about surroundings while
well-trained guides supplement this information with other relevant and interesting information
about the areas, biodiversity, and cultural items. Seven guides work at the site. MCCC sells
crafts and coconut juice and raises money for bursaries from the ecotourism activities. There is
co-management potential: rehabilitate mangroves with the community and then harvest for
community needs. MCCC guide for Review Team visit was highly qualified, knowledgeable and
her knowledge/technique could be transferred to others. By comparison, the FORREMS￾supported Wasini woman’s group ‘coral gardens boardwalk’ could learn much from the local
community managers of the Mida Creek nature trail, particularly in terms of interpretive signs
and information sharing.
9. TIST pays US 2 cents/tree/year (in quarterly payments for a period of 20+ years), which
is much higher than the market offers. TIST is hoping that in the future the carbon market will
bring greater benefits. The idea is that communities will get 70% of the funds raised through the
market, and I4EI will get 30%. TIST works through a contract with the groups that identify who
owns the land and the trees. TIST monitoring data show that 750,000 trees have been
42
established (not including nurseries with seedling). Survival rate at Naro Moru site is 90%
(3,012 trees). The Review Team saw a demonstration, on a laptop linked to the Internet, how
any specific TIST individual’s ‘small woodlot’ could be geographically located using Google
Maps. It is possible to zoom in on these and actually see these sites, based on the GPS
coordinates provided by the field-based quantifiers. This information would be key to potential
future sales and monitoring for the global carbon credit marketplace, verifying the actual
existence of these trees, and their continued survival.
10. LWF’s approach with NBEs is to provide TA and does not place itself directly in the
value chain. For example, with aloe, now that there is a national policy for aloe, LWF works
through the Kenya Aloe Working Group and with KWS to promote this option for growers. It can
be processed into aloe products and used for rangeland rehabilitation. LWF might research
aloe, provide this information to growers, provide starting capital as a co-financer, link producer
to market, and/or fund a nursery. LWF does not buy, process or market aloe. KEFRI provides
TA to the community on technical issues, and also empowers so the community can negotiate
with private sector.
11. ILMAMUSI is an umbrella group that oversees several projects (or projects-to-be) meant
to reduce pressure on the forest: water points, scouting (each group ranch has 2 scouts, but
only 1 ranch has been able to pay salaries), rehabilitation, income generation (eco-lodges,
herbal pharmacy, nurseries, hay harvest and sell, aloe, opuntia, honey, beadwork, elephant
dung to make paper), and conservation land set aside. For the eco-lodges, they are trying to
increase occupancy and look to alternative tourism ventures. Nursery is not active because of
a recent drought during which the community was not been able to collect seeds from the forest.
The herbal pharmacy was started in April 2006 and is mainly used as a small herbarium now
since the group has not been able to get nursery up and running. Socioeconomic survey had
shown that 85% of the population uses herbs for medicinal purposes.
12. ILMAMUSI: Elephant dung paper making enterprise: located at a homestead,
established by a European who buys the products to sell in Europe. Women make paper, but
do not know the market. They are isolated, and not linked to any other market than the one that
the person who started the project is linked to. They depend on the project to bring shredded
paper collected from Nairobi street boys.
13. Il Ngwesi has an eco-lodge, the profits of which are supporting numerous community
activities, including forest guards, schools, etc. A second eco-lodge is at Tasia. Two group
ranches do not have eco-lodges or other tourism infrastructure.
14. Mankurian Group Ranch: They have planted aloe, much of which has survived the
drought. The committee did not know what aloe is used for but ICIPE is expected to purchase
the plants. They are interested in a use for opuntia fruit since it is a nuisance plant, but they are
unaware of what is can be used for.
15. The FORREMS Performance Monitoring Report for 2005 indicates that communities
received 2,421,015 KS (US$32,280) in financial benefits from the sale of nature-based products
and guiding fees as a result of the program. Of this total amount, 80,000 KS (US$1,067) was
generated from the sale of tree seedlings and 10,000 KS (US$133) from the sale of aloe
seedlings in the Mukogodo Landscape. In Mount Kenya, 235,800 KS (US$3,144) was
generated from the sale of honey and seedlings. In Arabuko-Sokoke, 2,085,215 KS
(US$27,802) was generated from ecotourism guiding and sales of seedlings and aloe suckers.
A summary is provided in Table 4 below.
43
The report also states that in addition to the $32,280 generated by direct project activities, the
FORREMS project contributed to generating income from other activities: apiculture (293,560
KS or US$3,904) and butterfly farming (1,566,516 KS or US$20,835). This same report also
indicated that NBE implementation in Mukogodo did not take off as anticipated. Since NBEs are
the main source of incentives for community participation in NRM planning, this delayed
implementation had a negative impact.
The most important NBE within AS was the butterfly pupae business, and individuals involved in
this business were also involved with FORREMS. Yet no data was provided about the specific
amounts of financial benefits community individuals received from this endeavor – and how
much was actually generated (as opposed to amount received by growers above). We were told
that ‘about 50%’ of the income received from the pupae sold was returned to the grower. We
were also told by Kipepeo NMK leadership that it is the profits from the sale of butterfly pupae
that is completing funding Kipepeo management expenses, plus subsidizing other NBE
activities (such as beekeeping). The Review Team in interviewing specific butterfly growers did
obtain some information of this kind. We met with one of the butterfly growers, who himself, was
responsible for almost 10% of the total figure sold, and who led a group of about 45 other
butterfly growers in his community. We saw their meeting hall where figures were posted for
each member, over the past two years, by month, of the number of pupae delivered. When sold,
dividends are paid into the group’s bank account, based upon the number of pupae that were
ultimately sold by Kipepeo. Because the group leader made the successful effort to raise the
more difficult (and valuable) species of butterfly pupae, he also had a higher percentage of
actual sales. He was producing about 100 pupae/week, representing about 10,000 shillings
($139), (or about 5,000 high value pupae worth to him about $1,000/year (70,000-75,000
shillings)). But the commercial value of his stock, when sold by NMK, was worth substantially
more than this. This individual, and several others like him, are clearly highly motivated and
could become real entrepreneurs in their own right, if provided the support and contacts
needed. The leader mentioned he also had several mushroom huts that he carefully managed.
At least 40% of receipts from sale of butterfly pupae to international buyers are kept by NMK
and Kipepeo for its management purposes as well as subsidizing the costs of developing other
activities. While this achievement may seem, at first glance, to be a social good, it may come at
the cost of keeping potential entrepreneurs of ‘business enterprise champions’ from developing
into sustainable private sector enterprises. In 2005, only 25% of the pupae collected was
actually sold (50,000 of some 200,000 this past year) for a total value of about $90,000. The
limited sales stemmed from lack of sufficient markets. Of the 25% sold, a few outstanding
community entrepreneurs are supplying the bulk of those actually sold; yet these same
individuals are not themselves realizing the potential profits they could.
44
Table 4: Financial Benefits to Communities from Nature Based Enterprises
Source: Performance Monitoring Report, FORREMS Programme Year 2005 (Draft, January 10, 2006).
Analysis/Conclusions
1. NBEs are being developed without a consistent analysis of their compliance with
USAID’s requirements for biodiversity programming, of their sustainability or the scale of their
impact relative to threats being posed to biodiversity.
Valuable contributions are being made by different nature-based enterprises (NBEs) being
promoted and supported with USAID funds. However, the benefits in terms of biodiversity
conservation or livelihood are unclear, either because:
1. They have not been quantified (e.g., lack of biodiversity monitoring) or
2. Are not projected (e.g., business plans were not developed in beginning) or
3. Are not considered (e.g., biodiversity impacts of NBEs were not explicitly considered in
the formulation of the enterprise)
4. Have not yet been realized (e.g., NBE has not yet been fully launched).
The scale of NBEs and the benefits they generate may be small relative to the threats posed to
biodiversity conservation and/or the funding provided. Financial benefits generated are
Table 8: Data Sheet No. 7 - Financial Benefits to Communities from Nature Based Enterprises
Focal Area Name of Enterprise Type of Benefit
Amount
Generated
(Kshs.)
Amount paid
out (Kshs.)
Mukogodo Ethi Tree Nursery Sale of Seedlings 80,000 80,000
Mt. Kenya Mucheene Bee Keepers Sale of honey 12,600 12,600
Meru Forest Station
(Apiculture, tree nursery) Sale of honey 43,200 43,200
Sale of seedlings 120,000 120,000
Mt. Kenya Community
Afforestation and
Development Project - Naru
Moru Sale of Seedlings 60,000 60,000
Arabuko
Sokoke ASF Guides Association Guiding fees 112,500 75,000
ASF Nursery Owners Sale of seedlings 1,778,925 1,778,925
Aloe replicators Sale of Aloe suckers 231,290 231,290
Ngong Hills Simwaru Landscapes Sale of seedlings 10,000 10,000
Rumuruti Laikipia aloe nursery Sale of aloe seedlings 10,000 10,000
Total (Kshs.) 2,458,515 2,421,015
Total (US$) $32,780 $32,280
45
relatively modest (US$32,280, as reported above). Therefore, questions of effectiveness of the
NBE as part of a conservation effort are still unanswered.
A threats-based approach is useful whereby the most significant threats are identified and NBE
interventions are designed to minimize those threats. Use of a landscape systems approach
will help to ensure that critical biodiversity areas are captured and interventions are designed to
keep the landscape intact, maintain or rehabilitate landscape linkages. Awareness raising
about biodiversity conservation is an important supporting role that NGOs can continue to play.
2. NBEs are being developed without a clear definition of their ownership structure and
therefore without a clear foundation for the long-term governance of the enterprise. This
ambiguity can reduce the effectiveness of partnerships between beneficiaries (such as
producers and communities) and sponsoring organizations (NGOs and government entities). It
can also sow the seeds for conflict over the distribution of any surpluses created by an NBE
once it becomes successful.
In several cases observed in USAID and other initiatives in Kenya (ICIPE), NBEs based on
natural products (butterfly pupae for export, honey production, natural camphor (osciumum) and
mondia) do not have clearly defined ownership structures or have ownership structures that are
in a transient state until the NBE breaks even. As a result, certain critical decisions have been
made by organizations that are not the ultimate owners of the enterprise (such as the
sponsoring NGO) or have been postponed indefinitely. Of particular note, for example, are
decisions regarding the distribution of surpluses (profits). In the case of the Kipepeo project,
surpluses generated from butterfly pupae exports were reinvested in other activities
(beekeeping) although the butterfly producers would have preferred to receive those dividends
themselves. In the case of ICIPE’s promotion of natural camphor for the product Naturub and
mondia for Mondia Tonic, it appears that decisions about how to use any surpluses have rested
with ICIPE without a formal role being given to the producers themselves.
Behind the ambiguity of ownership is the fact that these NBEs have been initiated and
incubated by NGOs that have become long-term partners in the enterprise. It is logical that
these organizations would exercise a substantial influence if not complete control of these
ventures on at least an interim basis since it was the NGOs themselves that obtained the donor
funding to create, develop and, in some instances, maintain the NBEs. In some cases, the
NGOs also provide their own resources in order to further the development of the NBEs. In this
respect, the NGOs become investors in the NBEs they are fostering and therefore have a long￾term interest in its success. Furthermore, the NGOs are often the guardians of a broader
agenda established with the creation of these NBEs, such as pursuing the conservation of
biodiversity and promoting the generation of livelihood for poor communities. In the absence of
the NGOs’ advocating such an agenda, the NBEs in question might evolve into purely profit￾making ventures. That in itself is not a problem per se but it does imply the creation of a
different type of NBE.
In the broadest sense, NGOs and producers are partners in the NBEs they are creating, just as
any ordinary business has partners who bring different resources and roles to the creation and
successful development of an enterprise. The NGOs can bring financial resources, technical
assistance and, in some cases, intellectual property and brand equity. The producers of the
natural product bring “sweat equity” (labor), land and other primary inputs. Together they are
the primary forces determining the success or failure of the new NBE.
46
When the primary partners do not have a clear understanding of the ownership of the enterprise
they are building, there can be conflicts in their respective interests about how to manage the
enterprise and about where it should be headed. Ownership structure defines not only who
receives what percentage of any surplus but also defines who has the authority to make the
decisions regarding the fate of the business. From both of these circumstances serious
conflicts can arise if the partners have different objectives for the NBE. Producers may want to
maximize dividends and minimize the reinvesting of profits in the business while other investors,
such as the NGO, may prefer the opposite. Either goal is legitimate but what ultimately defines
the “best interest” of the NBE follows directly from the definition of its ownership structure. If
one group owns more than a 50% stake, that group can “call the shots” in the running of the
business.
For this reason, it is important to come to an understanding of whose interests will be served in
the creation and management of an NBE. If it is indeed a partnership, as observed in the
cases of most of the NBEs in Kenya, then the “best interests” of the NBEs are guided by the
preferences of both the producers and the sponsoring organizations. Clarifying the ownership
structure of an NBE from the very beginning creates transparency, gives clearer incentives to
each of the stakeholders and provides the framework for an effective partnership. As such, a
well-defined ownership is part of the formula for creating successful NBEs.
3. Sponsoring organizations (NGOs and government entities) are staying involved in the
operation of certain NBEs on a long-term basis. In many cases, the justification for this type of
participation in an NBE has not been provided. Where the sponsoring organization was meant
to serve as facilitator only on an interim basis, being involved for the long term clearly indicates
a problem. Nonetheless, there are other circumstances where long-term participation is
appropriate (such as providing technical advice on an on-going basis). Specifying explicitly
what role, if any, a sponsoring organization will play in an NBE as well as the rationale for this
participation provides an important benchmark for gauging the effectiveness of efforts to make
the NBE a viable proposition.
Varying degrees of involvement of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) were observed in the
NBEs investigated as part of this mid-term review. The most common case among the NBEs
based on natural products is one of extensive involvement by the sponsoring NGO (e.g. ICIPE)
or GoK institution (e.g. NMK). There are also cases, though, where an NGO has played a
facilitator role and exited the process once an enterprise was off the ground (e.g. LWF). This
circumstance appears to be more common among the ecotourism ventures that were observed.
Each of these cases has merit but there can be a downside to each as well.
It follows from the previous discussion of ownership structure that there are benefits to the long￾term involvement of sponsoring NGOs in the direction and management of an NBE. There are
also costs. The NGO’s involvement may create an obstacle for involving private sector
investors or institutions that bring valuable expertise and resources. Or, the NGO’s ongoing
involvement could mask fundamental problems. For example, the long-term involvement by a
sponsoring NGO could mean that the enterprise is unsustainable and therefore must rely
forever on an organization that was merely meant to be an initial facilitator.
Similarly for the case of the NGO as interim facilitator, there are benefits and costs to such a
role. If the NGO exits too soon, the NBE could fail for lack of sufficient guidance and resources
at its critical takeoff stage. Exit too late and the NGO could become a drag on the performance
of the NBE or an impediment to its evolution.
47
While arriving at the best definition of how long a sponsoring NGO is not an exact science, from
the outset it is important and constructive to lay out the terms of the NGO’s participation in the
NBE and its exit strategy, as appropriate. And the NBE’s business plan, which should be
spelled out very early on, is the logical and best place to make this specification. As a result, all
stakeholders will know from the beginning what the projected role of the NGO is meant to be in
the life of the NBE.
4. Additional business analysis and technical advice (applying a value-chain perspective;
developing business plans; offering business management advice) are needed. The market
orientation of several NBEs observed by the Review Team could be significantly reinforced.
Better analysis and expanded business services would strengthen the efforts to create viable
NBEs that generate added value.
The Review Team encountered a number of good examples – in USAID-funded activities and
elsewhere -- where sponsoring organizations and stakeholders are pursuing ways to create
added value through the NBEs that they are trying to establish. Butterfly pupae exports through
the Kipepeo project have generated surpluses in Arabuko Sokoke. New outlets need to be
developed. Ecotourism businesses have become viable ventures. New products have been
created, such as ICIPE’s development of Naturub and Mondia Tonic. Much of this has been
accomplished without extensive involvement of formal business expertise. Providing additional
business services to the USAID-funded program could have significant benefits. The proposed
“butterfly house” for Mombasa needs to be carefully reviewed prior to funding the $400,000
balance of USAID funds designated for this project and administered by NMK. Within the
landscape approach which, needs reinforcing at AS, greater efforts might be made to upgrade
the existing ‘butterfly house’ near Gede into a major tourist attraction, before creating a
potentially costly to run and manage butterfly house that might negatively compete with the
Arabuko Sokoke Landscape’s own tourist attraction. Some of these funds might also be better
used to help support small-grants or revolving loans for additional butterfly houses, mushroom
huts, and other business ventures within the AS landscape itself – scaling up activities so as to
achieve impact.
Additional business services could be focused on the following:
First, bringing a “value chain” perspective to an existing or proposed NBE provides the means
for understanding better the challenges and opportunities that face the NBE. Specifically, a
value chain perspective considers all of the factors that, linked together, form the basis of
creating value in a particular market. In simplified terms, the value chain is composed of the
following linkages: Input Suppliers 
 Producers 
 Processors/Packagers 

Marketers/Retailers
 Consumers. These links can be examined both individually and
collectively to see where value can be created -- by eliminating obstacles (e.g., lack of technical
expertise for better modes of processing), by reducing constraints (e.g., inadequate capital
financing) or by pursuing opportunities (e.g., links to domestic and international buyers).
Furthermore, a value chain perspective helps promote market-driven orientation to the NBE. In
several circumstances, the Review Team observed that NBEs were being guided solely by
production considerations (supply) rather than the demands of the market.
Second, writing good business plans is an essential step in defining what steps need to be
taken to make the NBE succeed and articulating that approach both to the business partners
themselves as well as to outside parties (such as donors and sponsoring organizations) who
may provide investment funds or other resources. The Review Team observed that the
development of business plans has not been a common practice in the USAID-supported
48
activities in the past. However, recent activities have more frequently included the preparation
of business plans. Making the preparation of business plans a standard prerequisite for
receiving USAID support would help focus the program’s NBE activities on NBE candidates that
are better prepared for success. Furthermore, if a value chain analysis has been conducted for
the sector where the NBE is being developed, a business plan can benefit.
Third, in selected cases, USAID resources could be used to obtain business management
advice for particularly promising NBE ventures. For example, in the case of high-end eco￾lodges that are owned by a community, it may be more effective (and therefore profitable) to
hire the services of a professional tourism/lodging management group, at least in initial phases
in order to share expertise with the community. Such a group has access to high-end markets
and tourist circuits, knows the ‘client-first’ rule to meet market needs and quality standards and
knows how to manage the operational resources.
5. Leaders for the new NBEs have emerged in a number of cases. A more systematic
approach could be taken to identifying and encouraging such leaders, organizing the NBE
venture to take advantage of their contributions and, as appropriate, putting more resources at
their disposal. These steps could enhance the chances for success in the NBE and can create
a basis for scaling up the enterprise.
In the agricultural sector, local lead farmers who adopt new methods typically serve as better
examples for other local farmers to follow than “project managed demonstration sites.” The
analogy works the same for encouraging the development of local nature-based enterprises.
Community groups and individuals will benefit as well as out-growers and suppliers.
Furthermore, identifying leaders and reinforcing an entrepreneurial mindset can create much
more momentum for NBEs to take off and become viable businesses. The Review Team
observed this practice on selected occasions but doing more to encourage and train such
leaders can make NBE start-up activities more effective and lay the groundwork for creating
entrepreneurs who are the champions of their business ventures. Business plans can provide a
means for singling out such leaders, defining or reinforcing the critical role that they play in the
success of the NBE and determining what resources should be put at their disposal.
6. Kipepeo may need better business orientation in the starting and managing of its NBEs.
Progress is being made (with the business plans and cash flows prepared by Ideal Business
Links) but starting new ventures (e.g., aloe vera) without business analysis is risky. At the same
time, Kipepeo is a good starting point for thinking about strategic perspectives on NBEs since it
has been managing a portfolio of NBEs.
7. It is uncertain whether the proposed $500,000 investment in a butterfly house at Port
Jesus near Mombasa will generate sufficient benefits to justify this USAID investment. Also, it is
unclear whether any significant benefits would flow back to the butterfly producers at AS
themselves.
8. LWF’s tourism approach is a partnership between community and private sector. For
example, women own a facility that is built by the community and paid for with donor funds.
