July 1, 2013 This evaluation was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).The contents of this evaluation are the responsibilities of Theo Hendriksen, Fabian Musila, and Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the U.S. government. Final Performance Evaluation Report for Community-Based Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Implemented by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum Final Performance Evaluation Report for Community-Based Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Implemented by the Laikipia Wildlife Forum AN EVALUATION OF CAPACITY BUILDING FOR COMMUNITIES IN MANAGING WATER, FOREST, AND RANGELAND RESOURCES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOECOLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEMS Theo Hendriksen, Fabian Musila, and Management Systems International Management Systems International 600 Water Street SW Washington, DC 20024 www.msiworldwide.com July 1, 2013 Contracted under No.AID-623-I-12-00001 (Task Order No. AID-623-TO-13- 00011) Kenya Support Program DISCLAIMER This evaluation was made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).The contents of this evaluation are the responsibilities of Theo Hendriksen, Fabian Musila, and Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the U.S. government. CONTENTS Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Evaluation Purpose and Questions ............................................................................................................... 5 Project Background ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Evaluation Methods and Limitations ............................................................................................................. 7 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 8 Overall ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Question 1. Capacity Building in Community-Based Natural Resource Management ...........................10 Questions 2 and 3. Monitoring Systems and their Use in Decision-Making ...........................................19 Question 4. External Factors...................................................................................................................23 Question 5. Benefits to Women, Men, and Youth ...................................................................................24 Lesson Learned ..........................................................................................................................................26 Annex A. Evaluation Statement of Work .....................................................................................................27 Annex B. Holistic Management in Grazing ................................................................................................. 49 Annex C. Data Collection and Analysis Methods .......................................................................................50 Annex D. Benchmarks for Development of Group Ranches and WRUA ...................................................52 Annex E. Water Resource Users Supported by USAID .............................................................................53 Annex F. Data-Collection Instruments ........................................................................................................56 Annex G. Sources of Information ................................................................................................................69 Annex H. Final Getting to Answers .............................................................................................................74 Annex I. Mapping LWF to a Devolved Government Structure ....................................................................80 Annex J. List of Partners and Support Organizations .................................................................................81 Annex K. Planned and Actual Associations and Group Ranches...............................................................82 Annex L. Lakipia County and Land Utilization ............................................................................................83 Annex M. Area Under Holistic Management ...............................................................................................84 Annex N. Pictures from the Field ................................................................................................................85 Annex O. Tourism and Benefits ..................................................................................................................87 Annex P. Actions Taken By LWF for Formation and Participation of Community Forest Associations .....90 Annex Q. Innovative Crosscutting Interventions Undertaken With WRUAs ...............................................91 Annex R. LWF and Northern Rangelands Trust .........................................................................................92 Annex S. Integrated Water Resources Management ................................................................................93 Annex T. The Ecological and Ecosystem Processes Monitoring Program .................................................94 Annex U. LWF Performance Management Plan and Progress Report Analysis ........................................97 Annex V. Respecting Bylaws ....................................................................................................................106 Annex W. Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest......................................................................................107 1 ACRONYMS ABEO Agriculture, Business, and Environment Office AWF Africa Wildlife Foundation CBNRM CDTF Community-Based Natural Resource Management Community Development Trust Fund CETRAD CFA Center for Training and Intergraded Research in Arid and Semiarid Land Development Community Forest Associations CLO Community Liaison Officer CMP Community Management Profile EEPMP EKN Ecological and Ecosystem Processes Monitoring Program Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands GD GR Group Discussions Group Ranch HM Holistic Management IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management KFS Kenya Forest Service KII KNE KWS Key Informant Interview Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Kenya Wildlife Service LBCP LWF LWF Biodiversity Conservation Program Laikipia Wildlife Forum M&E MoALF MRC Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Mpala Research Center NGO Nongovernmental Organization NRM NRT Natural Resource Management Northern Rangelands Trust PELIS PFMP PMP Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme Participatory Forest Management Plan Performance Monitoring Plan 2 SCMP Sub-Catchment Management Plan USAID United States Agency for International Development WRUA Water Resource Users Association WTA Water Trust Fund 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This final performance evaluation examines the Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program, implemented by Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF), from October 2009 to March 2013 with a budget of $2,605,104 in Laikipia County. The program aims to build the capacity of the people of Laikipia to manage their natural resources such as rangelands, water, and forests. The evaluation seeks to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent has the program met its goal to build the capacity of the people and member associations of Laikipia to manage their natural resources including rangelands, water, and forests? 