Women enter into an agreement with a private sector entity to run the lodge since the women’s
group does not have the necessary skills. LWF might train the community to run the lodge but
that would take time. In the meantime the lodge needs to be operating therefore it would be run
privately or jointly with the community. Another option would be to leave the private sector in
the role of operating the lodge (such as through a lease arrangement), an option that LWF
appears to be moving towards as a way to guarantee high quality for high prices charged for
49
services. This approach is a natural progression between the community and a private sector
entity. LWF would leave it to those parties to work it out.
9. The TIST program provides an economic incentive but does not lead to the creation of
an NBE. It has this potential, if integrated into the forest management plans of specific CBOs
within specific forest reserves around Mt. Kenya. The global carbon credit market is not yet well
developed, which makes the long-term viability of this approach uncertain still.
3.2.2 KCMP
Situation
1. IUCN made initial investment in Wasini Women’s Group boardwalk. PACT tried to move
NBEs ahead (with the intention of having an approach like that of the JKPB Trust). Since
Wasini is homogenous community, it has worked well. There is a combination of ecotourism
attractions: Wasini has a boardwalk and coral gardens while Shimoni has slave caves. The third
village in the area does not have a community project (Nkweru).
2. KCMP: August, 2006 Power Point presentation cites the development of 3 business
plans for fishing projects in Kaya Kinondo, Kaya Diani and Mwaepe. This same presentation
cites the establishment of linkages with Honey Care Africa for beekeeping technical support and
market provision for honey produced. The presentation also points to the development of an
ecotourism business development plan. It is unclear what financial benefits these initiatives
may have generated.
3. JK Fisheries Group includes 78 fishermen in the area. PACT-Kenya prepared a
business plan. USAID funds built a fishing banda basic structure but fishermen completed it
using other donor funding. Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park is near their fishing grounds but
off-limits to fishers. Since the group has not entered into agreement with CDA yet, it has not
begun to implement activities proposed under its business plan.
4. At JKPB, support to the various user groups has been a useful organizing endeavor.
Business plans that have been developed but have not yet been implemented. A boat was
provided at a project cost of $100,000 but it has yet to be used because of conflicting objectives
of program partners about potential revenue sharing, who actually owns the boat, and where
and how profits earned should be distributed. The fishermen’s group objected to CDA taking an
important percentage of the profit to generate funds for another boat that would be given to
other fishermen outside this particular group (who had their own needs for additional boats).
5. Mwaepe Fish Landing Site, Diani-Chale. USAID funds have built the boat, renovated
the fishing banda, built toilets, renovated meeting building and bought nets, engines, scale,
office furniture. The boat has been used two times but is not currently being used because the
seas are too rough (as illustrated by diving boat that capsized while we were there). Fishermen
now fish using canoes but there appears to be fishing in the marine reserve area, which is
illegal. They sell fish to fish mongers who sell to hotels and restaurants and individuals. The
fisherman association believes there is a role for fish mongers and does not want to replace
them: all have to benefit.
6. Rainwater harvesting tank homestead: This activity was started in 2003 in Mombasa (23
tanks total) but no one was interested in investing after the pilot. Consequently, the effort
50
moved to Kwale District (10 tanks, with requests for many more). Tanks of 6,000 and 10,000
liters are provided to schools, health clinics, groups, and individuals. This project has benefited
10,000 people, decreasing cholera cases and reducing resources dedicated to drinking water
collection. Children no longer have to go to river daily except to get water for washing and for
animals.
Analysis/Conclusions
1. Greater focus should be placed on selected landscapes with more support directed
towards community-driven nature-based enterprises with a direct link to NRM and biodiversity
conservation. JKPB activities should be integrated into landscape system, bringing together the
leading stakeholders with respect to this coastal and adjacent marine resource, or otherwise
phased out.
2. If continued support is provided, there is a need to provide a professional review of the
business plan and then to support activities of fishing, monitoring, and support development of
the accounting and marketing channels needed for success. Other money could continue to be
made available to continue to support small grants to other enterprises here. It is not clear
however that any of the activities developed at JKPB actually will have a direct impact on the
threats to the adjacent Marine Park or Reserve. JKPB user groups are being addressed as a
small group of users who are only some of the key users within the larger landscape system of
which it is a part.
3. The review team was impressed with what has been accomplished under the local
leadership of the Mida Creek Awareness and Conservation Group. There is great need at the
boardwalk operated by the group of women at Wasini, particularly in terms of interpretive signs
and posted messages for tourists. We recommend that a qualified individual from this group be
engaged as a resource person to assist in leading an effort to help the Wasini boardwalk
project. This individual may need to also engage some of the specialized TA used at Mida
Creek for some of the interpretive signs.
3.2.3 Other Programs: ICIPE in Kakamega Forest Region
Situation
1. ICIPE, in partnership with KWS, KEFRI and the University of Nairobi, has made
advances with the creation of two new products (Naturub and Mondia Tonic) that have brand￾name recognition and that rely on production in the Kakamega Forest region. The first product
uses natural camphor made from oscimum cultivated by producer groups in the Kakamega
region (Murilu Conservation Farmers Group (MCFG) and outgrowers). The MCFG also distills
the oscimum leaves to produce the natural camphor gel used in the manufacture of Naturub.
Mondia Tonic relies on domesticated mondia production in the Kakamega region that serves as
an alternative to the extraction of mondia root that is commonly practiced in the region. Mondia
root is processed and dried at a facility owned and operated by a local environmental
organization (KEEP).
2. ICIPE is also sponsoring the development of beekeeping and silk production (both wild
and domesticated). Infrastructure is being constructed to house local processing of both
products.
51
3. A small amount of butterfly pupae production is being undertaken by KEEP.
Analysis/Conclusions
1. The Kakamega initiatives have resulted in very good product development (natural
camphor in Naturub; mondia) and in brand equity. Improvements have been made in the supply
chain with extensive involvement of local producers.
2. The sustainability of the various enterprises sponsored by the ICIPE partnerships is still
uncertain. At this stage, the products show good business prospects but there is still heavy
reliance on donor funding. It is not clear whether the future revenue stream will be sufficient to
maintain the capital investment that is in place or being constructed. Nonetheless there is
promise in the fact that ICIPE has initiated a revolving loan fund approach (which is currently
charging the Murilu group 3% interest).
3. Arrangements to protect long-term “investment” or “capital” interest of producers are
being worked out late in the product development/marketing process (at least in case of ICIPE’s
involvement in natural camphor and mondia products that have “brand equity”). Production and
sales have been underway for a few years without these arrangements. It is important to work
this out immediately so that it is settled before the enterprise starts generating significant
surpluses since disagreements over this formulation could jeopardize working relationship
among farmers and organizations involved in the enterprise.
3.2.4 Recommendations
1. Apply a more strategic vision and more systematic evaluation of candidate NBEs in
USAID investment decisions in order to ensure highest “return”.
USAID Investment in NBEs needs to be more strategic to assure the highest “return”. Each
NBE should be evaluated in terms of the its actual or project performance relative to the
following criteria:
a. Contributes to biodiversity conservation,
b. Improves livelihoods of poor communities (especially those are live near
biodiversity resources and/or use them),
c. Can be sustained by given date without outside subsidies and
d. Is replicable.
2. Clarify ownership (and therefore, of profit-sharing) of NBE early in the establishment of
the business. Ideally this should be done right at the beginning to create transparency and give
clear signals to all stakeholders.
3. Distribution of profits among different NBE enterprises should be treated as loans not as
subsidies.
4. Long-term roles of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) need to be specified in the
business plan for each NBE to define whether they are interim facilitators or long-term partners.
52
5. Expand business services to new and existing NBEs (identification of markets; linkages
with buyers (domestic and international); enterprise management).
6. Find “champions” – entrepreneurs - and assist them to scale up.
7. USAID should consider involving ICIPE in the scoping out of new NBE product
development possibilities in the areas where USAID FORREMS and KCMP activities are taking
place. The organization and its partners (KWS, KEFRI and the University of Nairobi) have
created new value-added through the development of new products, the provision of quality
assurance and the creation of brand equity.
3.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation
Situation
1. Forest Policy:
The recent enactment of the Forest Policy and the Forest Act (2005) paves the way for
stakeholder participation in forest management. Even before these pieces of legislation were
approved, PFM plans was being piloted at target sites. In fact, on-the-ground PFM interventions
and their local advocates helped to propel the new forestry legislation forward. The Kenya
Forest Department recognizes that “often those most dependent on forest resources have the
least power of access and the most limited role in decision making”.
22 Efforts are being made to
move greater governance and shared responsibility to local communities, something in direct
support of overall U.S. government support goals.
The new forest legislation is broad, and before it can be operationalized, the FD is developing
sets of implementation guidelines. These guidelines will be gazetted, and will become legally
recognized “subsidiary regulations”,
23
in essence a set of detailed procedures of engagement.
The first two sets of implementation guidelines, covering community and private sector
involvement, have been produced in draft (as of August 2006), and the third set, governing
charcoal use and management, is in process. There will be a total of 19 legally binding rules,
which FD intends to have in place by January 2007.
With USAID funding, the GoK and community stakeholders have produced natural resource
inventories and management plans in the target forest reserves but additional plans are needed,
detailing community roles, activities, management, and monitoring so that PFM can be formally
operationalized. In addition, according to the Forest Policy, community groups must be
registered at the national level as Community Forest Associations (CFA)--the legal bodies that
can enter into PFM agreements with the FD.
The following is the status of PFM plans and community organizations:
(1) Mukogodo Forest: USAID supported KEFRI, FD, KWS, NEMA, AWF, and LWF to
produce the Mukogodo Forest Integrated Management Plan (IMP), 2002-2016. Each group
ranch must now produce an Operational Plan (OP), based on the IMP. The OP, an
implementation level plan, will be the legally binding PFM instrument, signed by the
representative of the communities (the CFA, ILMAMUSI) and the FD. Currently, each group
22
“Understanding the new Forest Policy and Forests Act, 2005”, CREEL, 2006, p.1.
23
Personal communication, FD Chief Conservator, August 14, 2006
53
ranch is developing its Operational Plans. These will be finalized by December 2006.
24
ILMAMUSI, an umbrella CBO, has been formed, representing the four group ranches, but must
now register as a CFA to actively participate with FD in forest management.
(2) Arabuko Sokoke Forest: ASF has a 25-year Strategic Plan (2000-2025). Before it can
operationalize its PFM, all 52 villages that buffer the forest must have resource inventories,
maps, and guidelines. Currently, all of the villages from Kakuyuri to Mkongo (villages on the
eastern side of the forest) and Kahingoni, Dida, and Kafitsoni, on the western side, have done
resource and social inventories, mapping, and have developed guidelines. ASF consists of six
zones; 3.5 zones have completed the mapping and resource inventory process, leaving 2.5
zones currently developing their plans and guidelines. To ensure that the forest is divided
equitably among the villages, and to have the whole AS Forest under PFM, all villages must
complete this portion of the PFM process before moving on to a harmonized management plan.
ASFADA, the umbrella group for the AS Forest would get the authority to manage the AS Forest
with the six zones as the implementers. Nature Kenya hopes to complete the work on the
remaining zones by January 2007; the work will probably involve a sampling process and rapid
appraisal. By February 2007, the entire AS Forest would have six forest management plans,
the principal management tools, and there will be an ASFADA plan that harmonizes the six
individual plans.
(3) Mt. Kenya: KWS and FD have produced a joint management plan covering the Mt.
Kenya Forest Reserve (managed by the Forest Department) and Mt. Kenya National Park
(managed by the Kenya Wildlife Service)—the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
for Mt. Kenya. Currently, the plan is at an “advanced draft” stage, and is expected to be
finalized by December 2006.
25 Once the mangement plan is finalized, CFAs can move to the
next stage, developing CAPs. Of the two districts targeted for PFM, Nyeri District has 12 forest
districts (seven in Mt. Kenya and five in the Aberdares), and Meru District has seven forest
stations; one CFA will be registered for each forest station and one CFA will be produced for
each forest station. In Meru District, one CFA has been registered, and a second is soon to be
registered. Because of the gap in USAID funding, in Nyeri District, groups have been mobilized,
but registration as CFAs has stalled.
2. Coastal Policy
Development of a coastal policy has been a slow process, in part bogged down by competing
and powerful interests. The GoK signed Agenda 21 of the Rio Conference committing the
country to protect the coastal and marine environment in its development agenda; and in 1993,
the GoK signed the Arusha Resolution on Integrated Coastal Area Management in Eastern
Africa, prompting countries to institutionalize ICM as a tool for the sustainable use of coastal
resources (CDA Power Point presentation, August 2006). CDA points to the lack of a holistic
approach to management of coastal and marine resources—a constraint that could, in part be
addressed by a Coastal and Marine Policy.
The KCMP has supported the development of a coastal policy and legislative framework. In
November 2005, an ICM policy workshop established an ICM Policy Steering Committee to help
move a national coastal management policy forward. Although NGOs, USAID, other donors,
and other coastal and marine stakeholders have lobbied for an integrated coastal-marine policy,
24
Personal communication, ILMAMUSI staff, August 2006.
25
Personal communication, DFO-Gathuri Forest Station, August 2006
54
there has been little to show for these efforts. Similar to the history of the Forest Policy,
activities on the ground are moving at a faster pace and the policy-enabling environment is
lagging behind.
GoK jurisdiction over the coastal and marine environment is complex: KWS has the mandate to
manage Kenya’s Marine Parks and Reserves; Fisheries Department oversees exploitation and
management of the country’s fisheries within the marine parks and reserves; and FD and KWS
share management of mangrove areas. FD promotes sustainable use but KWS allows only
preservation, a conflict in management approach between GoK entities that results in confusion
on the ground.
The Kenya Marine Forum (KMF) aims to play a central role in formulating and carrying out a
National Coastal and Marine Policy. The KMF envisions a coastal-marine policy that would
encourage community participation in the sustainable management of resources. KMF is a
young and relatively weak organization that has been unable to provide the momentum needed
to get a marine and coastal policy in place.
3. Environmental Management and Coordination Act
With USAID funding, NEMA is developing guidance and training manuals based on the EMCA,
which cover professional criteria for district environmental committees; environmental significant
areas; environmental easements and orders; environmental economics; and EIA and
environmental audit. As of August 2006, the first manual had been produced and the remaining
four are in draft. With the arrival of USAID funds in August 2006, NEMA can now finalize the
manuals, and expects these to be completed in 1.5 months.
26 NEMA will then use these
manuals to train District Environmental Officers (DEO) and District Environmental Committees.
USAID has facilitated NEMA involvement in FORREMS (provision of vehicles and infrastructure
and other logistical support). Support to the DEO has helped to ensure that FORREMS and
KCMP interventions incorporate environmental review, based on the EMCA (project screening,
impact assessment, where necessary, and monitoring), and provide a model for all development
activities. EMCA and its associated legislation covers development actions in coastal, marine,
forest, national park, as well as in urban locations, and therefore is cross-cutting and a key
component of FORREMS and KCMP activities.
4. Wildlife Policy
USAID/Kenya’s Activity Approval Document for the Wildlife Management and Conservation
Program (USAID/Kenya, March 2005) states that one of the key challenges for this program is
policy failure in the wildlife sector. Kenya’s laws and policies tend to favor “conservation” (wise
use), yet implementation is extremely preservationist (no use). There are few incentives for
communities/landowners to conserve wildlife, as those who bear the costs are not entitled to
benefits. The wildlife policy remains in limbo. PFM and the Forest Department’s support of
community involvement in forest management could provide a model for KWS in an updated
and revised wildlife policy. Other models would include the CAMPFIRE program undertaken in
Zimbabwe and similar programs elsewhere (cf. Annex 8). There appears to be a strong desire
within KWS to return to controlled harvesting techniques (e.g. hunting) but this should be based
on sharing of benefits as accomplished through CAMPFIRE.
27
26
Personal communication, NEMA staff, August 14, 2006
27 Within Kenya, some state that ‘conditions in Zimbabwe were different’, which may have permitted success there,
but this would be difficult to implement in Kenya’. The Mid-Term Review Team Leader assisted in the final review of
55
The current situation, whereby the FD is now moving quickly towards PFM, but KWS retains the
“command and control” methods, presents a confused picture to stakeholders, especially in
areas that are managed in partnership by KWS and FD or KWS and the Fisheries Department,
for example, mangrove ecosystems, marine parks and reserves, and Mt. Kenya National
Reserve.
Analysis and Conclusions
1. Forestry Policy
Community Capacity: While the MTR Team visited communities that were ready to
operationalize PFM (Arabuko Sokoke, Mukogodo, and Mt. Kenya), some communities still have
relatively low capacities.
Slow Pace of Forestry Reforms: The real limiting factor for forestry policy has been the slow
pace of getting the legislative framework in place, frustrating some communities that are primed
to implement PFM. According to FD staff, the slow pace of forestry reforms, as well as the gap
in USAID funding to FD to support PFM, has frustrated target pilot communities who have
reached a point where they are ready to fully participate in and benefit by PFM. While January
2007 is the target for Forest Policy implementation, given the history of policy implementation,
the date may slip without the legal framework in place.
Management Plans: While there are overall management plans in place for the target forests
(see above), CFAs must produce CAPs (or Operational Plans for Mukogodo Forest), actionable
plans that will provide the legal basis to operationalize PFM. (Guidance on developing CAPs is
part of FD’s implementing guidelines on PFM, which the MTR Team was not given access to
due to their draft nature. FD staff stated that one chapter of the PFM guidelines has been
allocated to describe CAP preparation and information needed). FD will sign an agreement with
the appropriate CFA to implement the CAP. However, at Mukogodo, Arabuko Sokoke, and Mt.
Kenya, CAPs (or Operational Plans) have yet to be produced. While most FORREMS partners
stated that there are so many plans, and it is now time to implement, there are still more plans
needed before PFM can actually be operationalized. The GoK, NGOs, and CBOs are targeting
December 2006/January 2007 for finalizing many of the pieces needed to operationalize PFMs.
Where possible and appropriate, USAID continued funding in support of this process is critical.
2. Coastal Policy
KCMP partners have been operating without a coastal-marine policy. While significant effort
has gone into developing a policy (including support from USAID), this effort remains stalled.
Although KMF envisions one of their priority roles as advocating for a coastal-marine policy, the
forum is weak and its advocacy role lacks a strategic focus. KMF must respond to many
competing interests in a (perhaps too) wide geographic area. KMF may be one of the likely
organizations to catalyze support for a coastal-marine policy, whereby stakeholder interests and
concerns can be voiced and incorporated, as appropriate. KMF would have to be a neutral
body, providing a facilitation role.
3. Environmental Management & Coordination Agency (EMCA)
CAMPFIRE, and maintains that the principles of CAMPFIRE could certainly be applied within Kenya, particularly
within private game ranches and other similar controlled areas.
56
FORREMS and KCMP built capacity and have provided logistical support to facilitate NEMA
and District Environmental Officer (DEO) participation in these programs. In the FORREMS and
KCMP target districts, DEOs are full partners, providing guidance and support in environmental
impact assessment. While NEMA requires funding to continue its training program, capacity of
the DEOs is adequate to continue to play their mandated role in FORREMS and KCMP.
4. Wildlife Policy
A polarized stakeholder community is the main cause of the breakdown in policy development in
the wildlife sector. Success stories in PFM can help drive a revised wildlife policy that
incorporates community management, use, and benefits.
Recommendations
1. Forestry Policy: Some communities still have relatively low capacities. Organizational,
financial, technical, and enterprise development capacities should be strengthened at PFM
target sites so that communities can be equal partners – and true beneficiaries - in PFM plans.
2. EMCA: As a crosscutting and key partner in FORREMS and KCMP, NEMA input is
important, and as necessary, minimal facilitation, to ensure continued participation could be
provided.
4. Wildlife Policy: Since USAID supports activities in the wildlife and forestry sectors, and is
a lead donor in these areas, the Agency can encourage the sharing of success stories, and
thereby build support for a revised Wildlife Policy. In addition, because FORREMS and KCMP
have strong coordination and management teams that include KWS and FD staff, this cross￾sectoral collaboration between KWS and FD can provide additional impetus to move a wildlife
policy forward. To help catalyze a Wildlife Policy that incorporates participatory management
and community use and benefits, and to build a constituency for coastal and marine
conservation, USAID-supported interventions should target demonstrations of
participatory/community-based management.
5. Priority should be given to completing Community Action/Operational Plans and signing
PFM agreements between CFAs and the FD so that Action/Operational Plans are ready to be
implemented once FD finalizes Forest Act implementation guidelines.
6. Development of a fee-based membership forum should be supported as an outgrowth of
each landscape approach in the coastal/marine environment (ASF expanded landscape). Once
empowered, depending on resources and capacity, the forums to promote the development of a
coastal-marine policy should be facilitated.
3.4 Cross-cutting Issues
Situation
1. Review Team assessments of program documents and field observations clearly found
that both women and youth have had a very significant role in all phases in the development of
forest management plans and in the nature-based enterprises that have begun. Youth have
become engaged as ‘forest scouts’ in several locations, moving as a group as they patrol and
57
protect the reserve forest resources that they have begun to manage.
28 We met groups of
women involved with tree nursery establishment and sales, bee keeping, capturing butterflies
and raising larvae/pupae, and responsible for ‘board walks’ over mangrove areas near their
home sites, drawing, in the case of the Wasini ‘coral gardens boardwalk’ over 10,000 visitors
this past year.
2. Women in one group ranch in Mukogodo Landscape provided all the voluntary labor in
digging trenches and planting tree seedlings and aloe plants upon a large area they fenced in.
Indeed, the Review Team considers this particular case a real success story in community joint
action, without much outside support, in seeking to improve much-degraded rangeland upon
which they know their livelihoods depend. We also met a group of women involved in making
elephant dung paper and another collecting medicinal plants/herbs for processing and sales.
TIST small-groups benefiting from carbon-credits linked to their planting of trees are heavily
weighted towards women.
3. Local governance options within community based participatory forest management
plans for both designated areas within Forest Reserves near which they live, or outside upon
communal land have been an extremely important crosscutting development under both
FORREMS and KCMP. Including the involvement of local fishermen associations or local boat
owners, like the Kisite Private Boat Operations Association on the mainland across from Wasini
Island have all expressed a desire to be part of both the sustainable use and protection/care of
Marine Reserves where they either fish or take tourists for snorkeling and scuba diving.
4. The Landscape systems approach to biodiversity conservation is itself the ideal
crosscutting strategy to use within all USAID-supported geographical areas. Through the fee￾paying, membership forum approach within stakeholder defined geographic areas, through
bringing all these stakeholders – public and private sector – together at the same level to
develop a common vision of what needs to be done – and then doing it – there is true hope for
biodiversity conservation and future sustainability. Without such an approach however, there
can be little hope for the long-term survival of the natural resource base and biodiversity upon
which different competing land user and landowner groups are depending.
5. Within the U.S. government’s new Foreign Assistance directives for ‘transformational
diplomacy’, USAID/Kenya’s mission activities with an ‘environmental’ focus would fall within the
strategic objective of “Investing in People”. USAID/Kenya’s biodiversity focus for NRM, which
includes efforts towards CBNRM programs that partner local individuals and their communities
with government services in a collaborative approach to biodiversity conservation, would be
seen as ‘investing in people’. Yet, it is also clear that USAID/Kenya’s biodiversity program also
contributes directly to several of the other strategic objectives in a crosscutting way. Capacity
building support being given to GoK institutions within the biodiversity support program, which
focuses on the real ‘on-the-ground’ implementation of local management initiatives to include
local communities in biodiversity conservation, is important. The creation of nature-based
private sector enterprises, led by both private entrepreneurs and community based
organizations (CBOs), with out-grower networks among people living adjacent to both protected
areas and reserves, is also key to reducing poverty (a leading cause of pressures upon limited
natural resources) and stimulating economic growth.
28
The Review Team encountered the following telling situation: Forest Department guards had captured a man who
had illegally harvested trees from the Dida Community’s section of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Reserve. The forest
guards had been called in by these youth scouts, and pointed out where illegal activity was taking place. This person
was from outside their community and was trying ‘to steal’ their resources.
58
Challenges/Conclusions
1. FORREMS and KCMP field activities have been aggressive in looking for opportunities
to include women and youth in the programs being developed, particularly through nature-based
enterprises in which they have a principal stake, through nursery development and tree planting,
including TIST small groups, and through participation in PFM plans for the forest resources
adjacent to their communities.
2. PFM plans have created an opportunity for local communities, and specific interests
groups within these communities to become more directly involved in the natural resources and
biodiversity represented in different land types adjacent to where they live (degraded pastures,
dry forests, degraded forests, plantation forests, grasslands). This devolution of authority and
management responsibilities to local communities, within management plans cooperatively
developed with FD, KSW, and marine services is very encouraging. However, the time to
implement these management plans has come. Otherwise the efforts the past few years will be
wasted since communities will become impatient with the ‘promises’ of greater say and
involvement in the resources around them.
3. The landscape systems approach being implemented by the LWF in Laikipia and
elsewhere is perhaps the best existing model within Kenya of how potentially competing land
owner and land user groups can be brought together within a forum with a common vision for
the sustainable development, care and use of their shared landscape.
Recommendations
1. Continue to support and build upon the community groups already being developed
within the landscape systems, with increasing efforts to scale-up the activities of these women,
youth, and others and to also link them to the marketplace buyers of their products.
2. Reinforce the move to operationalize PFM plans by supporting FD, KWS, and other GoK
institutions and their personnel directly involved in moving legislation to reality on the ground.
Support the ability of GoK personnel to interact within existing and new landscape forums as
they are created – not to dominate or control them but to provide their facilitation services where
forum members will recognize a need.
3. Concentrate future field-based USAID funding of activities through different regionally
based, different local stakeholder based forums. Rather than ‘parachute’ new activities into an
area without properly channeling it through local stakeholder groups, the forum approach gives
greater legitimacy to new activities, helps to prevent duplication and bringing in potential conflict.
3.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting
Situation
1. The USAID/Kenya Strategic Framework #5 (Figure 1) led to the development of thirteen
performance indicators. Partners receiving USAID FORREMS and KCMP funding were
59
required to report upon these indicators as implementation took place.
29 Ultimately, only the
first two were to be reported upon with any regularity. The 13 indicators and their relationship to
the Mission’s Strategic Plan are:
1. SO # 5 Land use change in target area (CORE, FORREMS, KCMI)
2. # of stakeholders benefiting from involvement in improved NRM (direct male, female;
indirect)
3. IR 5.1 # of NRM initiatives successfully implemented in target areas (CORE, FORREMS, KCMI)
4. IR 5.1.1 # of conservation tools/technologies in use by targeted stakeholders
5. IR 5.1.2 # of integrated NRM plans implemented
6. IR 5.1.3 Functionality of Databases available to targeted decision makers
7. IR 5.1.4 Financial benefits to communities from nature-based businesses
8. IR 5.1.5 Organization development index
9. IR 5.3.1 % of target protected areas utilizing new M&E tracking systems
10. Functionality of internal databases for monitoring and evaluation
11. IR 5.4 Level of policy/legislation advancement
12. IR 5.4.1 Operational level of legislative and policy functions within selected institutions
13. IR 5.4.2 Level of capacity of selected CBOs in policy formulation and advocacy
2. An indicator-by-indicator discussion can be found in Annex 2.1. Difficulties with various
indicators are discussed and some suggestions for modifications or changes made.
30
3. As seen by the review of the 13 different SO 5 indicators, serious difficulties were
encountered by program implementers (GoK institutions and field implementation NGOs) with
the M&E system put into place and with the performance indicators that should be periodically
measured (usually annually). Comments included the system “was extremely difficult to
complete and report upon”. Coming up with the list of 13 indicators was accomplished through
a collaborative process of stakeholder organizations - essentially the USAID SO 5 team meeting
with GoK institutional partners. It was not ‘field-tested’ prior to establishment and baseline data
(point of departure) still do not exist for some of the indicators.
4. The M&E system was then taken ‘to the field’ to implement. USAID grant managers
have commented upon the difficulty of gaining an understanding of the progress made at the
implementation sites and with communities, and more importantly, of impact from the
information received. Six of the thirteen indicators are actually complicated indexes averaged
from a list of items that would need to be scored. Indicator 13 for example – the ‘Advocacy
Index”, is made up of 40 items pertaining to skills levels related to an organization’s capacity in
advocacy that would need to be scored! Only two of the thirteen indicators might be considered
to help management to actually measure the impact being made by the program on intended
objectives, and even these do so only indirectly.
5. Missing in the existing M&E system is a requirement to identify and write-up “success
stories” which help to illustrate impact at the local level. Well-written success stories are one of
the best ways to illustrate achievements in a process of activities leading to an ultimate
objective. Efforts to link the needs of community members in the Makurian Group Ranch at
Mukogodo are benefiting both wildlife, livestock, and community members. A private rancher
fenced off and protected water sources on his own land and then began providing this water by
gravity to cisterns within the arid group ranch area. This example is a real success story since
it is a case of bringing different user groups together - once in open conflict – to create a
compromise that will have a direct impact on biodiversity conservation within this area of the
Forest Reserve.
29 USAID Kenya, Performance Monitoring Plan for SO 5, February 2004, p.4.
30 USAID Kenya Performance Monitoring Plan for SO 5, February 2004.
60
6. Performance monitoring under FORREMS was led through the efforts of the M&E unit
within KWS, a unit with excellent GIS spatial analysis capabilities. The Coast Development
Authority (CDA) was the GoK institution responsible for coordinating efforts under the Kenya
Coastal Management Program (KCMP), and some of the fieldwork for this was sub-contracted
through PACT/Kenya. Information flow on SO 5 indicators has been difficult to manage for both
institutions. KWS did manage to get out a ‘Performance Monitoring Report’ for both 2004 and
2005 that attempted to be responsive to the SO 5 indicators. CDA, on the other hand, after
creating a ‘Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Plan (July 2004)’ on these indicators, seems to
have been unable to report at all on these indicators, and failed to do so. The Review Team
found no regular CDA reporting on indicators for 2005 or 2006. CDA reporting on their ‘results’
was given in a more conventional way, simply reporting on what were considered to be major
activities and accomplishments.
31
7. It is worth noting that TIST is currently employing a field-based monitoring system
measuring the number of hectares being targeted and the number of stakeholders who are
benefiting. This system is innovative and could be useful in other applications. However,
whether the costs of this approach are affordable would need to be investigated before a
recommendation can be made on applying this system elsewhere.
Analysis/Conclusions
1. Generally, it is very difficult to assess impact on either NRM by target communities or of
biodiversity conservation from any of the 13 SO 5 indicators – which were more ‘process’
orientated in nature. While some accomplishments can be cited (such as the planting of
800,000 trees under the TIST program with Ksh 800,000 going to farmers), overall, there is
limited measurable impact to date. In most cases, during the past two years, there have been
numerous studies, inventories; creation of business plans, organizing groups – but extremely
little direct implementation. Yet USAID is results-focused and waiting to know about impact of
its interventions on target communities to realize the stated biodiversity conservation goals.
2. Separate reporting on the different M&E indices every year is neither realistic, nor even
helpful. Future assessments would better be considered as a ‘special assessment study’ done
at set intervals. Such an assessment could be done at the beginning of 2007, for instance, as
new program funding continues, and then every two years through September 2011, using the
baseline already established.
3. Under a new management structure for a future combined FORREMS/KCMP program,
the current set of indicators should be revised and new ones added which are more closely
linked to the biodiversity conservation goals of this program, and better measure the impact on
the concerned communities. Too much effort was expended in trying to measure ‘administrative
process’ in the SO 5 indicators and not enough on conservation and biodiversity impact.
4. In the new M&E system that is currently in the process of being identified between
USAID and State for future global monitoring indicators, it will be important to identify “a
standard set of measures and results indicators from which country teams can set specific
targets to be achieved”. The Review Team will propose a number of indicators that might feed
31 CDA, KCMP Fy2005-2006 Progress Report, February 2005, and as presented in the CDA PowerPoint presentation
to the Review Team during their visit to Mombasa, August 6, 2006 – presented by Mainaina Mburu, CDA Coastal
Engineer.
61
into such a system and suggests modifications be made to the current system of SO 5 M&E
system indicators.
Recommendations
1. Success stories need to be documented and reported as a key type of impact indicator.
LWF’s success in bringing all the major stakeholders together around the Mukogodo Landscape
(four community group ranches, private ranchers adjacent to these group ranches, the tourism
industry, GoK institutions FD, KEFRI, NEMA, and KWS, and civil leaders) must be seen as a
major success story in a process towards developing a common vision and management plan
for the management of natural resources and threatened biodiversity within both the dry-land
forest reserve and areas around this reserve. Nature Kenya’s involvement with KWS, FD,
KEFRI and NMK’s Kipepeo in particular, working with the Dida-Kahingoni-and Kafitsoni
communities bordering the south-eastern side of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest in developing a
Participatory Forest Management (PFM) plan is also a success story. This experience is an
example of public-private sector collaboration towards eventually giving these communities legal
right to manage a defined area of the forest, and their own peripheral zone, in a sustainable
manner, while also protecting and conserving the existing biodiversity for future generations.
The next ‘success story’ for this area will be when the Forest Department actually takes the step
to sign the authorizations with these communities to have the authority to actually implement
their plan, the next step in the transition to CBNR management to share in the protection of their
forests. The Review Team observed a number of other similar ‘success stories’.
2. An M&E system should be designed to draw key information from the bottom up, and not
from the top down, as was the case with the existing program. KWS and LWF both have
experienced and capable people who could lead to such a revision. Individuals exist within the
current group of partners within FORREMS in particular who are fully capable of revising the
current M&E system into something much more practical and useful for measuring progress and
impact.
3. There is a need to focus on a few promising ‘management systems’ in a few landscape
systems, and then to scale-up activities in such a way that impact might actually be achieved.
4. The 13 indicators currently being used by the FORREMS and KCMP programs under
SO 5 need to be completely revised, or administered differently. For example, if still desired by
USAID as a management tool, all of the six ‘indices’ indicators (#s 6,8,10,11,12,13) should be
administered at one or two-year intervals in a consistent manner, such as by one designated
person who knows how to interpret the different components of each index and can apply them
across program areas in a consistent manner.
5. The real picture of biodiversity conservation and the program’s impacts may not be
captured because indicators are inadequate to measure biodiversity conservation success.
Introduce new indicator(s) to monitor and report on biodiversity conservation (for example, the
number of illegal activities/# of encroachments taking place in protected areas or forest
reserves).
6. Identify at least one impact indicator specific to each landscape system that addresses
the most serious threat on existing natural resources and/or biodiversity. For instance land
degradation because of overgrazing (too many animals) on group ranches is being addressed
62
around Mukogodo Forest in several ways. LWF wishes to raise the quality of the small herds
owned by community members (linking them to slaughter houses), and hopefully lower the
numbers to more sustainable levels. Impacts might be seen in both increased value of owned
stock, reduced numbers overall, and improved pastures. All these can be measured by
community members committed to improving the lives of the members of group ranches.
Regular monitoring, by the Fisheries Department with fishermen of the average size of a key
species of fish taken from Marine Reserves during specific times would provide a general
indicator of the success or failure in managing fishing practices and impact on this resource.
Measuring actual forest quality within randomly selected blocks within one, two, and three km.
of the Arabuko Sokoke Forest boundaries – once a management system has been put into
place with community members -will monitor the maintenance, improvement, or degradation of
the forest and ultimately the success or failure of PFM policies put into place.
3.6 Program Management and Implementation
Situation
1. USAID support to GoK Institutions
In December 2002, Kenyans elected a new government with a coalition of partners other than
the ruling KANU party that had held power since independence in 1964. The new
administration promised to make a break with the past and has initiated a number of important
new policies and legislation. Among expected changes, the role of government is to lessen,
greater decentralization will take place, and rural communities are promised a role in joint
management of resources upon which they depend. FORREMS and KCPM came into
existence during this time. Donors, including USAID, wanted to provide special encouragement
to the newly created government and the institutions this new administration intended to reform.
USAID, in a departure from common practices, was willing to provide some focused support to
GoK institutions to build the needed capacity to undertake promised reforms. Beginning in 2003
therefore, direct support grants (PILS) were provided to GoK institutions (KWS, FD, KEFRI,
CDA, NMK and NEMA) to build institutional capacity (vehicles, building upgrading, computers)
and train staff, seeking to bring greater accountability and strategic focus and coordination to
programs. GoK efforts to decentralize and become more responsive to the social and
community issues that increasingly threaten the country’s biodiversity resources and economic
future were supported.
Institutional inertia is hard to overcome, however. Policy changes have been slow and remain
to be implemented for NRM.
32 Even when the GoK was provided the means to operationalize
activities, in partnership with other groups, particularly NGOs and communities, the very
slowness in implementation and completing of tasks by GoK institutions (research, inventories,
assessments, reports, financial accounting) has compromised progress. Yet progress has been
made at the field level to help build capacity of local communities within the PFM plan
framework but the step to operationalize this still waits FD action. Within the marine
environment, the recent canceling of the licenses of international trawlers taking fish from
coastal areas of Kenya should be seen as a major step in beginning to look at the local interests
of Kenya’s own fishermen groups and their aspirations and needs upon these resources. This
32
The EMCA, though passed, has yet to be implemented on the ground through contractual agreements with
community organizations. FD is still in the process of defining the rules of engagement (without the direct
involvement of the private sector or local community representatives in the process.)
63
approach could become an important future tool in developing ‘marine resource management
plans’ that could involve some of the fishermen associations that KCMP program has been
helping to organize. Their ‘empowerment’ could have a direct impact on pressures currently
being placed upon marine parks and reserves.
2. GoK funding
Neither the ‘Advance System’ nor ‘Reimbursement System’ of accounting attempted by USAID
in directing funds through GoK institutions towards program activities has worked very well. In
the case of the FD, the system of funding failed completely. Lack of promised GoK funding
essentially blocked programs in FD. Not able to appropriately manage the ‘Advance System’
with USAID’s contracting office, the ‘Reimbursement System’ was given by USAID as another
option for USAID funds. However, because the GoK was unable to get access to advance
funds, no planned activities could be undertaken, therefore no receipts and no reimbursement.
None of FD’s 3
rd PIL for $100,000 could be spent. No FORREMS activities intended through
FD have taken place for over one year. Planned activities with the U.S. Forest Service, field
activities with TIST and other FORREMS and KCMP field activities have not been able to take
place. Only 40% of LOP funding to FD has been obligated and one quarter of this amount
remains unspent.
3. NGO Involvement
Initially in 2002, NGOs did not seem strong enough to be given responsibility for managing
major program efforts, and so USAID took upon itself the task of program management and
coordination. The result was that a tremendous burden was placed upon the USAID Kenya SO
5 team, particularly the three grant Contract Technical Officers (CTOs)
33
not only to try to
provide significant ‘hand-holding’ in preparing financial and technical reports, training in financial
reporting, and trying to coordinate overall efforts but also to continue to manage the financial
instruments (PILS for GoK, cooperative agreements for NGOs) to 6 GoK institutions and 3
NGO/private sector partners within both FORREMS and KCMP. The situation with NGOs is
now different. PACT USA has recently been awarded a major grant to coordinate an umbrella
of sub-contractors within the wildlife sector. Nature Kenya and Laikipia Wildlife Forum have
both gained experience in managing USAID funds for two or more years and have the capacity
to broaden their financial and management leadership in future efforts. USAID CTO, grant
managers, and contract office capacity-building support personnel were very effective in this
training and established good working relationships with program partners. Recent USAID
financial reviews/audits of both institutions have found satisfactory, even very good, account
management and both have proven capable of working well with the controller’s office for
financial management. Field activities have progressed well, though sometimes without as
much GoK input as planned. PACT Kenya has been a sub-contractor to CDA within KCMP.
4. Private Sector Involvement
Private sector involvement has been limited in the FORREMS and KCMP programs. They
could have been more involved in a number of different activities, such as: creating business
33 USAID SO 5 CTOs: Charles Oluchina (KWS, FD, CDA), Wairimu Mungai (KEFRI, TIST, NEMA), and Beatrice
Wamalwa (NMK, NK, LWF).
64
plans for potential nature-based enterprises, assessing existence (volume, quality demand) of
regional and international markets, providing benefit-cost studies (such as to assess the impact
on community level producers, if any, whose increased access to financial alternatives were
supposed to be linked to reduced pressure on the identified threats to selected natural
resources and biodiversity areas targeted by FORREMS and KCMP). Groups like ICIPE
(international research institute) and NMK (GoK) have stepped in to try to build such links but
are not making significant linkages between producers and markets directly.
34 Part of the reason
for this problem appears to be the ‘mission creep’ discussed below, where both GoK and NGO
partners have begun to think they can do this – placing themselves within the value chain
between the producer and the marketplace.