2. To what extent are the various monitoring systems, established as part of this program, effective and transferable? 3. To what extent is monitoring information used in decision-making at the forum and community levels? 4. What external factors played a significant role in affecting, positively or negatively, the underlying challenges the project sought to address, and what was done to adjust the project design to those factors (e.g., policy environment, movement of the British Army, conflict, and drought). 5. In what ways has the program made a difference to women, men, and youths through capacity￾building interventions in managing natural resources such as water, forests, and rangelands? Project Background. The Laikipia Plateau in Kenya has a unique ecosystem and a diversity of people from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. For this landscape to maintain its value based on available natural resources, the pastoralists, ranchers, smallholder farmers, and tourism operators who live on it must coexist with the greatest amount of wildlife found in Kenya outside of its national parks. LWF was created in response to an initiative by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to engage landowners and land users in the conservation and management of wildlife in unprotected areas. Since its inception in 1992, there has been a significant expansion of local conservation efforts and expertise. While wildlife remains central to conservation efforts, LWF has taken an increasingly holistic approach to its mission. Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations. Data was collected by evaluators through multiple methods that included document review, structured group discussions with 17 community groups, and key informant interviews (KIIs). Data analysis was conducted through comparison analysis, pattern analysis, and a response convergence divergence analysis. Data limitations included the inability to visit certain parts of Laikipia due to rains, the loss of institutional memory due to the death of a former LWF executive director, and the lack of consistent data in LWF progress reports. Findings and Conclusions. LWF's strength is its role in coordinating natural resource management (NRM) activities in Laikipia County, and in this regard it is recognized and appreciated as such. It provides a platform for all of its members from community groups to research organizations and private landowners. This is a great strength that can be used for stabilizing and improving the ecosystem in Laikipia. In coordinating its activities, LWF does not compete with government agencies, NGOs, or any other entities; instead, it uses them to accomplish its goals and create greater cooperation. Capacity building. Capacity building is part of a long-term process. LWF has been effective in all capacity building activities given the timeframe of implementation. LWF targets exceeded planned targets for the capacity building of community groups in water, forest, and rangeland resources management, especially 4 in group ranches (GRs). Capacity-building activities for all communities concentrated on governance and community-based structures, which provided the foundation for governance within all groups at varying levels of competence. This first phase of USAID support has laid the basis on which to build community sustainability, both financially and organizationally. Monitoring and evaluation systems. The Ecological and Ecosystem Processes Monitoring Program, developed by Mpala Research Center (MRC), did not meet the expectations of LWF and should be revisited and redesigned to include community-level monitoring input and involvement. The socioeconomic baseline is conceptually good, but was delayed because of the late contracting of the Center for Training and Intergraded Research in Arid and Semiarid Land Development (CETRAD) by LWF. The product is expected to be operational in July 2013. Internal monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems within LWF and those involving LWF, its partners, and the communities are weak and lacking in formal and regular flows of information and feedback. The reporting systems are not systematic and lack predetermined content and data are often inconsistent, inaccurate, or lacking. Too many indicators are listed in planning documents, making it difficult to develop a concise and practical M&E system that is both an information and management tool. This is vital for a coordinating body such as LWF to implement activities carried out by partners and support organizations. External factors. LWF should address numerous and urgent external factors, especially in landscape planning, the development zoning of the county, and the more sensitive and difficult issues of unused land. The newly elected county government is now developing the main county plan. Gender and youth. Women and youth make up the majority of the memberships of GRs, water resource user associations (WRUAs), and community forest associations (CFAs). However, very few are in leadership roles in the overall management of these organizations. Recommendations. The program is making headway in improving the NRM of Laikipia County, and future support would secure the gains made and build on them. At the same time, there are a few changes that need to be made within LWF. 1. LWF should closely monitor all associations and group ranches, and provide follow-up training to strengthen current levels of governance and generate tangible monetary benefits. 2. LWF and USAID should advocate for the faster approval of Forest Management Plans by the Kenya Forest Service (KFS). 3. An additional level should be added to the ecological monitoring system designed by MRC to allow for a simpler and more practical tool that involves community participation and usage. 4. LWF should re-think its internal monitoring system so that it can be used as a management tool as well as a reporting tool. 5. USAID should assist LWF in reorganizing (perhaps by bringing external expertise) to ensure more effective and efficient implementation of its activities. 6. LWF should work with the devolved county government to ensure that Laikipia’s NRM issues are addressed in the county plan. 7. Community organization bylaws should be revised to include the effective representation of women and youths. In addition, leadership training should be extended to all members of community groups, including women and youths, rather than limiting the training to executive committee members only. 5 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE This final performance evaluation examines the Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program, implemented by Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF), from October 2009 to March 2013 with a budget of $2,605,104 in Laikipia County. The program aims to build the capacity of the people of Laikipia to manage their natural resources, including rangelands, water, and forests. This evaluation is intended primarily for accountability and learning. It will serve three main purposes: 1. To examine the extent to which the project’s goal of building capacity has been achieved in light of the challenges the project has faced 2. To understand how LWF applied funds with other monies 3. To capture lessons that can be applied to future partners and programs, particularly with respect to capacity building, monitoring, and policy The evaluation was conducted at the end of the program phase 2009–13 for program activities financed by USAID. The primary audience for this evaluation report is the Agriculture, Business, and Environment Office (ABEO) within USAID/Kenya. In addition, ABEO expects findings to be shared with LWF and other funding partners engaged in similar activities in Laikipia County. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This evaluation seeks to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent has the program met its goal to build the capacity of the people and member associations of Laikipia to manage their natural resources, including rangelands, water, and forests? 2. To what extent are the various monitoring systems established as part of this program effective and transferable? 3. To what extent is the monitoring information used in decision-making at the forum and community level? 4. What external factors played a significant role in affecting, positively or negatively, the underlying challenges the project sought to address, and what was done to adjust the project design to those factors (e.g., policy environment, British Army movement, conflict, and drought)? 5. In which ways has the program made a difference to women, men, and youths through its interventions in water, forests, and rangelands? The evaluation also gathered lessons learned that are applicable to the scale-up of LWF and partners working on similar issues in different geographic areas. PROJECT BACKGROUND The lives and livelihoods of Laikipia County’s pastoralists, ranchers, smallholder farmers, and tourism operators are closely connected to the well-being of the area’s natural resources, including the “big five” mammals (lions, elephants, Cape buffalos, leopards, and rhinos) and a significant number of endangered 6 species.* The area’s natural resources play a crucial role in wildlife circuits, especially for elephants and predators like the threatened Wild Dog. Along a traverse that is centuries old and includes the Aberdares Range and Mount Kenya, the area houses crucial maternity wards for elephants and is an integral part of elephant life and breeding cycles. Laikipia County is the only county in Kenya with no national parks and yet wildlife is dense and increasing alongside a diversity of ethnic cultures and land users. However, Laikipia faces increased pressures that can potentially disrupt this balance. Population growth has stretched the use of land and natural resources. Frequent droughts and water scarcity threaten land management and community livelihoods and increases competition over natural resources. Additionally, a lack of knowledge and access to sustainable building materials and water to irrigate crops leads to the unsustainable use of forests and rivers. LWF was created in response to an initiative by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) to engage landowners and land users in the conservation and management of wildlife in unprotected areas. Since its inception in 1992, there has been a significant expansion of localized wildlife conservation efforts and expertise. While wildlife remains central to the conservation effort, LWF has taken an increasingly holistic approach that emphasizes crosscutting environmental issues affecting larger sections of the population. This approach covers rangeland rehabilitation and management, water resources management, forest management, and conservation enterprise development. TARGET AREAS AND GROUPS LWF works in all communities in Laikipia County, as well as with communities in Nyeri, Meru, Samburu, and Isiolo counties. Membership in the forum is open and includes over 40 community environmental or conservation groups in addition to pastoralist group ranches, tourism operators, conservation organizations, schools, water resource users associations (WRUAs), community forest associations (CFAs), community conservancies, and grazing management committees in pastoralist group ranches (GRs). LWF has used USAID funds to build capacity in 14 WRUAs, 12 CFAs, and 12 grazing management committees in group ranches in the area. PROGRAM GOAL The Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program was created as a follow-on to the 2003–08 Forests Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Strengthening program. The new program takes a more integrated approach that focuses on strengthening communities in the management of rangelands, water, and forests. The stated goal of the follow-on program is to build the capacity of the people of Laikipia to manage their natural resources including rangelands, water, and forests. APPROACH AND IMPLEMENTATION On October 15, 2009, the LWF was awarded a grant of $2,405,104 with a cost-share contribution of $1,737,479 (Cooperative Agreement: 623–A–004–00010–00) to implement an ecosystem-wide natural resources management and biodiversity conservation program in Laikipia. In August 2012, USAID expanded the total cost of LWF’s budget by $200,000 to specifically finance water resource management activities, increasing the total estimated cost of the project to $2,605,104. *This is according to LWF marketing brochures. 7 Through USAID support, LWF has scaled up the conservation of natural resources and biodiversity in Laikipia. The forum brings stakeholders in Laikipia together to exchange ideas, pool resources, and seek solutions to conservation, environmental, and livelihood challenges. The forum also provides a platform for members and the people of Laikipia to actively discuss issues and seek ways forward for Laikipia and beyond. LWF also holds trainings to enhance community capacity and inform communities of government regulations and their rights as users. With USAID funds, LWF partners collaborated with the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA) to build the capacity of water resource user associations (WRUAs), many of which are presently governing rivers throughout Laikipia County. Their work includes enforcing efficient river water use, through the installation of meters, and payments for water use and ecosystem services. The program has worked to improve the co-management capacity of CFAs, some of which have signed co￾management agreements with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and are currently implementing their management plans. Several pastoralist community conservancies in Laikipia now have functional grazing committees, several of which are now implementing their grazing management plans. Ecological monitoring results in 2011 show that to date, the program has put significant hectares of land under improved management through rangeland, forest, water, and enterprise activities. Through conservation enterprise activities, LWF reports that over 800 individuals (of which 48 percent are women) are benefiting from sustainable production and trade in plant-based products. The majority of the activities funded by USAID include:  Developing strategies to guide the work of the LWF in the future  Providing extension services through programs in the different areas to build the capacities of individuals, groups, and communities to better manage their rangelands, forests, and river water resources and to harness livelihood opportunities provided by indigenous biodiversity  Supporting the development and establishment of a comprehensive monitoring program LWF works through many partner and support organizations. A list of these organizations can be found in Annex J. The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (KNE) also serves as a major donor of LWF. They provide non-earmarked funds that directly support the implementation of LWF’s Strategic Plan. Recently, they have concentrated on enhancing the monitoring and evaluation capacity of LWF. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS EVALUATION DESIGN This evaluation examined the institutional capacity of user groups and the LWF, with particular emphasis on governance and decision-making. Considering the changing objectives over the life of the project and the interests of USAID/Kenya ABEO, the evaluation only looked at the main goal and not specific objectives. More attention was paid to the strengthening of associations as this was the main aim of the project. At the same time, the forum’s current capacity was also gauged to inform USAID of LWF’s ability to manage the dynamics of their partner organizations and maintain momentum in enhancing the capacity of community-based natural resource management associations. 8 Data Collection and Analysis Methods The team used a variety of data collection methods, including a) a review of documents; b) interviews with 17 groups using the Community Management Profile tool; (c) interviews with key stakeholders including donors, support organizations, Government of Kenya officials, and other organizations involved in conservancy work. Details on these methods can be found in Annex C. A validation meeting was held with LWF staff, partners, and support organizations in Nanyuki with the participation of USAID to validate key findings and conclusions on May 20, 2013. The team used a mixed-methods approach to analyze and integrate data from various data collection methods. The team used a “before and after” comparison to examine changes under the program. For qualitative data, the team used content analysis and looked at instances of divergence or convergence. The team also used a scoring system to analyze data obtained from group discussions regarding capacity building. Further details on data analysis methods can be found in Annex C. A matrix for data collection and analysis methods (Getting to Answers) is provided in Annex H. STUDY LIMITATIONS The lack of a Logical Framework and Performance Management Plan (PMP) with direct linkages to project activities required the evaluation team to reconstruct a “before” and “after” picture of the project in order to answer the evaluation questions. This information relies significantly on available documentary evidence, and the perceptions and experiences of involved partners and stakeholders. The reliance on qualitative data and historical memory has limitations if individuals have not been part of the project from the onset. One significant problem was the passing of former LWF Executive Director Dr. Anthony King, which presented a major loss of institutional memory. The fieldwork took place during the rainy season with excessive rainfall in areas of the northern and western parts of Laikipia County. Since many of the community groups reside in remote areas, the rains impacted the ability of the team to reach them (e.g., Il Motiok Ranch and Pesi Swamp). It was difficult to extract accurate data from progress reports provided by LWF. These reports were often inconsistent, inaccurate, and lacking in detail, especially in relation to the actual numbers of households (disaggregation by gender), and groups and associations by the number of its members. The evaluation was initially envisioned to be participatory, with an evaluation team member from LWF. However, due to unexpected circumstances, LWF did not have an available staff member participate. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OVERALL Findings Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) is the result of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (UNEP) carried out during 2001–05. It has 10 pillars, among which is “planning and development focuses on capacity building and the process must be facilitated.” * Thus, community-based *Ochola et al., 2012. Africa Environment Outlook 3, UNEP 9 resource management programs are process focused and requires long-term commitment; for example, the length projected for LWF is about 10 years.*† LWF is recognized as a main coordinator of natural resource management activities in Laikipia County by the Government of Kenya, NGOs, and community-based organizations. As a membership organization, LWF provides a platform for its members from community groups to research organizations and private land owners to discuss problems, find solutions, and share experiences.‡ In coordinating its activities, LWF does not compete with government agencies, NGOs, or any other entities; instead, it uses them to accomplish its goals and instead of competition, it creates cooperation. Prior to funding from USAID in 2009, LWF had not received funding from large donors. The Secretariat of LWF was small and worked with limited financial resources. With the substantial financial support provided by USAID and KNE, many activities were expanded and the full-scale implementation of the capacity-building program started in 2009. In 2012, the Secretariat was also expanded and more line staff members were employed to accelerate implementation, especially in the water and forest sectors. Conclusions Based on practices observed by the team, LWF coordinated program activities from 2009 to 2013 in line with “state-of-the-art” NRM principles. However, NRM projects require long-term support to deal with issues of conflicts and to empower communities to become guardians of the landscape. LWF's strength is the fact that it is seen as a coordinating body and not as competing for a niche by its members. This position provides LWF with the opportunity to lead a holistic, efficient, and well￾coordinated approach to NRM and wildlife and landscape conservation in the county. The recent shift to employ more technical line staff illustrates its move toward a larger implementation role. New funding streams increased administrative requirements, resulting in a quick evolution within LWF. This evolution has been somewhat ad hoc, and the weaknesses in implementation observed during this evaluation are partly due to a lack of administrative capability and a lack of management tools. Recommendations It is recommended that USAID consider the continual support for capacity building in rangeland, water, and forests on the basis of the positive findings of this evaluation. The impact of the program, in terms of direct and significant benefits from community-based natural resource management, may not be clear at this stage of the capacity building process, but the direction taken and the strategy adopted by LWF is right. Strong governance will be a core asset for all communities involved and will be the driving force in achieving sustainability in natural resource management in the longer term. LWF should maintain