There have been some direct and indirect examples of private sector involvement. Laikipia
Wildlife Forum, which has brought in very strong involvement with the private sector (private
ranches, tourism operators, hotels), considering this sector an essential stakeholder, with
community leaders and groups, GoK institutions, and others who have a stake within a specific
geographic landscape system. PACT Kenya has brought in some involvement of Business
Links, Inc. in exploring potential NBEs, but the targeted activities seem to be for disjointed
activities, good in themselves, but not part of an overall strategic plan for a landscape system as
a whole. The actual private sector market buyers, with whom one would negotiate volume,
understand quality needs, and place orders are, with the possible exception of the tourism
industry, missing. Honey production is very often listed as a very important commercial product
for people living near adjacent forest areas. Yet efforts to develop such resources at a scale
that could actually have an impact on incomes and ultimately behavior vis-à-vis the forest is
missing. Links with Kenyan private sector honey buyers (Honey Care, Kenyan Beekeepers,
Ltd.) do not exist. Finally, TIST is linked to a private sector partner Clean Air Action Coalition
Corporation in the development of the greenhouse gas market.
5. Reporting
The USAID SO 5 team CTOs also needed to constantly seek to obtain from GoK partners in
particular the periodic reports and the data needed to report on agreed upon monitoring
indicators. Yet the data received proved to be difficult to use, the M&E indicators reporting on
target field results were often not available, or when available, one would have to ask “so what”.
Program impact was very difficult to discern. Success stories were not reported upon – though
many exist.
6. Mission Creep
Expanding missions (and lack of focus) appears to be endemic among most of the partners of
both the FORREMS and KMCP programs. Whether it is KEFRI, FD, KWS, CDC, NMK, these
GoK institutions have received USAID capacity building support for the purpose of
strengthening and promoting their stated efforts with Kenyan community-based organizations
(CBO), and the local and international NGOs and other institutions (such as ICIPE) providing
additional help to these same CBOs. Having helped facilitate the creation of management
plans, these organizations desire to become engaged in implementing and operationalizing
these plans, without a clear devolution of authority. In the case of some NBEs, one would have
34 Reasons given are many. The communities ‘are not capable’ of undertaking such tasks on their own; they ‘don’t
have the contacts’. They don’t ‘understand the market’. Yet in many cases the helping organizations don’t either, and
themselves search out to find those who do. When markets are found, these institutions remain as intermediaries for
the communities.
65
expected the creation of direct links between producer and markets but some institutions have
placed themselves within the value chain and themselves seek the markets. Unfortunately
however, this blurring of roles could lead to limiting the potential of vibrant, private sector, nature
based enterprises.
7. Potential Conflict of Interest
There appears to be a potential conflict of interest in programs that seek to promote the move
by GoK parastatals to become more self-sufficient and the move to develop community based
natural resource management groups (CBNRM or CBOs) to co-manage, protect and conserve
biodiversity within Kenya. In the case particularly of the forest reserves (and marine reserves)
both GoK institutions and communities around these areas have their eyes on the same set of
resources. Forest reserves of the FD, for example, include a wide spectrum of ‘forest’ types
(including degraded forests, plantation forests, pasture lands). FD, as it moves towards a
parastatal status, has an estimated $300 million of value in its plantation forests alone, which
may be concessioned out to private sector groups, and perhaps even CFO and CBO groups for
a fee for participatory forest management programs. Yet FD also may develop plans for the
other ‘forest’ categories upon which existing and future CBO’s are hoping to gain greater
management control and to extract some real economic benefits. Without sufficient benefits
accruing to local community CBOs, it is unlikely that they will provide the degree of
management control and protection that will be required for these dwindling resources to be
conserved.
8. Community-Based Management
One of the truly positive benefits that FORREMS and KCMP programs have brought to the
various communities in which they have worked has been in the development of multi-user
groups (land-owners and land users) and stakeholders. The leading example of this can be
found through the approach adopted by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum to “bring together private
ranchers, pastoralists, small scale farmers, local community initiatives and tourism ventures” in
a common goal “to conserve the integrity of the Laikipia ecosystem by creatively managing
natural resources to improve the livelihood of its people”. By creating a membership-driven
organization with a common goal and identifiable zone of intervention, the Forum has been able
to work closely with FD, KEFRI, NEMA, KWS and others to reach common objectives and
reduce both user group conflicts and human-wildlife conflict, efforts which were reinforced
through the USAID CORE enterprises. Under FORREMS, LWF, using this approach, has
clearly defined the Mukogodo Landscape and brought together the key constituencies that need
to work out the issues of common concern in both the conservation and rehabilitation of the
area to reduce pressures upon the Forest Reserve. The foundation of the system was based
around the ILMAMUSI CBO, formed by members from the four community group ranches
surrounding Mukogodo Forest reserve, and their evolving efforts to develop a Participatory
Forrest Management (PFM) plan to better manage both the Forest and their adjacent ‘non￾reserve’ lands. Because their success in this effort would also have an impact on and benefit
other user groups in the larger landscape (private ranchers, tourism, GoK efforts), these groups
were brought together by LWF to develop a common and coordinated vision on how to move
forward.
9. Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP)
The USAID funded initiatives along the southern Kenya coast under KCMP faced many
management issues which the Review Team believe limited the effectiveness of the activities
66
undertaken. The Coast Development Authority (CDA), through which funding was channeled to
the Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) program, has significant regional ambitions
and effective coordination and implementation ended up being difficult. In a PowerPoint
presentation to the Review Team, ICAM pointed out the following major management
challenges they had faced, that compromised effective implementation:
35
(1) Inadequate funding for identified program activities.
(2) Delay in disbursement of committed activity funds resulting in time constraints and some
activities left pending.
(3) Change in KCMP partner’s work plans and time over-runs caused by delayed funding.
(4) Meeting the high expectations and interests from partners and the coastal community in
the implementation of the program.
(5) The frequent changes in the political and management offices of the partners. This
adversely affected the progress towards development of ICAM policy.
(6) The long legal process of repossessing land from the illegal occupants and obtaining
legal land documentation.
(7) Implementing officers working under pressure to perform KCMP program activities in
addition to their normal duties.
(8) Performance contract system where GoK institutions are required to generate funds
affecting commitment to program implementing officers as priority is given to other AIA
activities.
(9) Lack of clear incentives affecting team morale with officers giving priority to programs
that provide incentives.
10. Landscape System Forum Composition
The Review Team observed that the Laikipia Wildlife Forum is an excellent working model of a
landscape systems approach, with a fee-paying membership forum of key stakeholders leading
the way. Such a forum must be composed of:
• Local Community Leaders
• Civil society local leaders
• GoK: FD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, and Fisheries
• Private Sector Operators (Hotels, Tourism Businesses)
• NGOs working within the area.
All of these stakeholders must have a direct relationship with a geographically definable
landscape system, sharing common threats and a powerful economic reason why they would
wish this landscape to remain unspoiled or improved in ways that would sustain their livelihood
and economic interests. The physical boundaries must be defined by the forum members – and
not be based on geo-political boundaries. Powerful wildlife-human conflicts and conflict
between different user groups (private ranches vs. populous group ranches) have provided the
socio-economic incentives needed to work together to solve problems in a manner which
reduces conflict and protects and improves the landscape to better meet the need of those who
depend on it for their livelihoods. Defined landscape systems along the Eastern Coast have
different land use issues but the basic principals for co-management are the same. A
landscape must not be too large, or there will be too many divergent interests. The entire
Kenya Eastern Coastal area, including the city of Mombasa, is far too large for one landscape
forum. There would need to be 3 – 4 or more ‘forums’ that clearly define interrelated interests of
a group of stakeholders on specific (threatened) resource areas.
35
From PowerPoint presentation given by CDA during the visit of the Review Team in August 15, 2006.
67
Within the Arabuko Sokoke landscape system, one would need to include the forest, with Mida
Creek (and its mangroves) out to the Marine Park and Marine Reserve. The group of key
stakeholders for this system would have to include:
• Local Community Leaders (such as Dida Community)
• FD, KWS, KEFRI, NEMA, NMK (Kipepeo), Fisheries
• Nature Kenya,
• Hemingway’s, other hotels and the rest of the tourism Industry
• MIDA Creek Communities
• Fishermen operating out of this immediate area (targeting Marine Reserve)
A forum must be composed of membership-paying members. The forum becomes the ‘table’
around which all meet at the same level, to coordinate, evaluate, and lobby for the interests of
its members. Some members have an ability to pay much more than others (e.g., hotels and
private sector operators) but they will be part of this forum only if there is a perception that their
own long-term economic interests will be enhanced by the relationship and ways of working
within the landscape with other divergent interests can be coordinated. The role of GoK and
NGOs within a forum is as facilitators (not implementers). They are sources to bring expertise
to resolve specific needs that the Forum members prioritize for action. They will facilitate and
provide needed services and links with government that can help move programs forward. The
forum is a private, independent, body that is outside of any project or other institution and
serves as a broker between the perceived interests of its members and ‘outside’ pressures. As
such, it has the real potential to become a sustainable mediating group within the landscape.
Analysis/Conclusions
1. Too many actors, too many agencies involved in the same program, too many “studies
and plans” and not enough funding actually going to actually implement programs with
community based organizations who are in desperate need of often small amounts of funding to
launch their nature-based activities.
2. There are too many partners, too many grant agreements, which has resulted in
USAID’s heavy management burden. USAID’s own financial management systems are difficult
for GoK institutions to follow (cost-reimbursement or quarterly advances requiring liquidation at
end of quarter). Different timeframes created because different partners receive their funding at
different times hinder joint effort in the field. Partners end up having separate work plans that
are difficult to harmonize.
3. Priority should be given to employ/engage individuals and community groups who have
mastered various techniques for replication in other communities within the region, and possibly
further away (and not depend on ‘experts’ from overseas, from GoK institutions, or NGOs to do
all of the community outreach training unless clearly necessary). NGOs should play a role in
TA, mobilizing communities, and targeted training and will have a significant role to play in the
new PFM approach.
4. The Review Team found elements of the ‘landscape and community based approach’ of
LWF at both Arabuko Sokoke (AS) and Diani-Chale through the Diani-Chale Management
Committee. Yet the landscapes in each of these areas remains poorly defined; key user groups
do not share a commonly developed vision of what they would like to achieve for the area. The
68
AS Forest Reserve was the key focus of FORREMS, yet the Mida Creek system, linked with the
offshore Marine Park and Reserve, are also an integral part of this landscape’s integrity. Private
sector interests, particularly the large exclusive hotels need to be part of this dialogue –
particularly as these have the financial resources to lend some sustainability to a forum for this
landscape. While it is true that user groups are different at the Coast from the Laikipia situation,
the problems, threats and issues of biodiversity conservation are exactly the same and will
require a similar approach if real impact and sustainability are to be realized.
5. The USAID-funded transaction advisor in the Forest Department, who will be actively
helping in the transition from FD to a new Kenya Forest Service, should help to seek a balance
between the FD’s own aspirations for raising income through its forest assets and the need of
local communities to benefit in significant ways from these same resources around which they
live. Without such a balance, the FD will continue in their command-and-control role – though
broadened – while local communities may continue their current unregulated pressures upon
these resources. The result will be continued loss of biodiversity. This same transaction advisor
should have access to funds that would facilitate the logistical needs of FD to respond to
specific partners in future USAID NRM and biodiversity conservation activities, particularly in
moving PFM plans through the legal network to become operational within USAID’s supported
field programs.
6. Because of the problems encountered under FORREMS and KCMP with funds passing
to GoK institutions (FD, KEFRI, KWS, NEMA, CD, NMK), the Review Team believes USAID
future funding to GoK should be designated into two areas. (1) A pool of undesignated funds
should be available to GoK, at the national level, for logistical support of jointly agreed-upon key
activities that directly support USAID supported programs in biodiversity and NRM. The USAID
supported transaction advisor who will be supporting FD’s evolution into the parastatal Kenya
Forest Service might be the best contracting channel through which such engagements might
be made. Under the consultant arrangements that existed earlier in the FORREMS, program
financial flows to GoK were working much better. This approach provides a possible model. (2)
A second pool of GoK funding should be placed at the disposal of either the principal contractor
or pair of contractors in the reorientation and combination of FORREMS and KCMP proposed
by the Review Team below in Options #1 and #2. Then, at the forum level within specific
landscapes, as stakeholder common vision and work plans are developed for activities to be
prioritized within the landscape, the specific contributions/tasks of FD, KWS, KEFRI, and other
GoK institutions will be defined. In some cases there will not be a need for the services of a
specific institution, in another case there will be. When the need is commonly agreed upon,
USAID funds would flow through the contractor in a sub-contract agreement for specific GoK
services and outputs. The same contractor would also have funds to support efforts for specific
services from the private sector or NGOs, also through a sub-contracting mechanism.
7. The management system under CDA and ICAM were not effective in leading to timely
action and implementation of activities. Activities implemented tended to be un-focused and in
‘bits-and-pieces’ here and there – without continued and sustained efforts that could lead to
impact. Future USAID funding for any of the activities initiated should be channeled through a
different funding mechanism – outside of government – and using a focused landscape systems
approach in areas where some kind of functioning ‘forum of concerned stakeholders’ can be
brought together for effective action. Support to the Kenya Marine Forum did not go anywhere,
partly because their mandate was too large and too geographically diverse and spread out.
Recommendations:
69
1. Ideally, there should be one program management unit for both FORREMS & KCMP
that will coordinate, monitor, report, disburse funds, and liaise between USAID and partners in
various field programs. This organization would have funds specifically committed to support
GoK institutions at the field implementation level, as well as funds for sub-contracting specific
tasks to NGOs and private sector entities identified to accomplish specific tasks within a
common vision for specific ‘landscape systems’ – two in Laikipia district, up to two along the
coast. One possible option would be to establish one program management unit for FORREMS
and KCMP with a commitment to engage in the landscape system’s approach being
accomplished by LWF – using a membership forum of stakeholders to develop a common vision
and work plan.
2. A second possible option would be to channel all combined FORREMS/KCMP funding
activities through one institution at the coast, and another in and around Mt. Kenya area
(including Laikipia). In this scenario, the most appropriate institutions would be LWF and Nature
Kenya with a commitment by both to engage in the landscape systems approach being
accomplished by LWF – again using a membership forum of stakeholders to develop a common
vision and work plan.
3. Either option above will require resources to expand capacity of these institutions –
particularly in managing grants within specific areas, accounting, and oversight. However,
these options have the advantage of permitting a much greater percentage of USAID funding to
reach field activities.
4. Both Laikipia Wildlife Forum and Nature Kenya currently have Cooperative Agreements
with USAID and both have developed sound accounting/financial systems – which would need
to be expanded.
5. A separate source of funding for GoK institutions would be necessary, and managed
directly by USAID, for any central level support USAID might wish to provide these institutions.
Such funds would not be for field based implementation activities.
6. Within specific geographic areas of effort: Focus, focus. Too many partners, too many
activities. Focus on a few programs that have some real promise of some impact by end of
project (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to date, and undertake intensive
implementation. NGO facilitation seems most appropriate, with support as needed and
contracted from private sector enterprises (local, regional, international) with marketing
experience in each specific endeavor.
7. Use local expertise whenever possible (e.g., private sector). Bring in local, regional, and
international experts that clearly have the marketing, business development, accounting and
ecotourism industry experience required. NGOs are not for-profit private sector enterprises and
neither are GoK institutions. Competition must be real and not subsidized.
8. The CDA is probably not the most efficient means of channeling funds within the coastal
programs being supported by USAID. Future GoK local funding should be linked to a clear
nature-based enterprise or community based NRM effort where a clear service can be identified
through a specific landscape forum of local stakeholders under options #1 and #2 above. When
identified, a clear timeline must be given before full payment of services is made.
70
9. USAID program support now needs to move away from general capacity building for
GoK institutions and become more focused on a results-based outcome for impact on the actual
people living in the 5 km. peripheral zone around protected areas (forest and marine reserves
and parks) within specific landscape systems. Business and management plans are abundant;
the time has come to put into action some of the elements of these plans in the targeted areas
that USAID has been supporting for the past three years.
10. Program should focus on enterprise development and CBNRM activities that have
already shown promise for success rather than “litter the landscape with pilots”. Scale these up
into meaningful business enterprises.
11. For implementation activities at the landscape systems level, create a grants
management unit within the overall coordinating program manager’s program to channel funds
towards different purposes. One pool of funding will be for GoK interventions defined locally by
landscape forum stakeholders. A second pool of funds would be used for targeted support and
sub-contracts with NGOs or private sector service providers identified as capable of providing
specific services needed to reach biodiversity conservation objectives within specific landscape
systems. A third pool of funding would be for either grants or small loans to promising NBEs
within this landscape.
12. A separate pool of GoK funding should continue to be channeled at the national level to
current FORREMS and KCMP partners, when identified to have a direct supporting link to field
based programs. The transaction advisor should help coordinate these efforts with USAID SO 5
CTOs.
71
4.0 Major Conclusions
4.1 Linkages to biodiversity Conservation
Program Similarities: While USAID has managed KCMP and FORREMS as two distinct
programs, they are in essence one biodiversity conservation program in which: 1) biodiverse
landscapes should be targeted; 2) biodiversity threats should be identified using a threats
analysis; 3) interventions should be designed to respond to the threats; 4) interventions should
be implemented at a scale where biodiversity results can be achieved; and 5) biodiversity
conservation should be monitored using appropriate biodiversity indicators.
TIST. TIST is promoting the benefits of trees to landowners and communities--food, improving
soil, decreasing erosion, regulating temperatures, and providing construction material and fuel
wood. TIST’s technical assistance to smallholders in conservation farming methods is clearly
producing results. However, TIST activities fall outside the landscape, threats-based approach,
and the link to biodiversity threat reduction in the Mt. Kenya landscape is tenuous. TIST
activities, if further supported, could become part of landscape system options considered by
landscape stakeholders.
Biodiversity earmark criteria. Some FORREMS and KCMP activities fail to fulfill the
biodiversity earmark criteria. For example, TIST tree planting, the Vikwathani Maenderero
ecotourism activity, support to hawkers and vendors at JKPB, and support for RWH technology
have tenuous links to biodiversity conservation.
NBE links to biodiversity conservation. NBEs are being developed without a consistent
analysis of their compliance with USAID’s requirements for biodiversity programming, of their
sustainability or the scale of their impact relative to threats being posed to biodiversity.
Some participants in NBEs were not aware of resource sustainability issues or the link of their
enterprises to biodiversity conservation. To ensure sustainable use and to build advocates for
conservation, NBE participants will need: (1) information on sustainable use; and (2) biodiversity
awareness raising to understand links of enterprises with biodiversity (this can also be used to
attract a market niche: sustainably produced product, supports biodiversity conservation.
4.2 Sustainable Nature-Based Business Development
Threats-based approach. Under a threats-based approach, the most significant threats are
identified and NBE interventions are designed to minimize those threats. The scale of NBEs
and the benefits they generate may be small relative to the threats posed to biodiversity
conservation and/or the funding provided. Therefore, questions of effectiveness of the NBE as
part of a conservation effort are still unanswered.
Landscape systems approach. Use of a landscape systems approach will help to ensure that
critical biodiversity areas are captured and interventions are designed to keep the landscape
intact, maintain or rehabilitate landscape linkages. Awareness raising about biodiversity
conservation is an important supporting role that NGOs can continue to play.
NBE: Who are the Owners? NBEs are being developed without a clear definition of their
ownership structure and therefore without a clear foundation for the long-term governance of the
enterprise. This ambiguity can reduce the effectiveness of partnerships between beneficiaries
72
(such as producers and communities) and sponsoring organizations (NGOs and government
entities). It can also sow the seeds for conflict over the distribution of any surpluses created by
an NBE once it becomes successful.
Role of sponsoring organization with NBEs. Sponsoring organizations (NGOs and
government entities) are staying involved in the operation of certain NBEs on a long-term basis.
In many cases, the justification for this type of participation in an NBE has not been provided.
Business analysis and market links. Additional business analysis and technical advice
(applying a value-chain perspective; developing business plans; offering business management
advice) are needed. The market orientation of several NBEs observed by the Review Team
could be significantly reinforced. Better analysis and expanded business services would
strengthen the efforts to create viable NBEs that generate added value.
Additional business services could be focused on the following:
The Value Chain. Bringing a “value chain” perspective to an existing or proposed NBE
provides the means for understanding better the challenges and opportunities that face the
NBE.
Business Plans. Writing good business plans is an essential step in defining what steps need
to be taken to make the NBE succeed and articulating that approach both to the business
partners themselves as well as to outside parties (such as donors and sponsoring
organizations) who may provide investment funds or other resources. The Review Team
observed that the development of business plans has not been a common practice in the
USAID-supported activities in the past.
Business Management Advice. In selected cases, USAID resources could be used to obtain
business management advice for particularly promising NBE ventures.
The emergence of local entrepreneurs. Leaders for the new NBEs have emerged in a
number of cases. A more systematic approach could be taken to identifying and encouraging
such leaders, organizing the NBE venture to take advantage of their contributions and, as
appropriate, putting more resources at their disposal.
4.3 Policies related to biodiversity conservation
Forestry Policy: PFM pilots are in line with the new policy. If PFM interventions are not
supported during this interim period (before the Forest Act is fully operationalized), the
momentum to implement PFM will be lost.
Coastal Policy: USAID has supported policy development in the coastal/marine sector without
significant results.
4.4 Cross-Cutting Issues
73
Women and Youth. Many of the activities already initiated with women and youth groups
within the prioritized landscapes deserve continued support but need scaling up to a level that
becomes financially feasible for them, and also can lead to impact on the identified biodiversity
threats within the landscape.
Landscape Systems Approach. The landscape systems approach is the ideal model to
achieve results in many cross-cutting themes within specific ecologically important and
threatened areas. Major conflicts among stakeholders competing for the same natural
resources may be prevented or significantly diminished through building consensus and a
common vision for their landscape.
4.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting
Biodiversity Impact. FORREMS and KCMP indicators fail to relay the impact to biodiversity
conservation. Possible biodiversity indicators are: (1) a flagship/keystone species that can be
monitored annually and that would give an indication of overall ecosystem health; (2) one or
more species of fish that would give an indication if fishermen’s improved practices (net size)
are having positive effects on fisheries; (3) the state of coral along the coast; (4) # of
encroachments/illegal activities in protected forests.
Revision of SO5 Indicators. Current SO 5 indicators should be significantly revised or
administered differently to include more focus on biodiversity conservation goals as well as
impact upon target communities who are to benefit from program community based natural
resource management engagements (the PFMs) and nature-based enterprises. The hypothesis
is that doing so will lessen threats to both protected area and other natural resources under
threat, including forest reserves and marine reserves. Current indicators provide no information
of this kind, and future indicators need to do so.
Change from the Perspective of Local Stakeholders. Future review and decision making
with respect to indicators must include review by local community leaders within the landscapes.
If local people, for whom efforts are being made for better and more sustainable NRM practices,
do not see improvement or change for the better, then impacts will be limited or nonexistent.
Programs need to understand how they will recognize ‘improvement’ to both their resources
base, as well as through the benefits they receive. LWF has already begun a process of this
kind with Mukogodo Forest group ranch communities that could be adapted to other program
areas in the future.
4.6 Program Management and Implementation
GoK Experience with USAID Financial Accounting Systems. Neither USAID/Kenya’s
“Advance System” nor “Reimbursement System” of financial accounting has worked well with
GoK institutions – though KWS and KEFRI have managed better than FD.
Need for one program management and coordination unit. Future funding should flow
though a central overall program (FORREMS + KMCP) unit that will be held responsible to
establish overall coordination of activities.
Expanding existing cooperative agreements. Enlarging cooperative agreements with current
program partners would appear to be the best option for timely and lowest cost program
continuity. An IQC mechanism or new cooperative agreement could be used to access a wider
74
array of possible program managers but following one of these routes would also be more
expensive and take more time.
Need to Operationalize Existing Plans, Not Create New Plans. Numerous pilot studies,
general resource management plans, inventories of biodiversity resources have been
completed within both FORREMS and KCMP, but no clear business or marketing plans, and
efforts to operationalize these management plans has barely begun.
75
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Links to Biodiversity Conservation
Recommendation #1:
Use a landscape, threats-based approach, concentrating efforts to achieve greatest
impact.
Targeting the following landscapes:
1. Mt. Kenya Forest: Meru or Nyeri District
2. Mukogodo Forest and four group ranches
3. Arabuko Sokoke Forest, expand to include Mida Creek, Watamu and Malindi
Marine Park, and associated stakeholders
4. One additional landscape, depending on resources available and ability to fulfill
landscape approach criteria: Wasini-Shimoni-Vanga: including Wasini Island,
Kisite Marine Park and Mpunguti Marine Reserve, and Shimba Hills NR; Diani￾Chale landscape: including Kaya Diani fishing community and Diani-Chale
Marine Reserve; or Mombasa coastal landscape, including Jomo Kenyatta Public
Beach (Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu), Mombasa Marine Reserve and Park.
A landscape should be targeted based on the following criteria: (1) its biodiversity value;
(2) stakeholder willingness to engage and work as partners towards a common goal;
and (3) potential to address threats to biodiversity conservation and produce results
Recommendation #2:
Ensure interventions fulfill the biodiversity Congressional earmark language.
The Congressional earmark requires:
1. The program must have an explicit biodiversity objective.
2. Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity.
3. The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation.
4. Site-based programs must have the intent to positively impact biologically
significant areas.
Recommendation #3:
Identify and monitor one or more indicators that show biodiversity conservation results.
Recommendation #4:
Continue to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation, especially to ensure that those
involved in NBEs have the information they need to build sustainable use into their
enterprises.
5.2 Sustainable Nature-Based Enterprise (NBE) Development
Recommendation #5:
Apply a more strategic vision and more systematic evaluation of candidate NBEs in
USAID investment decisions in order to assure highest “return”.
76
Each NBE should be evaluated in terms of the its actual or project performance relative
to the following criteria:
1. Contributes to biodiversity conservation,
2. Improves livelihoods of poor communities (especially those are live near
biodiversity resources and/or use them),
3. Can be sustained by given date without outside subsidies and
4. Is replicable.
Recommendation #6:
Clarify ownership (and therefore, of profit-sharing) of NBE earlier in the establishment of
the business.
Ideally this should be done right at the beginning to create transparency and give clear signals
to all stakeholders.
Recommendation #7:
Long-term roles of sponsoring organizations (NGOs) need to be specified in business
plan for each NBE to define whether they are interim facilitators or long-term partners.
Recommendation #8:
Expand business services to new and existing NBEs (identification of markets, linkages
with domestic and international buyers, enterprise management).
Recommendation #9:
Find “champions” – entrepreneurs - and assist them to scale up.
5.3 Policies Related to Biodiversity Conservation
Recommendation #10:
Give priority to completing Community Action/Operational Plans and signing PFM
agreements between CFAs and the FD so that Action/Operational Plans are ready to be
implemented once FD finalizes Forest Act implementation guidelines.
Recommendation #11:
Support development of a “forum” as an outgrowth of the landscape approach in the
coastal/marine environment (ASF expanded landscape). Once the forum is empowered,
depending on resources and capacity, facilitate the forum to promote the development of
a coastal-marine policy.
5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms, Indicators, and Reporting
Recommendation #12:
Completely revise or administer differently the 13 indicators currently being used by the
FORREMS and KCMP programs under SO5.
Recommendation #13:
77
Revise current SO 5 indicators to reflect more impact upon target communities who are
to benefit from the program’s community based natural resource management
engagements (the PFMs) and nature based enterprises.
Recommendation #14:
Review indicators with community leaders within the target landscapes.
Recommendation #15:
Document success stories for impact.
Recommendation #16
Create at least one biodiversity indicator per landscape that addresses key threats.
5.5 Program Management and Implementation
Recommendation #17:
Reformulate institutional arrangement with partners to improve program
management/coordination and contract administration.
OPTION #1 (RECOMMENDED): Establish one program management unit for FORREMS and
KCMP with a commitment to engage in the landscape systems approach using a membership
forum of stakeholders to develop a common vision and work plan along the lines of the
approach applied by LWF.
.
This proposed institutional reformulation would significantly reduce USAID SO5’s management
burden. Ideally, there should be one program management unit for both FORREMS and KCMP
that will coordinate one overall work plan for each landscape system, monitor, report, disburse
funds, and liaise between USAID and partners in various field programs. This organization
would have funds specifically committed to support GoK institutions at the field implementation
level, as well as funds for making grants or subcontracts for specific tasks to NGOs and private
sector entities identified to accomplish specific tasks within a common vision for specific
landscapes, as recommended above. This option could be implemented in one of two ways:
OPTION #1A: Expand an existing Cooperative Agreement to assume responsibility for
overall program coordination.
OPTION #1B: Solicit competitive proposals from national and international organizations.
Expanding an existing grantee’s mandate to become the overall program coordinator offers
several advantages, including ease of startup (by virtue of having a program already in place)
and a record of relevant experience. The MTR Team noted attributes of the LWF program that
could be adapted to other landscapes, which would reinforce and support the work of Nature
Kenya and other existing grantees. The objective of having one program manager, as is
proposed under this option, is to retain the current set of grant activities while also better
organizing their collective results.
Soliciting competitive proposals, as proposed under Option #1B, opens up more options for
obtaining program management expertise. It would, however, require more time and
processing than the option of expanding an existing Cooperative Agreement.
78
One Contractor
Mukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/
Malindi/Watamu MP,MR Landscape
OPTIONAL:
(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape
(2) Diani-Chale Landscape
(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal Landscape
Grants Management Unit
One Contractor or Grantee
Program Manager #1 Program Manager #2
USAID
GOK NGOs
NBEs
Mukogodo Nyeri or Meru Landscape Eastern Coast Landscapes Arabuko-Sokoke/Mida Creek/
Malindi/Watamu MP,MR Landscape
OPTIONAL:
(1) Wasini –Shimoni-Kisite Landscape
(2) Diani-Chale Landscape
(3) Mombasa (JKPB) Coastal Landscape
LWF
Nature Kenya
USAID
Grants
Mgmt
Unit
Grants
Mgmt
Unit
GOK NGOs
GOK NGOs
NBEs NBEs
Figure 1: Option #1
OPTION #2: Channel all combined FORREMS/KCMP funding activities through one institution
in and around Mt. Kenya area (including Laikipia) and another at the coast. In this scenario, the
most appropriate institutions would be LWF and Nature Kenya; with a commitment by all to
engage in the landscape systems approach being implemented by LWF – using a ‘membership
forum of stakeholders’ to develop a common vision and work plan.
Figure 2: Option #2
79
Under either option:
LWF and NK currently have Cooperative Agreements with USAID and both have developed
sound accounting/financial systems – which would need to be expanded.
A separate source of funding for GoK institutions would be necessary, and managed directly by
USAID, for any central level support USAID might wish to provide these institutions. Such funds
would not be for field-based implementation activities.
A grants management unit or units would be established under the cooperative agreement
holder(s) and would serve GoK, NGO and other grant recipients using separate pools of
funding, with the objective of getting funds as close to ‘ground level’ as possible so that they can
be accessed faster, when needed, as part of one work plan for each landscape system.
Under either arrangement, it is important that the central program unit(s) ensure that each
relevant partner is involved in applicable work plan preparation so that funds can be
appropriately allocated by program leaders.
Use local expertise whenever possible and provide increased opportunities for local
people whose capacity has been developed through the program as a first option before
bringing in outside expertise. Increased responsibilities for local individuals give the
opportunity to expand their roles as leaders within their communities, as well as extend their
expertise more regionally.
Within specific geographic areas of effort – focus, focus – rather than continue to
support so many partners and so many activities. Focus on a few programs that have real
promise of impact by the end of the project (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to date
and move from planning phase to implementation.
Continue funding capacity building in GoK, where a clear service can be defined, and
where it is specifically linked to CBNRM or a NBE. A special pool of funding should be
available at the national level for GoK logistical support targeted to specific outputs within the
landscape approach. Priority support should be given to fast-tracking FD ability to operationalize
existing PFM plans. This support could perhaps be channeled through the soon-to-be recruited
USAID-supported transaction advisor who will be supporting FD’s transition to a parastatal.
Recommendation #18:
Provide resources to expand the capacity of these institutions – particularly in managing
grants within specific areas, accounting and oversight. These options will allow a much
greater proportion of USAID funding to reach field.
Recommendation #19:
Use local expertise whenever possible and provide increased opportunities for local
people whose capacity has been developed through the program, as appropriate, as a
first option before bringing in ‘outside expertise’. Increased capacities for local individuals
gives them the opportunity to expand their roles as leaders within their communities, as well as
extend their expertise more regionally.
80
Recommendation #20:
Within specific geographic areas of effort - focus, focus – rather than continue to support
too many partners and too many activities. Focus on a few programs that have some real
promise of some impact by end of project (FY 2010). Build on best work accomplished to date,
and undertake intensive implementation. NGO facilitation here seems most appropriate for this,
with support as needed and contracted for to private sector enterprises (local, regional,
international) with marketing experience in each specific endeavor.
Recommendation #21:
At the field level, continued capacity building in GoK institutions should be specifically
linked to a clear nature-based enterprise or community-based NRM effort where a clear
service can be defined. A separate pool of funding should be available at the national level for
GoK logistical support specifically targeted to assist the biodiversity/NRM programs within the
landscape systems approach above.
81
Annexes
Annex 1: Kenya Forestry and Coastal Mid-Term Review SOW
Annex 2: Team Member Special Report - M&E Indicators
Annex 3: Documents Reviewed
Annex 4: Emerging Opportunities and Directions (USAID/W, State, GoK, USAID/Kenya)
Annex 5: List of Contacts
Annex 6: Schedule and Work Plan of Review Team in Kenya (August - September 2006)
Annex 7: Summary Description of Partner Institutions
Annex 8: Best Practices/Lessons Learned in CBNRM and NBE Development
83
Annex 1:
Scope of Work
84
USAID/KENYA FORESTRY AND COASTAL PROGRAMS MID-TERM REVIEW
SCOPE OF WORK
1.0 BACKGROUND
USAID/Kenya’s Natural Resources Management (NRM) program supports efforts directed
towards reducing or halting unsustainable use of natural resources outside the protected areas
through integrated approaches that address the economic, policy, cultural and human resource
capacity challenges of conservation. The program support focuses on: a) wildlife management,
b) forestry and environmental management, and c) integrated coastal management. The mid￾term review will focus on two sub-sectors namely the Forestry and Coastal Management
programs, which are currently half-way their implementation phases. A description of the Forest
and Coastal management activities is provided below:
a) Forestry Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Strengthening
(FORREMS) Program – FORREMS is a five year (2003 - 2008) project that aims to enhance
integrated forest management and environmental governance. FORREMS objectives are
achieved through: (i) capacity building support for the Forest Department; (ii) implementation of
participatory forestry management plans; (iii) diversification of forest-based businesses; and
iv)implementation of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA). These
activities are implemented in Northeast Laikipia, Mt. Kenya and the Arabuko-Sokoke forest
Reserve. Implementing agencies include the Forest Department (FD), Kenya Forestry Research
Institute (KEFRI), National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), Kenya Wildlife
Service, National Museums of Kenya, Nature Kenya and the Institute for Environmental
Innovation (I4EI). The key result areas include:
• Increased economic benefits to local communities living adjacent to target forests
reserves.
• Positive land use change in target areas.
• Increase number of stakeholders benefiting from improved NRM involvement.
• Organizational capacity of community user groups strengthened.
• Appropriate conservation tools and technologies for forest and range management
adopted.
• Advancement of forest and environmental management policy/legislation.
• Institutional strengthening of target government agencies.
b) Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP) – KCMP is a three year (2004-2007)
activity that aims to enhance coastal management and set a foundation for a Kenyan marine
policy. KCMP achieves its objectives through: (i) Stakeholders capacity building for participation
in integrated coastal management process and (ii) implementation of priority grassroots
conservation activities. Activities are implemented in Mombasa, Diani-Chale and Shimoni. The
Coast Development Authority is implementing the program in conjunction with Pact Inc. The key
result areas include:
• Integrated development plans for three ICM sites implemented.
• Appropriate tools and technology for ICM adopted by stakeholders.
• Small and medium nature-focused business practices improved
85
• Advocacy for Integrated Coastal Management Policy Advanced
• Constituencies for ICM Advocacy established
2.0 REVIEW PURPOSE
The purpose of this mid-term review is to:
i) review the relevance of USAID’s forestry and coastal management activities and
results relative to programming changes in USAID’s NRM sector. USAID/Kenya NRM
program will focus on conservation of biodiversity.
ii) provide recommendations for re-orientation and modification of approaches, and
priority activities, as necessary, so that the Mission’s forestry and coastal management
programs optimize their effectiveness during the remaining years and fit within the
biodiversity guidelines and the new Africa Bureau Strategic Framework; and
iii) review the effectiveness of the overall implementation approach, including use of
several partners to implement the FORREMS and KCMP programs; potential means for
enhancing overall program implementation effectiveness, including identification of
activities that can be integrated; and at the same time achieve the Mission’s overriding
objective of conservation of biodiversity.
3.0 STATEMENT OF WORK
Under the newly developed USAID Strategic Framework for Africa, the agency has redesigned
its focus to respond to the challenges and opportunities facing Africa. Missions are expected to
develop five year strategy statements and corresponding three year operational plans to fit the
requirements of the regional strategy. With this change in strategy, it is appropriate for
USAID/Kenya to revisit the assumptions, parameters, and expected results to be achieved under
its ongoing programs, with a view to revising the activities as appropriate to effectively respond
to emerging issues and opportunities. USAID is interested in a robust review of the FORREMS
and KCMP activities based on the following project elements:
i) Linkages to biodiversity conservation
• Review the extent to which the programs are contributing to both USAID and GoK
biodiversity conservation objectives;
• Identify how program activities can integrate biodiversity considerations into the USAID’s
/GOK’s planning processes;
• Assess the effectiveness of capacity building approaches and technologies for biodiversity
conservation both at governmental and local community levels.
ii) Sustainable nature-focused business development
• Review the existing NRM business practices and models to determine if they are being
implemented effectively;
86
• Assess the range of nature-based businesses and recommend appropriate value-addition
measures to enhance the competitiveness of nature-based products in the mainstream
market economy; and,
• Assess the extent to which public-private sector partnerships have been integrated into the
business development and recommend potential partnerships to explore.
iii) Policies related to biodiversity conservation
• Review and identify how the programs have contributed to biodiversity and NRM
policy/legislation reforms;
• Analyze biodiversity conservation policies and recommend approaches to facilitate
implementation by the programs;
• Assess the extent of community preparedness to translate emergent opportunities from new
Forestry policy dispensation into practical activities with emphasis on decentralization,
access, use and control of natural resources; and,
• Review governance issues at community levels and provide recommendations to strengthen
civil society participation.
iv) Cross-cutting concerns
• Assess the extent to which gender, youth and HIV/AIDS issues are mainstreamed into
program implementation and determine ways to enhance cross-linkages;
• Examine existing activities and assess if mechanisms for integrating nature-based conflict
mechanisms into the programs exist and are adequate.
v) Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and indicators
• Assess the current systems of monitoring, evaluation and reporting to determine their
adequacy, utility and relevance to strategic management goals.
• In consultation with partners come up with lessons learned and recommendations for
adjustments to improve project implementation.
vi) Implementation approach
• Review the efficiency and management burden of managing six separate grants to
implement the two programs in terms of managing for results.
• Identify biodiversity conservation support activities that can be integrated and still retain the
implementation efficiency and performance.
• Identify activities that can be dropped.
• Recommend approaches for integration.
Based on findings from the above issues and taking into account USAID’s comparative
advantage in the sector, recommend adjustments to the Mission’s Forestry and Coastal
management project approaches, implementation mechanisms and priority activities to be
financed and implemented during the remaining period.
87
4.0 REQUIRED EXPERTISE:
The FORREMS and KCMP are complex and multi-faceted projects that involve several
components and actors. Their review therefore requires a team with broad experience and
expertise in a number of different areas including: i) institutional strengthening and program
design; ii) natural resource management and iii) nature-based enterprise development.
Respondents to this statement of work are encouraged to propose a maximum three person team
that has the capacity to address all of the technical elements listed above as well as collectively
cover all the skills specified below:
i) Project Development Specialist/Team Leader
• PHD /MSc /MA in NRM or related field and well-versed in natural resource management
as well as project design and development issues;
• Knowledge of USAID’s principles and program development;
• Practical experience in designing and evaluating development programs and sub-sector
analysis; and,
• Demonstrated ability to assess performance measurement and application of both
qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods.
ii) Natural Resource Management Specialist/ Ecologist
• Masters degree in ecology or closely related field;
• Experience in natural resource management related program design, evaluation and a
good understanding of natural resource management issues in Sub-Saharan Africa,
especially of forest and coastal management;
• Knowledge of USG biodiversity requirements; and,
• Experience in analysis of the development, diffusion and adoption of NRM technologies
in the context of community based natural resource management in developing countries.
iii) Environmental Economist/Business Management Specialist
• Experience working on community level activities/businesses in a related field of
NRM/private sector;
• Ability to assess and evaluate performance, results and impact of community based
enterprises;
• Proven ability to analyze economic policies to NRM and business enterprises and to
propose cogent solutions to such policy constraints; and,
• Technical knowledge of the concepts and principles of, and constraints to, nature
focused business development at the community level.