its status as a membership organization that coordinates implementation activities through partners and support organizations to ensure that activities related to NRM are streamlined and strategically based on one concept, and that implementation is complimentary rather than competing. It is also recommended that LWF get external short-term support, through an external consultant, to provide a sound management strategy for its coordination functions. *Discussions with Natural Capital, KII with LWF and Rural Focus, listed in Annex G. †Benjaminsen, T. A. (2007), Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management edited by J. Peter Brosius, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing and Charles Zerner. Development and Change, 38: 355–356. ‡Interviews with Key Informants, Kenya Wildlife Service staff, AWF, World Vision staff, Laikipia County Governor, listed in Annex G. 10 QUESTION 1. CAPACITY BUILDING IN COMMUNITY-BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Findings With USAID funding, LWF has carried out capacity building for 12 group ranches at various stages of development, 14 WRUAs, and 12 CFAs. An explanation of the stages of development can be found in Annex D. The original proposal (2009) by LWF stated that LWF was working with 17 WRUAs and had begun working with five CFAs before the beginning of this phase under evaluation. Annex K tabulates progress in the number of planned achievements, which were exceeded by GRs, WRUAs, and CFAs during this phase under evaluation. All WRUAs and CFAs have gone through formal planning cycles and reached the registration stage as fully fledged associations. In the group ranches (GRs), it is more difficult to define exact “before” and “after” numbers and stages of development. This is due to the complexity of the holistic management (HM) capacity building system, the nature of rangeland improvement, stages of land deterioration, and sociocultural aspects dominant in the area. The HM system was refined and adapted to local conditions prior to 2009. The quality of capacity building and effectiveness of initial implementation by the groups are discussed in the following chapters. Rangelands. The rangelands in the northeastern part of Laikipia County in the Mukugodo area were the main focus for group ranch development based on the HM system. The ranches, to a large extent, surround the Mukugodo forest, which is included in the grazing plans. The Laikipia County land utilization map appears in Annex L. The original method of HM was introduced around 40 years ago and has been used in arid and semiarid grazing lands in Australia, North America, and West and South Africa. HM has three main elements:* 1) improved land management, 2) eco-literacy (in the biological function of ecosystems), and 3) mindset changes (in resource governance and organizational development). For the purposes of this evaluation, improved land management and eco-literacy are considered the technical aspects of the system, while mindset change is referred to as governance capacity building. The HM grazing system is continuously updated by LWF as lessons are learned. A manual is being developed for literate and illiterate audiences to ensure that basic principles of HM are internalized at all community levels in the group ranches. Select committee members receive training on leadership skills and are given the opportunity to go on exposure trips. Participants in the group discussions reported that knowledge gained by the trainees is shared with members during group meetings. This could not be verified beyond the group interviews. Technical components of holistic management. The technical part of HM grazing consists of bunch grazing, boma rotation, and planned grazing blocks. Annex B provides details on these components. As shown in Annex M, a total area of 23,000 hectares (57,000 acres) is under HM management in eastern Mukugodo within three GRs. Another 42,200 hectares (104,280 acres) is covered by HM practices to the west of the Mukugodo forest within the nine ranches that make up the Naibunga Conservancy. This brings the total area to 65,200 hectares (161,280 acres). The actual target for this phase was set at 93,011 hectares (229,830 acres). When including private ranch partners under HM *Holistic Management Manual, Savory Foundation (2011). 11 grazing, an additional area of 113,499 hectares (280,456 acres) is covered. Control of the herd and its timely movement is essential for the success for HM grazing. In view of this, LWF is training a cadre of professional herders that can manage larger groups of combined livestock herds in the future, unlike the individually owned herds currently found in Laikipia. A subsidy is provided by LWF for herders to introduce the HM concept. However, this is a contentious issue since LWF prefers to not provide employment subsidies to groups or associations, while Natural Capital, the support organization, perceives this support as essential in introducing the concept to herders. Currently, in Il Ingwesi, the GR pays 50 percent of herding fees. Governance capacity-building component of holistic management. While bunch grazing and boma rotation are easily understood by the GR communities, planned grazing requires strong governance. This is a central focus of the HM system and is the main part of the capacity building process that requires a long-term commitment and investments in training and support. During HM governance training, LWF reviews the past with communities to arrive at a vision for the future. This is followed by developing the organizational structure of the GRs, which initially includes the creation and development of the Executive Committee and Grazing Committees, and ultimately the creation of User Group Committees to deal with the diversification of activities beyond grazing management. Training provided by LWF consists of information on the leadership and organizational structure of GRs, management issues both technical and financial, the establishment of bylaws, conflict and social management, and the issue of equity and equality in participation, planning, and decision￾making. Based on its present experience, LWF expects that the entire process of HM capacity building will take up to ten years from inception to sustainability. The nine steps used as benchmarks in the development of a group ranch can be found in Annex D. Based on two group interviews, two key informant interviews (KIIs), and two informal discussions, it has been determined that the governance structures are functioning. GR members abide by the bylaws, elect various committees in accordance with the bylaws, and allow members to access financial records, which improves accountability. They hold regular and scheduled meetings at all levels, and do planning in a participatory manner. Annex V shows how members of one GR follow the bylaws. The two GRs interviewed had formed user groups for the diversification of activities. User groups, as promoted by LWF, have their own governance structure, bylaws, elections, and membership. They remain, however, firmly under the overall Executive Committee of the group ranch and abide by its overall bylaws. The formation of user groups is recent and actual data on income are not yet available. Activities undertaken by the user groups include greenhouses and irrigated agriculture with produce sold locally and small-scale farming. Fodder crop production has been planned in one GR. An example of a group diversifying into farming is provided by the Il Ingwesi Group Ranch that invested in purchasing small agriculture plots outside the ranch for members to settle and farm. Four group ranches surrounding Il Polei were harvesting sand. Sand harvesting has been ongoing for many years in this area with sand being supplied as far as Nyeri and Karatina. In the past, group members questioned the equitable distribution of income from sand harvesting. However, presently, group members feel that the direct income is better distributed between group ranches (Naibunga Conservancy) and benefits are seen by all members of the ranches.