5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES:
Technical Directions during the performance of this SOW will be provided by the Cognizant
Technical Officer (CTO), Mr. Charles Oluchina, e-mail:COluchina@usaid.gov, and SO5 Team
Leader Mr. James Ndirangu, e-mail: JNdirangu@usaid.gov , Tel. 254-02-862-2000; Fax. 254-
88
02-8622680. Initial briefing will be conducted at USAID/Kenya. The contractor will be
expected to prepare a work plan and present this to USAID during the first week of work.
a) Literature review: The review team shall be expected to refer, at a minimum, to the
following list of documents:
• USAID/AFR Strategic Framework for Africa
• USAID/Kenya SO5 strategy document
• SO5 Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)
• FORREMS program activity approval document (AAD)
• FORREMS performance reports 2003- 2004
• FORREMS baseline survey report 2001
• KCMP proposal
• KCMP annual reports
All of these documents can be downloaded from the following website:
http://www.usaidkenya.org/ke.naremgnt/links.html or from Charles Oluchina
(coluchina@usaid.gov)
b) Participatory Process: The assessment process should be participatory, incorporating key
stakeholders and a wide cross-section of staff and beneficiaries in the assessment process.
c) Consultation with USAID, partners and other donors: Discussion sessions with mission
management, project staff and other organizations will be held. The reviewers shall be expected
to consult regularly with the USAID/CTO and SO5 Team Leader, the Government of Kenya
(GoK) and other donors implementing similar activities in Kenya.
d) Consultation with beneficiaries: The reviewers shall be expected to visit and verify
program activities in the field and consult widely with beneficiaries, government agencies and
private sector operators on forest and marine management constraints and opportunities. The
input from the beneficiaries shall be used, along with other sources of information, to draw up
recommendations. The review team will be responsible for determining the number, type and
quality of stakeholder meetings, once they have familiarized themselves with the groups.
6.0 TERMS OF PERFORMANCE:
USAID expects to award a contract to a firm to perform a review of the FORREMS and KCMP
activities. The following are the terms of performance:
a. The work will be performed in Nairobi, Mombasa and five other biodiversity hot spots
(Arabuko Sokoke, Mt. Kenya, Laikipia and Kakamega forest) in Kenya.
b. A six-day work week is authorized without premium pay.
c. The performance period is o/a March 14 through April 14, 2006. All team members must be
committed to work full time on this SOW for the entire performance period:
89
Project Development Specialist/Team Leader - 23 days
NRM Specialist/ Ecologist -23 days
Environmental Economist/ Business Specialist – 23 days
d. Logistic support: The consulting firm shall be responsible for all logistic support required by
the reviewing team including field visits, office space, furniture, office equipment, secretarial
services, photocopying and telephone services, and local travel within Nairobi.
7.0 REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES
The assessment team shall be expected to deliver the following:
a) Workplan/ Data Collection instrument: The consulting firm shall be expected to submit a
detailed workplan in consultation with USAID and the partners, six days after the start of the
contract.
b) Briefings: Briefing shall be held once a week at USAID office in the first two weeks and once
every fortnight in the subsequent weeks with the CTO, SO5 Team Leader and ABEO Office
Chief.
c) Interview notes and documents gathered: The consultants will be expected to hold extensive
consultations with USAID partners and stakeholders. They shall make briefs of these
meetings, workshops and focused discussions regarding the mid-term review. The
briefs/workshop proceedings shall be turned over to USAID/Kenya along with any relevant
documents and reports gathered during the review.
d) The consultants will be expected to make a presentation to USAID management on the draft
report and findings o/a April 4, 2006.
e) Final Assessment Report:
Submit three copies of the draft report no later than March 30, 2006. The final report will
incorporate changes requested by USAID and agreed by both parties. The Contractor shall
submit a final report to USAID no later than April 14, 2006. The Contractor shall also deliver
one electronic copy (CD-ROM) to the Cognizant Technical Officer at USAID/Kenya.
Documents must be formatted for letter size paper. The reports must be prepared in the English
language and shall be presented along the following three broad sections:
1. Executive Summary (10 pages maximum length):
Brief SYNTHESIS OF TEAM REPORT describing: purpose, approach, findings and
recommendations.
2. Main body (25 pages)
i) Approach, details of findings and recommendations
ii) Proposed activity focus and components
iii) Linkages to NRM operational framework
iv) Cross-cutting issues integration
90
3. Annexes: individual report
a) Assessment SoW
b) Team Composition
c) Individual team member reports (maximum length 10 pages each).
d) List of documents reviewed, organizations and persons contacted, workshops held.
e) Side meetings/focus group meetings and workshop notes/proceedings.
91
Annex 2:
MTR Special Report - M&E Indicators
Indicator #1 concerned hectares under positive land-use change in target areas. Hectare
results are misleading in that what might be counted as a positive land use change – say from
planting 10 hectares with seedlings (a frequently used way of measuring change) – might six
months later find that all the trees are dead and nothing remains. This is no different than
counting the number of trees planted, without later checking how many are still alive 6 months
later (usually a very low number). Another example would be ‘controlled pasture land
rehabilitated’. Land may have been set aside and ‘begun to be rehabilitated’ as in several
cases in community pasture lands (outside the Mokogodo Reserve), but when drought came,
people had to let their animals back into these areas – completely overgrazing and degrading
them again. The indicator needs to be changed to something that actually measures real
change in management.
Indicator #2 concerned the # of stakeholders benefiting directly or indirectly from involvement in
improved NRM. The problem with this indicator is that the direct and indirect stakeholders can
all be counted early on in the process of implementation, and they can’t (or shouldn’t be)
counted twice or three times. Yet the same people probably are double or triple counted. The
same people will, in fact, be continuing to receive additional benefits as a program evolves.
Someone who benefits from the ‘sale of seedling’ may also be benefiting from ‘a nature based
workshop’, etc. If this issue is understood at the project management level, then the indicator is
ok, but most program managers what to see this number increase from year to year. The kind of
information being gathered about activities undertaken can be quantified in the manner being
done, but aggregations of such data are not particularly useful for SO level monitoring purposes.
A better indicator should be identified.
Indicator #3 seeks to count the ‘# of adoption and replications of NRM tools, technologies and
initiatives in target areas’. The information provided, such as ‘number of hay production’
activities, or ‘# of tree nurseries established’, or of ‘PFM plans completed’ represent important
activities undertaken by a project. Such information should be reported upon within regular
reports from the program. However, does such information actually help program managers
assess whether or not these activities are actually leading to any kind of impact, or do they
remain simple ‘demonstrations’?
Indicator #4 seeks to quantify ‘the number of conservation tools and technologies in use both
within and outside of protected areas’. The same issue as discussed above for indicator 2
applies here. Once a ‘tool’ is applied and used, it can’t (or should not be) used and counted
again. So this number, once recorded will not change much. It is not so much the number of
tools used at any particular site that is important, but whether or not the ones used were
appropriate to lead to the specific NRM and biodiversity conservation goals desired. The
resulting ‘success stories’ could be explained. For example, simply counting ‘rain water
harvesting’ as a conservation tool does not actually tell us whether or not it had anything to do
with biodiversity conservation at an impact level. What the Review Team saw at one Mokogodo
‘water-point’ project activity clearly had a large impact on an entire group of people, reduced
animal/people and people/people conflict. Yet another example of a ‘water-point’ seen near
Mombasa had absolutely nothing to do with program goals - but both would have been
counted.
92
Indicator #5 seeks to quantify the ‘# of integrated NRM plans implemented’. This is a process
indicator and does provide information needed. The numbers will not be large because the
process leading to achieving this result will take significant effort over time.
Indicator #6 represents an indexed score of five criteria and is applied to different partners
working within the program. If completed properly, the information provided would help a
program manager perhaps understand how information might or might not be flowing within the
program. It is an indicator that should be assigned to one person within the program to be
completed once each year. However, the Review Team wonders whether or not this
information was actually useful to anyone in program management – or was simply busywork
for someone to complete.
Indicator # 7 attempted to report on the benefits to communities from nature based enterprises.
This was a good indicator and does measure real $ being generated for program supported
activities. From this indicator it is clear that the amounts are extremely small, in most cases,
and one must question the scale at which activities are being undertaken if any kind of impact
could be expected. Seemingly missing from these lists however (from Arabuko Sokoke for
example) are the revenues generated from the sale of butterfly larvae and mushrooms, which
the Review Team observed being managed by farmers in areas being supported by FORREMS.
We know that very significant income is being acquired by some community members in sale of
butterfly pupae (but perhaps supported by another donor). This issues raises another issue.
Unless monitoring is inclusive of all the NBE’s within a specific landscape system, particularly as
it focuses on PFM and specific communities, it is not meaningful to assess overall impact of
CBNRM activities within this landscape and if behavior changes are taking place as a result.
Furthermore, without a better understanding of the significance of the amount earned from
these activities, there is no way one could possibly know if they are having any impact at
all.Without a holistic understanding of what is actually happening, reporting on piecemeal
activities does not mean very much. So how this indicator is actually applied should be
reviewed.
Indicator #7A sought to measure the ‘non financial benefits from nature based enterprises’.
This seems to be an added indicator, as it was not one of the original 13. This was a difficult
indicator to report upon and the creative examples given of such ‘benefits’ shows the difficulties
faced by the person trying to ‘put something down’ for this indicator. Examples include “38 km.
of improved access roads”, ‘4 schools fenced’, ‘2 motorbikes, 5 radios, 20 trained scouts’, ‘8
villages adjacent Rumuruti Forest patrolled’. It is not clear how the NBEs led to any of these
‘benefits’, except that they were other activities the project undertook within these areas.
Consider dropping this indictor.
Indicator #8 measures ‘the organizational capacity of community user groups’. This index tool
‘seeks to score strengths and weaknesses of organizations across 196 items in seven areas of
organizational capacity. This indicator would be enough for anyone to run away. This indicator
may be useful if applied very sparingly (once every two years), and undertaken by the same
individual each time so that there was some consistency from one ‘evaluation to another’.
Indicator #9 measures the % of targeted GoK Partners are using new M&E tracking systems.
No report reviewed had attempted to measure this. The last report by KWS for FORREMD
simply states that “all GoK partners are developing monitoring tools as a requirement by the
government in the performance contracts”. This indicator provides no useful information, unless
93
someone should be engaged to review this every year or two, at the same time the ‘indices’ are
measured.
Indicator #10 is another ‘index’ to measure the ‘status of policy and legislation environment to
encourage community incentives for NR conservation’. The index is difficult to measure and
could only be done by someone specifically trained to do this for the program overall. As noted
above for other indices, this could be done once every year or two by one person engaged to do
this.
Indicator #11 seeks to measure the ‘level of policy/legislation advancement’ taking place. This
is seen as a process, so an index was suggested to measure this. The information reported on
is important (i.e. 80% of the Forest Bill of 2005 has been accomplished, 100% of EMCA has
been completed), but this indicator is information that could be tracked and completed by one
person annually. Of perhaps greater importance is whether or not any of this is having any
direct impact on the communities for whom it was intended. EMCA was passed, but nothing
has yet happened to put this legislation to work in permitting CBOs to have the legal right to
manage NRM resources.
Indicators #12 and #13 were never reported on in any FORREMS or KCMP reports the Review
Team could find. Indicator #12 seeks to measure the ‘functionality of internal KWS databases
for monitoring and evaluation’ and #13 the ‘level of capacity of selected CBOs in policy
formulation and advocacy’. Both are complex indexed scores. The latter is an index of 40 items
pertaining to skill levels of an organizations capacity in advocacy. The former is an indexed
score representing the degree of functionality (indexed score) of a given database. While
knowing such information might be useful to a program manager, this kind of information should
simply be reviewed from time to time by a program manager and reported on annually, if
desired. This information does not rise to the level of a SO 5 performance indicator because of
the complexity of acquiring it.
94
Annex 3:
Documents Consulted
FORREMS M&E Report 2005 (Forest/Rangeland Rehabilitation & Environmental Management
Strengthening Initiatives), Performance Monitoring Report 2005.
FORREMS M&E Report 2004, Performance Monitoring Report 2004.
FORREMS Performance Monitoring Program (PMP), (Draft), August 4, 2006.
FORREMS Performance Monitoring Report, FORREMS Program Year 2005.
FORREMS Project (2002-2008), Laikipia Focal Area, PowerPoint Presentation, August 28,
2006.
FORREMS: Socio-Economic baseline survey and analysis of natural resource management
options in Mukogondo Landscape, Laikipia District, USAID, Kenya Forestry Research Institute,
April 2005.
Arabuko-Sokoko Forest: North Coast, “Enhanced Sustainability of the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest
through improved natural resource management by and for the stakeholders”.
“Medicinal Plant-based Enterprises for Communities Living Adjacent to Kakamega Forest”
“Transition to the Kenya Forest Service”
“Plantation Establishment in Kenya: A Case Study on Shamba System”
“Common Indicators and Definitions”, USAID
“Request for information on FY04 Kenya Mission activities and funding in Forestry, Biodiversity,
and Invasive Species”, USAID
“FY04 Kenya Mission activities and funding in Forestry, Biodiversity, and Invasive Species
Report”
“FY05 Kenya Mission activities and funding in Forestry, Biodiversity, and Invasive Species
Report”.
118 Forestry Report – USAID/Kenya Forestry Activities
USAID/Kenya Strategic Objective 5 (SO 5), Activity Approval Document, Forestry Rehabilitation
& Environmental Management Strengthening Initiative (Attachment 1), June 12, 2002
“Request for Kenya Mission Support for TIST’s USAID/GDA Funding Request to Start UP the
International Small Group and Tree Planting Program (TIST) in Kenya”, Institute for
Environmental Innovation, April 2004.
“A Project Proposal on Capacity Building, Technical Assistance and Material Support for NEMA
H/Q and District Environment Committees”, Proposal to USAID on FORREMS, by NEMA￾Kenya, April 2003.
95
“Enhanced Sustainability at Arabuko-Sokoke Forest through improved natural resources
management by and for stakeholders”, proposal on FORREMS by Nature Kenya, March 2003.
“Summary report for the status of FORREMS project activities and Laikipia-Mukogodo site,
January 2006.
“Forestry Management Support Activity Description”, Laikipia Wildlife Forum.
“A Proposal to USAID in Support of KEFRI Activities under FORREMS”(Forest/Range
Rehabilitation & Environmental Management Strengthening Initiative), Kenya Forestry Research
Institute (KEFRI), February 2003.
“2005-2006 Annual Work Plan”, Covering period of July 1 2005 through June 30, 2006), MENR
Forest Department, USAID, Kenya, April 2005.
“US Forest Service Support to Kenya Forestry Department and Kenya Wildlife Service through
the USAID-funded FORREMS Activity”, US Forestry Service, August 4, 2006.
“Outcomes, Achievements, and Recommendations from the Commonwealth Secretariat
Funded PFM Support to the GoK Forest Department, 2001-2005”.
Forest Policy, Republic of Kenya, 2005
FORREMS 2004-2005 Annual Work Plan (covering period July 1-June 30, 2005),
“Building Capacity in Wildfire Management”, USDA Forest Service, March 2005.
“Kenya Coastal Management Initiative 2: Project Concept and Year One Work Activities”,
University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, July 2002.
“Jomo Kenyata Public Beach Self-Help Group”, Kenya Coast Management Initiative,
Organizational Capacity Assessment Report, PACT – Kenya/URU Program, Kahaso & Gathinji,
February 2001.
“Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP): Year One Performance Report, 2003-04
Annual Work Plan (September 1, 2003– June 30, 2004), Coast Development Authority, Ministry
of Regional Development Authorities, USAID September 2004.
“KCMP FY 2005-06 Progress Report (July 2005 – February 2006), Coast Development
Authority, Ministry of Regional Development Authorities, February 2005.
“Kenya Coastal Management Program (KCMP): Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting Plan,
First Draft”, Coast Development Authority, Ministry of Regional Development Authorities, July
2004.
“Product Quality, Sustainability, and Market Acceptability Project: Legitimization and
mainstreaming of Beach Operators”, European Development Fund, PACT – Kenya, October
2004.
“Report of Second Kenya Coastal and Marine Forum”, Kanamai Conference Center, near
Mombassa, September 2001.
96
“Year Two Workplan and Responsibilities”, Phase 2 (KCMP-2), Kenya Coastal Management
Program (KCMI), September 2003.
“KCMI Water Activity – Status Report”, February 2003.
KCMP Presentation of Results, PowerPoint presentation to Review Team, August 6, 2006, by
Mainaina Mburu, CDA, Mombasa.
“Indicator Number 7: Financial Results to Communities from Nature-focused Businesses”.
Kenya Coastal Management Initiative, Extension Concept Paper, USAID and the University of
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center (URI/CRC), October 2000.
“Integrated Water Resources Management for Mombasa”, USAID Kenya IWRM Proposal.
Performance Monitoring Plan for S0 5, USAID Kenya, February 2004
Strategic Objective Five, USAID Kenya, 2005
Strategic Plan 2005-2010, KEFRI, Nairobi, Kenya
“A Profile on Structure and Activities”, KEFRI, Nairobi, Kenya
Kenya Forestry Research Institute: Service Charter, Nairobi, Kenya, 2006.
“Mukogodo Forest Integrated Management Plan, 2006-2016”, Mukogodo Integrated forest
Management Plan Prepared by FORREMS Focal Area Team (FAT), June 2006.
Kagombe, Joram, “Kenya Forestry Research Initiative: FORREMS Project”, 2005/20006 Annual
Report, July 2006.
Kagombe et al, “Strengthening Community Structures to Participate in Natural Resources
Management in Mukogodo – Laikipia District”, FOREMS-KEFRI Project Report # 4, November
2004.
Kimondo et al, “Training Course on Tree Nursery Establishment, Species Selection and Field
Establishment for Extension Staff and Farmers”, August 2004.
Kagombe et at, “Socio-Economic and Natural Resources Baseline Survey in Mukogodo
Landscape, Laikipia District”, FOREMS-KEFRI Project Report # 6, June 2006.
Muturi et al, “Range Rehabilitation nof Mukogodo Landsape”, FOREMS-KEFRI Project Report #
3, September, 2004
Kagombe, Jorem, “Performance Progress Report, July 2005 – June 2006 Report”, July 2006.
CD Disk: “Biodiversity Conservation: A Guide to USAID Staff and Partners”, undated.
“Understanding the New Forestry Policy and Forests Act, 2005”, Center for Environmental
Legal Research and Education, Ludekei et al, 2006.
97
Annex 4:
Emerging Opportunities and Directions
1.3.1 USAID/Washington
USAID’s ongoing restructuring process may present opportunities for USAID missions to
strengthen biodiversity conservation programs and biodiversity monitoring; however, while it is
clear that biodiversity conservation will remain an agency priority, it is, as yet, unclear if and how
countries will be ranked as far as biodiversity importance, how funding decisions will be made,
and how monitoring parameters for biodiversity will be formulated (See Strategic Framework for
Africa, which will be superseded by new Agency-State guidance).
Under the most recent, and still evolving, strategic framework [joint State-USAID], biodiversity
conservation and natural resources management fall under Investing in People: To help nations
achieve sustainable impacts on the well-being and productivity of their populations through
effective and accountable investments in the environment (Program Area 2), education
(Program Area 3), health (Program Area 1), and other social services (Program Area 4). The
Environment Program Area includes natural resources and biodiversity; clean human
environment; and clean water and sanitation. Whereas previously, biodiversity programming in
most missions, including USAID/Kenya, had fallen under the economic growth portfolio, this
restructuring may offer more flexibility in biodiversity programming. However, the move away
from economic growth has been controversial within USAID, and while the new alignment may
bring opportunities, there may as well be drawbacks.
1.3.2 USAID/Kenya
USAID/Kenya’s comparative advantage—as well as USAID globally—in biodiversity
programming is in working at community level to harness local-level benefits; in strengthening
cross-cutting linkages that can help scale-up biodiversity impact; and at the same time, working
at central levels to promote the enabling environment for biodiversity conservation. This
comparative advantage is well-illustrated in USAID/Kenya’s current SO 5 program. With the
GoK’s new focus on community-based management of natural resources (especially in the
forestry sector, with the recent approval of forestry legislation that encourages participatory
forest management), USAID/Kenya has the opportunity to align with GOK objectives to promote
community-level impact and benefits. USAID’s leadership in the biodiversity conservation area
in Kenya could bring resources to bear from other donors and the private sector, and help
ensure that successful pilots will be scaled up for broad-based impact.
1.3.3 Forest Department
Forest Department’s new Forestry Policy will provide the enabling legislation for PFM. Since
the new law is broad, FD is developing 19 sets of implementation guidelines, detailed
procedures of engagement, which will be gazetted and will become legally binding subsidiary
regulations. The first set of guidelines to be developed cover community and private sector
involvement (the PFM guidelines); these have been produced in draft. The third set will cover
charcoal, and are in the process of being complied. FD expects the implementation guidelines
for PFM to be in place by January 2007 (pers comms, FD meeting, August 2006), and with that
milestone, the law will be ready to be operationalized. This provides a long-awaited opportunity
for communities to become truly involved in forest management and empowered to benefit from
98
forest resources. FD staff have unanimously placed their support behind PFM, although some
FD staff have expressed reluctance because they feel certain communities may not have the
capacity to participate, and some communities think that the PFM approach translates into
community control rather than a partnership with the FD.
The Forest Policy describes the transformation of FD into Kenya Forest Service, a para-statal
that will in part be funded by the GOK, and in part raise its own funds by providing services to
stakeholders. The transformation will be facilitated by a USAID transactional advisor, a
technical expert who will work closely with FD staff to strengthen the new demand-driven
approach. While this transformation will present challenges in that a GOK institution that had
previously received funds from the government budget and donors, will now be required to
assess the key services stakeholders require and that they will be willing to pay for. To
implement this transformation, FD staff will have to shift attitudes and function as a private
sector entity; this could present opportunities in that the new Kenya Forest Service could shed
services that are less demanded, and focus on those services their stakeholders and
beneficiaries require and are willing to support and partner with KFS in---for example, PFM.
97
Annex 5:
Contacts
98
Organization Name Telephone Email Address Function
USAID/Nairobi, Kenya
Robert Buzzard +254-0722-335314 robuzzard@usaid.gov Team Leader, SO 5
Charles Oluchina +254-0722-331273; 8622717 coluchina@usaid.gov SO 5 Program Management Specialist
Beatrice Wamalwa +254-020-862-2357 bwamalwa@usaid.gov CTO: Nature Kenya, LWF
Wairimu Mungai +254-020-862-2357 wmungai@usaid.gov CTO: TIST, NEMA, KEFRI
Catherine Mungai +254-020-862-2357 cmungai@usaid.gov Controller's Office
Francis Kavulu
+254-020-862-2357; 0725-417-198
c fkavulu@usaid.gov USAID Procurement/Acquisitions
Dwight Al Smith USAID Program Officer
SECID
Bill Hand +1-202-628-4551, ext 20 bah@secid.org Senior Development Advisor, SECID
Harry Wheeler +1-202-628-4551, ext 11 hhw@secid.org SECID, Executive Director
PA Governments Services robuzzard@usaid.gov USAID NRM
Walter Weaver walter.weaver@paconsulting.com Acting EPIQ II Deputy Director
Amy Fitzpatrick amy.fitzpatrick@paconsulting.com
Greg Michaels greg.michaels@paconsulting.com Economist, Environmental Specialist
Rick Thibault rick@neonflux.com Branding Specialist
Karen Menczer perros2@earthlink.net NRM Specialist, Ecologist
Arabuko Sokoke
Anthony Githitho +254-042-32380 kipepeo@afracaonline.co.ke Kipepeo Project Manager
AWF
Prof. James Kiyiapi +254-020-2710367, 0721-989897 Jkiyiapi@awfke.org Director, Kenya Program
Coast Development Authority
(Mombasa) & ICAM
J. Wainaina Mburu +254-0722-556084 c wainaina@cdakenya.org
Esther Luganje +254-0722-448375 luganje@cdakenya.org
Agnes Muaguinia agnes@cdakenya.org Finance Officer
Fredricle Mdoe +254-0736-653-684 ndoe@dcakenya.org Water Department
B .A Mwandotto +254-0722-755749 bmjumwa@yahoo.co.uk Deputy Managing Director
Saeed Mwaguni +254-0733-600910
District Forest Offices
Alfred Abongo +254-0722-727486 agabongo@yahoo.com DFO, Kaikipia
Anampiu DFO, Meru Forest Station
M. Abuto Chief Forester, Eastern Province,Meru
Mr. James Mburu +254-0722-888489 jammburus@yahoo.com District Forest Office, Nyeri
David Njenga Forester, Nyeri
Mr. Kuliembi Forester, Nayuki Forest Station
Margaret Mwansi Asst. DFO, Laikipia
Fisheries Department
Martha Mukira +254-0733-736704 mar
_
mukira@yahoo.com
9
9
Organization Name Telephone E
mail A
d
dress Function
Forest Dept
David Mbuagua
ccf@
wananchi
comccf@forestry.go.ke Chief Conservator of Forests
Ben Wandago +254-0722-771235 c bwandago@yahoo.co.uk FO
R
R
E
M
S
Director
Simon Gioche +254-0722-332626 c sgioche@yahoo.com Forester (FD or other org?)
Jilnganji Yakhama yakhama@forestry.go.ke Forest Reforms
E
milo Mugo +254-0733-712879 enpugo@forestry.go.ke Project manger, Greenzone Dvt. Project
Eric Nahama nahamet@forestry.go.ke Partnerships &
Agreements Section
D.K. M
wanzia m
wanzadak@yahoo.com Forest Fire Management
Ernest A
mbune ccf@
wananchi.com
D
C
CF
D.K. Mbugua ccf@
wananchi.com
Ag C
CF
Anthony Maina am
maina@
mail.forestry.go.ke Head of Dry Lands Forests
John Karanja Macharia +254-0733-712879 macarla@yahoo.com
Senior Conservator of Forests
David Mulu Forester, Arabuko Sokoke
W.M. M
wawega Assist. DFO, Kicofi
Tsimba Nyawa Forester, Arabuko Sokoke
Samson N. Njigia H
Q, Nat.Forest &
Conservation Branch
F Kabiuki District Forester, Arabuko Sokoke
Stephen W. Njobu Assist. DFO, Maldi
Erastus Ochieng Forester, Arabuko Sokoke, Jilore
ICIP
E
Dr. Wilber Lwande Bioprospecting Team Leader
Maxwell Lumbasi
Frederick W. Nduguli +254-0722-723-174 fwnduguli@icipe.org
Bio-enterprises, Applied Bioprospecting
and Conservation Program
me
Bernard Nixon Onyimbo +254-0722-385-894 nonyimbo@icipe.org Outreach specialist
Charles Lllavu M
woshi
Chair, Isiekuti Organic Farming Youth
Group
various individuals Muliru Farmers Conservation Group
Timothy Lovonga
Madioli Women's Group (Beekeeping,
more), Kakamega
Rhoda Lijodi
Madioli Women's Group (Beekeeping,
more), Kakamega
Laban Lihungu Mondia Farmer, Kakamega
Joseph Macharia
Technician, Kakamega Industrial Facility
(K
E
E
P)
Anna Lugonzo Mondia Farmer, Kakamega
K
E
E
P
E
mily Mujinji
Treasurer, Kakamega Environmental
Education Program (K
E
E
P)
100
Organization Name Telephone Email Address Function
KEFRI Bernard Kigomo +254-66-32891/2/3 bnkigomo@yahoo.com Deputy Director, R & D
Mbae Muchiri +254-0722-873675 c mbaemuchiri2002@yahoo.com Nat'l Progrm Coord, Forest Plantations
Bernard Owuor +254-0720-446094 c benowuor@yahoo.com Research Officer
Joram Kagombe +254-0733-809949 c jokagombe@yahoo.com Senior Research Officer
Francis Gachathi Senior Research Officer
Kavaka Mykonyi +254-0722-389819 c mukonyi2000@yahoo.com Bioprospecting/IP Coordinator
Doris Multa +254-0722-732754 Research Scientist (Mombasa)Center Dir.
Simon N. Waimngo Research Scientist
Charles Ongweya Nyeri
Kenya BDS Program
David Knopp +254-020-375-3318 /9 david@kenyabds.com Chief of Party
Kenya Wildlife Service
Hewson Kabugi +254-0722-370702 c hkabugi@kws.org Forest Programme Coordinator
Aggrey Maumo +254-0722-611044 KWS-IKP@wananchi.com
Mohamed Oman +254-0722-764691 Mombasa
Anthony Wandon rhino@kws.org Researcher, Rhino Program
Wycliffe Mutero +254-0722-245924 muterow@kws.org Head GIS section
Israel Makau +254-600800- ext 2258 forests@kws.org Volunteer: Forest Program
Margaret Ndungu ndungum@kws.org Corporate Planner
Emily Atai forests@kws.org Volunteer: Forest Program
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Institute
(KMFRI)
Stephen Mwangi +254-0722-796229 smwangi@kmfri.co.ke
Laikipia
Arthur Nygura District Commisionere, Laikipia
LWF
Dr. Anthony King +254-060-31600/ 0720-416148 director@laikipia.org Executive Director, LWF
Dr, Delphine King +254-0723-555160 Technical Director LWF
Fred Kihara +254-0722-376821 c programs@laikipia.org
LWF FORREMS Program Development
Officer+E34
Maria Dodds Private Farmer, Aloe Secundiflora
Mida Creek
Arafa Salim +254-0733-626573 arafabaya@yahoo.com Mida Creek association chairwoman
Mukogodo Group Ranches
Gabriel Nyausi Chairperson, Il-maamusi
101
Organization Name Telephone Email Address Function
Nature Kenya
Washington Ayiemba +254-0733-803060 c wayiemba@swiftmalindi.com Project Manager, ASFMT
Joan Gichuki Community Extension agent, ASFMT
Christopher Chengu Community Extension agent, ASFMT
Edward Mwannya Arabuke Sokoke
Francis Kagema Arabuke Sokoke, Ecotourism Officer
Paul Matika +254-020-3749957 office@naturekenya.org Executive Director
Denvas Gekondi Financial Officer
Samuel John Katoi Chair, Market Place
NEMA
Ben Ithagu +254-0722-666542 benithagu@yahoo.com District Environental Officer
Isaiah M Gicheru District Environental Officer, Neru Central
Suzanne Mwangi Nanyuki
Other
Timm Tennigkeit +254-0725-666947 timm.tennigkeit@unique-forst.de Unique Forestry Consultants
John Weyula Nojow +254-072-657-3674 Manager, Savona Isle Resort
PACT Kenya
Anthony Kanuki +254-0722-312329 anthony@pactke.org Mombosa program manger
TIST Ramesh Narasimhan +254-0724-253320 c rameshn@tist.org Tulsa, Oklahoma
Joshuah Irungu +254-0724-255369 c joshuahirungu@tist.org Administrative Director, TIST-KE, Meru
Gayo Mhila Supervisor, TZ
Solomon Waiganjo +254-0721-791746 c solomonwaiganjo@tist.org
Philip James +254-0724-255368 philjames@tist.org TIST E.Africa Coordinator
Alphaxard M. Kimani +254-0733-553880 alphaxkim2000@yahoo.com TIST Nanyuki Field Coordinator
102
Annex 6:
Schedule of Work Plan of Review Team in Kenya
103
August 5 Saturday 1 Travel Day Swanson Departs 8 am
6 Sunday Travel Day Swanson arrives in Nairobi from Minnesota/Amsterdam at 7:15 pm.
7 Monday 1 Prepare logistics for work/travel; Met Charles/Rober at USAID at 2:30 pm and Mission Director Steven Hayden at 2:45
Met with Express at 3 pm for Travel to Mombassa; Obtained cell phone at 4 pm. Karen arrives at 5 pm
8 Tuesday 1 Post-award meeting (1) with USAID: 11:00-12:30, ICIPE Blue Room; Stakeholders Meeting (2) at USAID: 2-3:30 pm
Timm Tennigkeit (Unique Forestry Consultants), Serena, 6:00 PM
9 Wednesday 1 Breakfast Briefing with USAID (7- 9:30 am) at Safari Hotel; Reading documents, working on work plan
10 Thursday 1 Meeting Kenya Forest Research Institute/Kagombe: 8:30-10:30 am, depart hotel 7:00; Africa Wildlife Foundation/Legilisho: 2:30-4 pm
11 Friday 1 S0 5 USAID meeting, 9-10:30 am; Mt. Kenya travel arrangements made at Express Travel ; TIST Meeting: 2:30-4 pm
12 Saturday 1 Reading documents, begin draft report
13 Sunday Day Off Mombassa, Arabuko Sokoke, Coastal Areas
14 Monday 1 KWS (10:30 - 11 am); Forest Department (2:00 -4); Nature Kenya (5-6 pm)
15 Tuesday 1 Flight to Mombasa:Dpt. 8:30-Arr 9:30; depart Safari hotel 6:30 (Mombasa: White Sands Hotel); Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach (2 hrs); Dialy (?) CBO; Shimoni-Ivanga, Marine Reserves
11:00 Meeting at Coastal Development Authority offices (met ICAM working group) of KCMP program activities in coastal region
13:00- 15:30: JK Public Beach-Meeting with Fishermen's group, Tube Renters & Hawkers; Kenya Marine Forum group, saw Tudor Water Sports Fishing boat, Program Coordinator/KMRFI
16:30- 18:00 Visited Vikwathani Maenderero Group (CBO and Eco-tourism plan - PACT Kenya with CDA, at hotel by 6 pm
Charles Oluchina, USAID, will meet us in Mombasa and travel with us
16 Wednesday 1 9:00 Visited Mwaepe Fish Landing Site (program coordinator/KWS and group DCMT of fishermen
11:30 - 3 pm: Visit to Wasini, Wasini Woman's Group Board Walk (PACT Kenya); spoke with Dhow Transport Association members, back to hotel by 7 pm
3-4:30 pm, Vised individual beneficiaries of RWH water catchment tanks - discussed group tanks CDA/KMFRI, back to hotel at 6:30 pm
17 Thursday 1 Dpt: 7 am for Gede Forest Station: Meet Washington (Nature Kenya) at Forest Station 9:30; Arabuko Sokoke and NEMA District Office; night in Watumu
11:00 met with Misitu Waoen Group (beekeeping - also some colllected butterfly pupae, forestry)
12:30-14:00: met with Magangani butterfly farmers group, saw mushroom activities, beekeeping; discussed program with community members
Visited Kipepeo "Market Place" facilities and butterfly pupae delivery; 15:00 - 5:30 pm: Met with Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Management Team, to hotel by 6:30 pm
18 Friday 1 Dpt: 7:30 - 9:30: Visited NEMA office in Magarini, saw 'sand harvesting'; 9:00 - 11: Visited Mida Creek mangroves program; 11:00 travel to Dida Community (SW side of Forest);
Met with Dida committee on Participatory Forest Management (8 members), saw their management plan; then visited specific income generating activities (aloe vera, butterflies,
trees, bee-keeping) in Dida farms; Return to Watuma, at hotel by 6:30
19 Saturday 1 Dpt from Watamu 7:20; paid car rental; At airport by 10:45 (late);Return to Nairobi, Dpt: 11:30 Arr: 12:10; afternoon for writing
20 Sunday 0 Day Off (Greg Michaels arrives in Nairobi) Team Meeting, Discussed summary results and orientation for Draft, Writing of Draft begins
Lakipia, Mt. Kenya, Kakamega Forest
104
21 Monday 1 Dep by road, Mt. Kenya 7:00; Arrive in Nanyuki to LWF (Nanyuki Airfield 10 km to town); TIST, KWS-District Warden, FD-Local Officer, Dist Commissioner
Greg Meets with various partners in Nairobi (interviews established by RS); Greg goes to Express Travel in am to pick up airline ticket
22 Tuesday 1 Depart Nanyuki for East Laikipia 8:00; ILMAMUSI CBO at their office; Herbal pharmacy/tree nursery; Loiragai water project-Il Ngruesi
Greg Michaels departs by air to Kisumu at 7:45 am; car to Kakamega Forest area waiting at Kesemma airport; booking in Kakamega hotel made
23 Wednesday 1 Depart Nanyuki 8:00; FD nursery-Doldol; Yaaku Cultural Project; Makurian Range Rehab and Group Ranch Pasture Management; Wrap-up session, Nanyuki
24 Thursday 1 Mt Kenya, West and Northwest areas: itinerary TBD, night in Meru; Michaels returns from Kakamega (via Kisumu) in pm
25 Friday 1 Mt. Kenya, Meru, TIST, KWS: itinerary TBD (night in Nanyuki)
26 Saturday 1 Return from Mt. Kenya in AM, meeting with Greg Michaels in afternoon
27 Sunday Day Off (Karen and Richard spend day writing)(team meeting)
28 Monday 1 Team writes report; additional meetings (USAID, Nature Kenya, ICIPE)
29 Tuesday 1 Team writes report; additional meetings, as necessary (Donor Harmonization, Alignment and Coordiantion Meeting - Swanson attends at World Bank office 2-4 pm)
30 Wednesday 1 Team writes report; additional meetings, as necessary (Robert Buzzard dpt for USA-will follow with email)
31 Thursday 1 Team finalizes draft report; Copy of 'conclusions/recommendations section given to USAID/Charles; 3 pm Nbo time
Sept. 1 Friday 1 Meeting (5): Powerpoint Debriefing with USAID and partners on Conclusions/Recommendations, 10-12:30 (ICIPE Blue Room); PM work on draft
2 Saturday 1 Karen Menczer dpt.for Ghana, continued work on draft document, with imput of debriefing from stakeholders; Draft copy to Walter Weaver, PA by email
3 Sunday 0 Day Off
4 Monday 1 Labor Day; Richard Swanson return to USA at 7:30 pm, revisions on draft from responses at Friday debriefing (cont.)
5 Tuesday 1 Swanson arrives Minnesota 13:00, Travel Day; Submit Hard Copy Draft Report to USAID/Kenya (3 copies)
6 Wednesday 1 Completion of Final Report (there will be interaction by email between Menczer, Michaels and Swanson at this stage)
7 Thursday 1 Completion of Final Report (there will be interaction by email between Menczer, Michaels and Swanson at this stage); Greg leaves Nairobi in pm.
8 Friday 1 Completion of Final Report (there will be interaction by email between Menczer, Michaels and Swanson at this stage)
9,10 Sat/Sun Days off
Monday 0 Swanson sends copy of final report to Michaels and Menczer for their final reading and input
11 Send copy of final report to Walter Weaver for final internal review (Weaver then passes final document to Thibault) COB Monday
12 Tuesday 0 Completion of Final Report sent to PA Consulting Rick Thibault, Branding Specialist (PA Consulting);
13 Wednesday 0 PA Consulting sends to USAID/Kenya by email copy of Final Report and by FEDEX hardcopies of document + CD rom disk with background data used
USAID Kenya has agreed that, if needed, they will except extension of receipt of final report by COP September 15). Review Team believes that this
will not be necessary, and that process may be completed by 13th, at latest.)
97
Annex 7:
Description of Institutions Partnering in FORREMS and KCMP Programs
(Selected)
1. Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI)
KEFRI has been a Kenyan public research institution It has about 1100 staff members, 94 of
whom have a Master degree or higher. It is a parastatal with a board of directors, and has 6
regional research centers, 4 sub-centers, and 6 field stations located in different agro-ecological
zones in Kenya. Funding comes 70% from the GoK, and 30% from donors or raised through
services rendered on contract. As a parastatal, KEFRI can seek funding for special research
and other professional services of its staff. They possess their own commercial forests from
which revenue can be generated. It can actively seek new commercial agreements with the
private sector and directly with funding agencies, like USAID.
Forestry research and its dissemination has been the mandate of the institution. In the past this
was largely basic in nature, theoretical in scope. Historically, the Forest Department was
KEFRI’s sole client, and for with whom it worked to develop forestry management plans. With
recent new GoK legislation and an ACT passed this year, its mandate will increasingly extend to
applied research; research will be more participatory with communities having a much greater
say in the management of resources in the proposed participatory forestry management plans
proposed. USAID provided some limited TA to KEFRI during its time of transition from a purely
public institution to a parastatal, and KEFRI has had an important role during the past several
years in undertaking fauna, flora, and social economic inventories and preparing forest
management plans for FOREMS (specifically in the Mukogodo Landscape region) and KEFRI.