* *Group interview and discussion with CLO LWF. 12 Effects of holistic management on ecology. In lower Sanga (Il Ingwesi GR), there is more grass than can be used under present stocking rates, and the resident livestock has not moved out of the GR during the dry season because sufficient standing hay is available. This finding is important as it implies an increase in grass production in areas using HM practices. Conflict management and cooperation between group ranches and private ranches. The current governance on group ranches has encouraged dialog between GRs and private ranches. In the past, conflict between group ranches and private ranches was common during dry and drought seasons with pastoralists invading private ranches. However, these conflicts do not occur any longer in areas northeast of the county. The private ranches serve as learning hubs for HM grazing, and allow for grazing by livestock from group ranches under the condition that GRs strictly adhere to the HM grazing process. Grazing on private ranches, which is included in the GR grazing plan, is allowed mostly during the rainy season so grass in the GR can recover faster. When grazing on private ranches, a modest grazing fee is levied and often used by private ranches to benefit the GR. This arrangement is also beneficial for private ranches where rangelands are often underutilized, leading to the deteriorating quality of grasslands. There are other benefits to GR grazing herds in private ranches. For example, in Borana Ranch, GR animals benefit from the health regime of private ranches. Private ranchers initially feared that grazing herds would introduce diseases that would threaten their own herds; this fear has not materialized and has since been recognized to be insignificant. The traditional rights of other pastoralist groups from the north to graze in group ranches in the northeast are maintained, as long as the grazing herds are restricted in numbers, adhere to grazing blocks assigned by the GR, and follow HM grazing rules. A member of the Il Ingwesi Executive Committee said that one of the main benefits achieved through HM training was peace, dialog, and cooperation in the area by everyone, instead of continuous conflict and disrespect. Plans are in place to expand the HM grazing system into the northwestern part of Laikipia County. For this area, OlMaisor Ranch functions as the learning hub. Progress has been slow since the sociocultural situation and landownership and access issues differ from that of registered GRs in the Mukugodo area. The grazing lands in the western part of Laikipia County are basically abandoned lands that were bought by companies in the 1970s and 1980s. These lands were parceled and sold. The settlers who bought plots soon found out that farming was impossible under the climatic conditions of this area. The land was poor in grazing quality, often used by transient pastoralist groups (from Samburu and Pokot), and only grazed in times of need. Since there exists no formal rights to the land and it is used in an opportunistic manner, it is hard to introduce HM grazing and improved governance practices into this area. Security has improved in the northeast with cooperation between GRs and private ranches. There is also a security radio network that LWF facilitates between its members, KWS and KFS, which hires community scouts and CFAs. However, the western part of the county is marked by conflict and insecurity and increasing human-wildlife conflict. For example, the western wildlife fence, erected to protect communities, is being vandalized due to the lack of community ownership, 13 Ecotourism and group ranches. Generally, tourism in Kenya is regarded as having important benefits for communities in return for environmental and wildlife conservation. This includes income from ecolodges and campsites, and shared revenues from national parks and conservancies.* The team did not find evidence that this is the case in the group ranches in Laikipia County or that benefits are equally distributed over the GRs. Details on ecotourism and its benefits can be found in Annex O. Water. In recent decades, the Mount Kenya highland–lowland system, which includes Ewaso Ngiro North Basin, has experienced complex ecological and socioeconomic dynamics. These changes have exerted continuous pressures on water resources, especially as the demand for water by different user groups has continued to grow against a backdrop of expensive alternative sources (rainwater and ground water harvesting) and dwindling river water sources.† As user groups begin to make substantial claims to available river water, the competition for resources increases, thus, setting the stage for conflicts related to scarcity that intensify during the dry season. At times, these conflicts result in fatal physical conflicts among different user groups in the basin, especially between upstream and downstream users.‡ LWF has been working on water programs since the early 2000s to alleviate fatal conflicts that occurred in the program area when water was diverted to grow horticulture produce for export, thus leaving downstream pastoralists without water for their livestock and the wildlife that depend on the river in need.§ LWF supports 24 of the 60 water users associations (WRUAs) in the catchment to date, with 14 being funded by USAID. These 14 WRUAs will be the focus of this evaluation.** A WRUA is a community-based voluntary association of water users that share the same water resources. Their main purpose is to institute management controls, plan for the development of resources, promote dialog among water users, and ensure reasonable flows for upstream and downstream users. Membership to a WRUA is open to all water users who depend on a particular resource, but specifically include riparian land owners, community water projects, water service providers, commercial farmers, hotels, lodges, and industries.†† LWF has, in partnership with Rural Focus and the Water Resources Management Authority (WRMA), conducted sensitization and awareness creation trainings with communities to form WRUAs and address their water issues per the Water Act 2005. As a result, six WRUAs (Ngobit, Upper Ewaso Ngiro, Middle Ewaso Ngiro, Muhotetu, Nyahururu, and Kinamba; see Annex E) have been registered, and a seventh (Kareminu) is pending.‡‡ Registration is granted by the community’s participation in integrated water resources management and its recognition of community contributions and partnerships.§§ *Source: Literature debating CBNRM on the basis of MEA (2001–05); C. van der Jagt, T. Gujadhur, and F. van Bussel. 