As a parastatal, KEFRI has come to realize that many of its own aspirations depend on changes
in government legislation with respect to forest and land resources. They are concerned with
the slow pace of reforms taking place within the forest sector (Forest Department), which itself,
will soon begin the process of becoming a parastatal.
KEFRI has recently developed a Strategic Plan, 2005-2010, and USAID wishes to support their
efforts to the extent to which strategic objectives are compatible. The strategic objectives
outlined for this period are:
(1) To generate knowledge and technologies for farm forestry, natural forests, dry land
forestry, and plantation forests.
(2) To strengthen research and management capacity
(3) To improve seed production, distribution, and marketing
(4) To disseminate forest research findings
(5) To improve corporate profile and public image
(6) To strengthen linkages and partnerships with stakeholders.
1
KEFRI is seeking contracts from its broad spectrum of potential clients to provide training in
landscaping, nursery management, soil analysis, forest management, furniture and fancy item
production and can contract services for social forestry, landscaping, participatory forest
1
KEFRI Strategic Plan: 2005-2010, Nairobi, Kenya, 2005.
98
management, tree nursery management, forest management, tree pest management, seed
collection and handling.
2
National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA)
3
Prior to 1989, GoK agencies and departments at the District level tried to address environmental
management according to statutory provisions through ‘environmental officers’. Without well
defined mandates and lack of resources, these officers achieved little in terms of environmental
management. Following the Rio World Summit on Sustainable Development in 1992, Kenya
took a major step by preparing the National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP-1993). From this
was established, for the first time, the legal and institutional framework for environmental
management with strong and wide representation at the district level. In 1999, the
Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) was passed. District Environmental
Committees (DECs) began to be created throughout Kenya in 2002. There was a need for a
support agency to support these field-based groups, so NEMA was formed to provide such
coordination, and USAID became a major supporter in 2002 to help build the capacity of this
new GoK institution. This was an important step, since USAID support was also going to Forest
Department and the Kenya Wildlife Service, as part of support in forestry and improved
management at the District Level. Support has helped NEMA personnel to become part of
teams working at the district level, as community based NRM plans have developed. The
Review Team, when in the field visits, were accompanied by local leaders of NEMA.
Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) (taken directly from a LWF PowerPoint Presentation dated
Feb.6, 2006)
LWF was formed in 1992 in response to KWS initiative to engage landowners and land users in
management of wildlife outside protected areas. It is perhaps the most effective community
based conservation in East Africa. LWF is a pioneering community conservation organisation
made up of pastoralists, small-scale farmers, local community environmental groups,
international conservation and development organisations, tourism ventures and private
ranches, all with a common goal:
Mission: To conserve the integrity of the Laikipia ecosystem by creatively managing natural
resources to improve the livelihoods of its people. Laikipia’ s biodiversity is globally unique –
remarkably, Laikipia is not a formal protected area.
Primary objectives of LWF include:
(1) Maintenance of ecosystem integrity and processes
(2) Establishment and development of community conservation projects in wildlife
dispersal areas
(3) Development of conservation enterprises.
As a fee-paying membership forum, it is currently made up of
• 28 community groups representing over 200,000 of its members and beneficiaries
2
KENFI Service Charter, Nairobi, Kenya, 2006.
3
Information taken from “A Project Proposal on Capacity Building…for NEMA”, April 2003 and NEMA’s Mukogodo
Forest impact assessment, December 2005.
99
• 31 large scale ranches
• 31 tourism operators
• 69 individuals
• 5 conservation Interest Groups
• 1 rural development organization
LWF has identified five key areas to focus the interventions it supports and promotes:
(1) Community Conservation
(2) Wildlife Management
(3) Tourism Development
(4) Environmental Education
(5) Security/Radio
USAID’s support through FORREMS, which began in 2003-2005, and most recently through
another ongoing cooperative agreement, has helped AWF develop its efforts in CBNRM and in
conservation enterprises, efforts that will need continued support as further direct
implementation is undertaken.
TIST (The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program)
TIST is a program developed by the Institute for Environmental Innovation, initially designed and
launched in Tanzania in 1999. In its own words, “TIST empowers Small Groups of 8-12
subsistence farmers to reverse the devastating effects of deforestation, drought, and famine”
4
.
TIST Small Groups have planted over 22 million trees, the results of which can be seen at
www.tist.org. TIST small group members receive a small cash reward for planting trees and
keeping them alive. The basis for these payments is the greenhouse gas (GhG) potential of the
trees. There is a growing worldwide effort to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and one
way to do this is by sequestering carbon in trees as they grow. The hypothesis is that, in the
short term TIST (CAAC) is paying a fixed price of $16 per 1000 trees as a program incentive. In
the long term, the asset value will supplant the value of these payments, at which point the
Small Groups will share in the actual revenues generated from the sale of GhG credits. Other
incentives are built into the TIST program, including agro-forestry concepts, improved cultivation
techniques to name a couple. TIST programs require a robust monitoring and measurement
program, which includes field auditors who make regular visits to small groups to verify trees
planted (and maintained) over time.
4
TIST, Institute for Environmental Innovation, April 2004.
100
Annex 8: Best Practices/Lessons Learned in CBNRM and NBE Development
• If natural resource-dependent communities are involved in natural resource-based
income generation activities, they are likely to use resources in a sustainable manner and
implement a user-driven management and control system.
• The wider “community” should benefit from natural resource-based enterprises, where
the natural resources being used and commercialized are held in common by the community. A
percentage of revenue from community-based enterprises can be retained and be channeled
back to the community for development projects. However, if a business needs to set aside
revenue for conservation or community benefit projects and another business with the same
product does not have to do the same, the “playing field” is uneven and puts the community
required to set aside profits at a disadvantage.
• NGO involvement should focus on TA and training, and not be part of the value chain—
“the business of doing business” should be kept separate from TA. The NGO should serve to
catalyze enterprise development. An NGO is actually a subsidized, hidden management cost,
but often a necessary element in NR enterprise development in rural, often isolated
communities. NGOs should be prepared to scale back and should have an exit strategy and
timeline for withdrawal. The aim is to build entrepreneurs within the community and help make
the community self-reliant rather than dependant on the NGO.
• One role for NGOs is to ensure transparency in delivering benefits from NR enterprises
beyond the people directly involved in the enterprise and to the wider community. The NGO
can assist in building the decision-making mechanisms, and ensuring transparency and
representation, without imposing a decision-making framework on the community.
• One of the more important roles an NGO can play is in monitoring. As a “disinterested
party,” a NGO can undertake the monitoring role, especially in evaluating community benefit
distribution to ensure it is fair, and not skewed to any individual or group.
• Not everyone has the qualities of an entrepreneur. All members of a community can be
primary producers—the harvesters, but the true entrepreneurs—the secondary processors—are
the community members who have demonstrated particular skills, interests and business
aptitude.
• Start-up costs for experimental processing technologies and for other product
development can be funded with grants since a rural community is usually unable to risk the
capitol at this experimental stage. But thereafter, loans should be used to assist businesses to
expand.
• Loans should be at commercial rates and TA (from NGOs) should be separate from the
lending function. For example, SAFIRE developed a partnership with a bank to promote rural
lending. SAFIRE invested money in the bank as collateral, and the bank made loans to rural
entrepreneurs based on the bank’s risk assessment. SAFIRE’s investment was done as a
“secret partner” so that SAFIRE could keep the loan component separate from the TA/business
support component. Without SAFIRE’s investment, the bank would have been unlikely to
accept the risk involved in lending to rural, start-up, NBEs.
101
• NR based enterprises were originally promoted by conservation organizations as an
approach to biodiversity conservation. But NBEs, as with any other business, must first be
about profits. Second to profits, the link between the enterprise and biodiversity conservation
can be made, and more widespread community benefits can be considered (SAFIRE).
• Tracking conservation benefit takes at least ten years, and tracking enterprise
development success along with biodiversity conservation is a fairly new field. It is difficult to
declare successes during early stages in NR based enterprise development.
Best Practices
1. Joint Partnership in Eco-tourism, The Makuleke people of South Africa
The Makuleke people live in the northeast corner of South Africa, and currently reside in
resettlement villages next to Kruger National Park (KNP). After apartheid, the Makuleke
regained title to their traditional land, and through a Communal Property Agreement (CPA) the
Makuleke have gained the right to manage the land. The Makuleke decided not to resettle in
the park, but to leave it as a contract-managed park. The Makuleke Region of Kruger is
managed jointly by the Makuleke CPA and the KNP through a Joint Management Board. The
Makuleke agreement with KNP requires that they mange their portion of the park according to
similar rules that apply to the rest of the park.
The Makuleke have a contract with a private sector partner, Matswani Safaris, to develop an up￾market lodge along the confluence of two rivers in the northern part of KNP. The lodge will
employ approximately 30 people from the village, and the developer will pay a monthly lease fee
to the Makuleke CPA and will contribute a monthly fee to a community development fund.
Under the agreement, Matswani Safaris will pay the Makuleke CPA eight percent of all revenue
generated by the business as well as another two percent to the development fund. Matswani
Safaris also pays a monthly traversing fee for every vehicle based in the Makuleke region. A
bond guarantees Matswani Safaris performance for the duration of the agreement. Matswani
has undertaken a vocational training program to train local tour guides and hospitality workers
for positions at the lodge.
In 2000, through an open bidding process, the Makuleke offered a private safari company the
rights to hunt two elephant and two buffalo. The first hunt earned just under US$100,000, which
has been allocated to a variety of development projects in the village. Some of the hunting
income from 2000 was used to purchase vehicles for the use of the Executive of the CPA and
the Tribal Authority. A full community meeting authorized funding decisions for use of this
revenue. The CPA wants to phase out hunting once the lodge and other camps they are
developing are in operation.
Seven Makuleke residents have received training as safari guides. Other training has included:
26 students trained at technion level in conservation management, tourism, and business skills;
a leadership training program for the executive committee of the CPA; and training for some
Makuleke leaders at the Wits School of Public and Development Management.
Small businesses have spun-off from this ecotourism initiative. A brick making business is
supplying bricks to developments in the park and a guesthouse and museum will house a craft
making business.
102
2. Village Management of Fuel wood Markets in Niger, West Africa
5
Throughout Africa and among CILSS member countries in particular, the State public services
continue to control and manage public domain forests. As with State protection of wildlife and
other resources in national parks and reserves, the State has neither the manpower, training, or
means to assure the protection, must less management, of its forest reserves. By permitting
rural communities concession rights to their traditional territories, the Nigerian Forerst Service
has found a way to protect and manage these resources on a sustainable basis, while
mobilizing more of the taxes it needs for public administration.
Nigerian villages are working our internal rules on how to manage their own resources – not
always the way the Forest Service might think best, but acceptable undere socio-cultural
arrangements in the community. Residents of adjacent villages may not prevent each other
from entering local woodlots to get wood because they belong to the same extended families;
but they will be quick to bar outsiders from access.
The Government of Niger has introduced fundamental change by devolving to rural people
authority over their own local woodlands and responsibility for their management. This policy
innovation builds on existing concepts of land tenure and natural resource governance and
management. Men, women, and children in these rural communities are deriving substantial
cash flows from the wood trade, in places where cash is usually scarce. In the controlled
markets, the system of six-year rotations creates conditions under which sustainable use of
these natural resources becomes realistically feasible. Community members appreciate that
they are fortunate in obtaining these benefits and take their responsibilities for management
seriously.
3. Community Management of Fish Resources of Rouafi Pond (Niger, West Africa)
6
Rouafi Pond Fishers Cooperative and its internal regulations have taken the initiative in
extending local governance and management of the fisheries far beyond the point authorized by
current (Nigerian) national law. Management of a commonly shared natural resource such as a
pond, with its fish populations, can clearly only be successful if all concerned by the resource
support this concept. Such a resource is best managed by one inter-village cooperative to
avoid risks of destructive competition among local organizations. The Cooperative governs and
manages Rouafi Pond in fact as a common good. The fact that few openly challenge
cooperative authority, in spite of grumbling and posturing by some, suggests that most fishers
allow long-term common interests to take precedence over individual, short term concerns.
Common organization around this resource has strengthened the capacity of these local
communities vis-à-vis outsiders, not only in regulating access to the resource, but in controlling
prices paid by fish buyers, and in ensuring that local communities benefit from revenues
produced by the Pond. Credit has become available to sustain the activity as well. Rouafi
Fishers’ Cooperative governance and management activities dovetail nicely with the spirit of the
Niger law prescribing decentralization and increased management of renewable resources by
local users.
5 Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc. Kankani Village
Management of Fuelwood Markets, Swanson & Hasanne April 1998,
6 Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc. Community
Management of Fish Resources of Rouafi Pond, Swanson & Hasanne April 1998.
103
4. The Ronier Palms of Albarkaize (Niger Republic)
7
When given the possibility of truly managing their own resources, local communities can
become very creative in developing and extending their management prerogatives. Members of
the Albarkaize brigade expressed the strong belief that they must also protect other resources in
‘their district’. Their active patrolling of access and controlling of the use of Special District
resources by outsiders has produced some visible and positive effects. Some wildlife species
have reappeared (e.g. a small herd of cob). Wild waterfowl of all kinds, including ducks and
geese, have returned to the district. Hunting pressures elsewhere encourages animals and
game birds to congregate in the district for greater safety. Government officials and powerful,
influential ‘outsiders’ always try to ‘get around’ established rules of a community. The
management committee is asked to ‘make an exception’ for ‘this’ person. Local management
structures must be given the legal authority to reject these kinds of incursions on their
management authority. Providing a framework to manage wild resources and a means to derive
clear benefits from management efforts absolutely conditions long-term sustainability.
5. Sustainable Potable Water Management
8
This case study illustrates the translation in practical terms of the 1993 (Niger) law, in one site,
where village management of a water point began in March 1991. It took six years for State
Ministries’ decrees to provide full legal recognition of practical experiments underway all over
the country. The success of the town’s water system, where each pail of water taken is paid for
by water users, can be attributed to a number of reasons. (1) The General assembly elected
as Water Committee President the Kore Mairoua Chief, who is both respected and obeyed by
community members; many of the people of this village, located along a heavily traveled, paved
road between Dogon Doutchi and Dosso, have developed a keen business sense and know
how to manage things; residents say they want their village to be known as the “Number 1
village” in the area. ‘Look’, we were told, ‘we are already the best village in terms of managing
our own water system. We are also first in providing leadership for the educational needs of our
children’; residents also note ‘we also have a major savings account and credit program which
has grown into a very large account with major loans to members of the community’. It recently
boasted a balance of $34,000. All Kore Mairoua business people have joined this savings and
loan program and this too has helped the community to grow economically. Women’s
involvement was considered as an important element of success. They took part in deciding on
the placement of the water points and the characteristics and nature of the faucet system.
Women continue to play an important role as primary supervisors of water use in the village,
and collectors of the money that allows the system to operate. The system of record keeping set
up initially is also important to the sustainability of this community-managed water system.
6. Do Targeted Development Activities Reduce Pressures on Parks/Reserves
through Changed Human Behavior?
9
A study was made, following four years of activities among communities living in and around
protected areas within Madagascar. The general hypothesis was that by providing an
7
Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc. The Ronier
Palms of Albarkaize, Swanson & Hasanne April 1998
8 Decentralized Natural Resource Management in the Republic of Niger, USAID/PADLOS, ARD, Inc., Kore Mairoua:
Sustainable Potable Water Management,, Swanson & Hasanne April 1998.
9 Hypothesis Testing: Do targeted Activities Reduce Pressures on Parks and Reserves through changed human
behavior?, ANGAP, TR&D, Swanson, 1996.
104
alternative means of obtaining a livelihood, people currently engaged in destructive pressures
upon protected areas would be willing to change and modify their behavior. Changes would
lead to reduced threats upon protected areas, greater partnerships and co-ownership of the
protected resources for the mutual well-being of the people living closest to these endangered
resources. Some of the major conclusions from a study of numerous case studies included in
the resulting publication were:
• Changing human behavior is always a very long-term process, full of unexpected pitfalls.
In most cases, program activities (in Madagascar) in spite of their cost, represented a ‘drop in
the bucket’ towards having real impact on reducing the most serious pressures…the issues was
usually that the scale of these activities are too small….No one development activity can be
given sole credit to ‘reducing pressures upon a specific threat’ on a protected area…it will be the
synergy developed among a range of successful efforts which may lead to these results.
• A general theme is the fact that it takes a great deal of time and effort to launch any kind
of successful development activity. Linked to the inherent difficulty of the task set out for ICDP
programs has been the problem of focus and scale. Few ICDPs are truly focused. All begin
with a very large menu of development activities - often considered ‘door openers’. Greater
focus on fewer activities, with professional guidance, over a longer period of time will have
greater and lasting impact. If we want results, we must show the necessary commitment long
term.
7. Zimbabwe’s Communal Area Management Program for Indigenous Resources
(CAMPFIRE)
“By conferring proprietorship of wildlife resources to the Rural District Councils (RDC) through
the mechanism of “Appropriate Authority”, benefits in fact did accrue to populations residing in
proximity to favored habitat with its rich endowment of charismatic megafauna. Most revenues
still derive from the consumptive, sustainable use of this resource. The maintenance of trophy
quality and overall wildlife numbers indicates that wildlife populations are being sustainably
exploited under present conditions. Most observers consider the hunting quotas in CAMPFIRE
areas to be conservative.
CAMPFIRE’s philosophy engenders a positive sense of empowerment and its approach is well￾entrenched among local populations as it is across government departments. Non-wildlife
resources, including some mineral resources, are coming under the CAMPFIRE umbrella…
CAMPFIRE functions best where the Rural Development Authorities have devolved some
authority, and the majority of revenues, to the producer level. Where benefits are minimal or
have been generalized to a wider population, the essential link to improved conservation breaks
down….
CAMPFIRE’s early success was founded upon an already established international wildlife
market, and its leaders were successful in helping local Zimbabwe communities link up to this
revenue stream – therby benefiting not only their own socioeconomic development, but also
leading to the sustainable management and successful conservation of this resource…. For the
105
past several years, CAMPFIRE has begun diversifying into other conservation-based economic
activities….”
10
A number of specific themes stood out as important to the success the CAMPFIRE program: the
legitimacy of non-government organizations, the need for strong partnerships, the importance of
cultural values, the inadequacy of protected area systems to protect biodiversity, planning (and
transparency) for public scrutiny, and the importance of balancing results and flexibility in
programming.
11
“CAMPFIRE’s experience reaffirms the validity and utility of involving NGOs as important actors
in the development process….NGO legitimacy is not a given, but is based on specific
comparative strengths in serving and responding to local people and their community-based
organizations.”
“CAMPFIRE’s controversial acceptance of sport hunting of elephants (and other animals) as a
means of furthering conservation based community development proved to be a lightning rod for
controversy. Modern communications technology…mean that activist participation can be very
focused and politically distinct, circumstances that are particularly susceptible to US interest
group pressures. This civil society oversight can be healthy, but it should be considered at the
planning stage….Oftentimes the opposition is not domestic, not well-organized, and or not
popular with decision makers. CAMPFIRE has been able to survive, but the efforts made to
assure survival provide lessons for what may become a more characteristic level of (US) public
involvement in specific development assistance activities.”
“CAMPFIRE’s conservation objectives are permanent and meeting them is an ongoing effort.
What is remarkable and instructive about the program are the importance and constancy of the
underlying CAMPFIRE principles as guideposts in making constant programmatic adjustments”.
These include:
(1) The essential “owners” of the CAMPFIRE program within Zimbabwe are the rural
communities and their elected representatives at the Rural District Level.
(2) Sustainable management of their natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable,
and their socio-economic well-being are the focus of program managers.
(3) Wildlife utilization can compete economically and financially with other extensive forms
of land use.
(4) Communities deriving wealth from wildlife will both wish, and be able, to protect these
resources, but only under favorable conditions.
(5) Communities not only will be willing to manage these resources, but also can become
capable of doing so, and will invest in this management.
(6) With control over resources, farmers’ behavior will lead to the improved conservation of
the resource base.”
12
10
Final Report, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Zimbabwe Natural Resources Management Project, Phase II, Communal
Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources, CAMPFIRE, The Mitchell Group & SECID, July 31, 1998 by
Sowers, Swanson, et. al., pp. i.
11 CAMPFIRE review, 1998, p. 25.
12
CAMPFIRE review, 1998, selected passages, pp. 133-144