2000. Community Benefits through Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) in Botswana link conservation to rural development. Community-based natural resource management, poverty alleviation and livelihood diversification: A case study from northern Botswana Caitlin Mary Lepper and Jessica Schroenn Goebel and many other publications and case studies. †Kiteme and Gikonyo, 2002 ‡Francis Gichuki, Water Scarcity and Conflicts: A Case Study of the Upper Ewaso Ng’iro North Basin, publications.iwmi.org/pdf/HQ30836.pdf §Daily Nation correspondent, 2000 **LWF ††Water Act 2002, Rural Focus, group interviews ‡‡Rural Focus, WRMA, LWF §§Water Act 2002 14 With the support of LWF and its partners, the 14 WRUAs funded by this project, have been able to bring different community water users together in one forum and have initiated dialog on the collective management of existing common water resources.* Through this forum, amicable solutions that respect the rights of upstream and downstream communities are reached. WRUAs interviewed felt that there has been an increase in the quality and quantity of water flowing downstream.† These 14 WRUAs have bylaws governing water management and have complied with the requirements that create an enabling environment for all users to access water equitably. The bylaws govern abstraction, pollution control, and conflict resolution. Each WRUA has zonal scouts appointed to actively police the illegal abstraction of water and monitor its use. During periods of drought, no irrigating is allowed during the day and people are arrested for tree cutting along the riverine area.‡ The activities undertaken by a WRUA incur operational costs and the most sustainable source of income for a WRUA is through member registrations and annual subscription fees. Of the 14 WRUAs currently supported by USAID funding, 13 have yet to reach a level where they can effectively run their own operations from internal financial sources.§ There is a critical lack of financial resources during the process of establishing a Sub-Catchment Management Plan (SCMP). WRUAs are eligible for financial support by the Water Trust Fund (WTF) only after their SCMP has been accepted by WRMA. WRUAs become discouraged by the lack of basic resources available to run their organization while awaiting financial support by the WTF. The WRUAs, having undergone a standard training, are similar in their achievements and effectiveness in governance. During field visits, the evaluation team experienced no great differences between WRUAs with regard to the quality of training and its effectiveness. There is one WRUA that performs outstandingly, but this particular WRUA receives significant support from a neighboring large-scale irrigation export-crop farm, which is also a member of the WRUA. The quality of leadership makes a difference in trainings for the implementation of the SCMP and in motivating members with meager financial resources; this has been noticeable between the various WRUAs interviewed. Water activities in the upper regions of the WRUA, although controlled to some extent, are still within a mindset of “we have plenty of water.” An example of this is the unnecessary irrigation of potatoes in areas with adequate rainfall. Exposure trips between WRUAs within the county were appreciated by all WRUAs interviewed. Peer group discussions during these trips provide an opportunity to exchange ideas and experiences. This is particularly important since WRUAs have begun implementing their SCMPs and diversifying income￾generating activities. All 14 WRUAs have developed SCMPs that outline priority activities to improve the status of catchment and water resources within a three- to five-year period. Some have also managed to establish offices *WRUA group interviews †LWF, Rural Focus ‡LWF, Rural Focus, WRMA, group interviews §Group interviews, Rural Focus 15 with managers and scouts to patrol rivers with support from its members. LWF assists each WRUA in the development of a five-year river management plan through which users can map out effective water management strategies, and provide assistance in training and education through its partners. Some of the successful initiatives by the WRUAs include: 1) conservation of riparian areas, 2) river pegging, 3) planting trees within riparian areas to minimize siltation into rivers, 4) preservation of spring sources, 5) water quantity and quality monitoring, and 6) the conservation of swamps.* LWF has developed a water resource management strategy aimed at building knowledge, improving the effectiveness of conservation efforts, and increasing the value of natural resources through WRUAs. Numerous trainings have been conducted to enable the WRUAs to realize their goals and objectives. Some of the trainings conducted to date have been on water sector reforms, community participation, leader sensitization, WRUA governance, legal affairs, WRUA Development Cycle , development of SCMP, and M&E.† Seven of the WRUAs supported by the project have just been registered and have conducted one election whereby interim office bearers were reelected. While LWF has conducted leadership trainings for current office bearers, the same has not been done for the leaders of user groups. As well, capacity building trainings have not been recorded for use as reference in case other office bearers take over.‡ Forests. The Laikipia region has numerous forests that are rich in biodiversity and tree species. However, deforestation is occurring rapidly across the area.§ The community can participate in forest management through the formation of forest associations. The Forests Act of 2005 requires members of a forest community to enter into partnerships with KFS through registered CFAs. Members of a forest community, and local residents who form such associations, may apply to KFS for specific rights to manage and use particular forest areas and for forest produce rights.** LWF in partnership with Tree is Life and KFS has conducted sensitization and awareness creation trainings on the role of the community and its participation in managing the forests. The outcome of these efforts has been formative, leading to the registration of CFAs for all forest blocks within the program area for a total of 12 CFAs.†† In visiting six forest blocks, it was clear that the surrounding communities were keen to participate in forest management following the trainings conducted on the Forest Act, financial management, leadership skills, and the development of the Forest Management Plans.‡‡ Annex P lists the actions taken for the formation and development of CFAs by LWF. As a result of investments by LWF and its partners—Tree Is Life, World Wildlife Fund, and the Community Development Trust Fund (CDTF)—three CFAs (Shamanek, South Marmanet, and North Marmanet) have developed Forest Management Plans. However, agreements with KFS have yet to be *SCMP, LWF, Rural Focus, LWF, WRMA, group interviews †Progress reports, group interviews, LWF ‡Group interviews, progress reports § Source: KFS and KWS **J. Mogoi, E. Obonyo, P. Ongugo, V. Oeba, and E. Mwangi. 2012. “Communities, Property Rights, and Forest Decentralization in Kenya: Early Lessons From Participatory Forestry Management.” Conservation and Society 10:182–94. ††KII KFS, group interviews, progress reports to USAID ‡‡KIIs with Tree is Life, group interviews, progress reports 16 signed so that they can be implemented. * There have been delays—of as much as five years—for formal approval by KFS of these participatory management plans, creating dissatisfaction among the communities.† The Gathiuru and Shamanek CFAs have developed innovative ways of generating benefits from the Plantation Establishment and Livelihood Improvement Scheme (PELIS) and from investments on their farms in woodlots and agroforestry. A list of innovative crosscutting interventions undertaken with the WRUAs can be found in Annex Q. As with the WRUAs, the CFAs have undergone a standard process of training to attain full registration. The quality of training and establishment of governance structures is positive, based on interactive group interviews. Most CFAs are at the same levels of knowledge and performance, with some exceptions such as the Gathiuru CFA; this CFA is making significant money and is doing well. Since income data have not been monitored by LWF, no reliable and verified information is available in this early phase of capacity building. The issue of operational costs for the CFA is also similar to that of WRUAs. A financial gap exists in the phase before the Forest Management Plan is accepted by KFS and a final agreement is negotiated between the CFA and KFS. On the basis of this, the CFA expects to be eligible for CDTF funding. That is, however, not guaranteed. Conclusions Overall, LWF has exceeded the set targets in this implementation phase for the numbers of associations and group ranches incorporated in the capacity building program. The development processes of community-based NRM take time as governance capacity building requires consistent effort, and the benefits accrued are not usually evident in the short and medium-term.‡§ Thus, governance capacity building in all associations and group ranches is a basis for further development. The phase under evaluation is a step in the right direction, but there is a significant way to go in terms the sustainability of associations and group ranches and their achievement of the ultimate goal of community-based natural resource management. Data on actual direct benefits, in terms of money, to the groups are not currently available since they have only begun to develop. Rangelands Capacity Building. The present phase under evaluation (2009–13) is one phase in a long￾term process of capacity building and changing mindsets that will take about 10 years, as estimated based on present experience by LWF and its support organization, Natural Capital. The HM system of capacity building on group ranches is very promising despite the long period of time required. Technical holistic management components. The technical components of HM are easily understood by pastoralists and accepted as a sound strategy for improving grazing resources. It is an entry point for the HM concept of improved governance, since these technical aspects cannot be introduced and be effective without improved governance. The development of specialized bunch grazing herders is important and could create a “new elite” of professional herders. This would increase job opportunities *Field observations, group interviews †Group interviews, KIIs with LWF ‡Benjaminsen, 2007 §Ochola, et al., 2012 17 for youths, promote the increased collective grazing of herds, and simplify the implementation of grazing management plans. The expansion of HM grazing to the western parts of the county may encounter difficulties since there is no land ownership as compared to group ranches in the northeast. The pastoralist groups in the western part make opportunistic use of grazing on abandoned lands and are not semi-sedentary like the pastoralists in Mukugodo. They use Laikipia County as an extension of their “home grazing” areas. Their presence has been minimal in the last three years due to good rains in the region. OlMaisor Ranch is a learning hub but the benefits of temporary grazing, as with the many private ranches in the east, will certainly be less. Capacity building in governance and holistic management. Capacity building in governance is the core of HM capacity building with an impressive impact thus far on communities in the group ranches. Governance, accountability, and discipline have had a positive effect. People have increased trust in their leadership and, through common decision-making processes, increased ownership of activities. It provides an environment conducive for development and ecological conservation through better management and enhances the production base of the group ranches and pastures. The committees and governance structures are functional, and with the increased involvement of youths they have the potential to be a strong driving force behind improved planning, organization, and management. A strong governance structure in a GR encourages and empowers men and women in planning and managing development activities. This opens avenues for other income-generating activities and diversification since benefits are shared equitably and confidence in governance exists. The progress made by GRs is also reflected through improved financial accountability and equity for other joint income-generating activities, such as sand harvesting (as is the case in four GRs).This could open avenues for combined development activities undertaken by group ranches in the area. Actual data on direct increased income are not available and requires an update of LWF’s 2009 baseline survey. Effects of holistic management on ecology. The positive impact of HM grazing were observed in the ranches visited by the team and is reflected in the reduced time spent by home herds outside of the GRs, and the presence of excess grazing resources at present stocking rates in the GRs (e.g., Il Ingwesi GR). The production of grasslands is not only increasing, but there have also been improvements in the composition of species and a reduction in soil erosion. HM is a system that will build the health and productivity of the landscape in the long term. Conflict management and cooperation between group ranches and private ranches. Internal mechanisms for conflict management have improved significantly between GRs and private ranches, and can be directly attributed to improved governance in GRs. Practices in good governance have created an atmosphere of open dialog, consultation, and constructive cooperation with mutual benefits. The GRs benefit from temporary access to grazing and general animal health regimes when grazing on private ranches. Private ranch pastures benefit from the grazing of underutilized lands and from improved security. More benefits can be accrued as evidenced by the plans of the Borana Ranch to provide breeding bulls to upgrade the livestock in Il Ingwesi in exchange for the right of access for tourist horse rides from Borana. There are still efforts to be made but in the northeastern part of the county, communities (group ranches in combination with CFAs and WRUAs) are generally becoming effective guardians of their natural resources in cooperation with private ranches and government institutions. Ecotourism and group ranches. The team found no evidence that tourism is a major source of direct income for GRs. Tourism is currently limited to the model of ecolodges and the potential for its future development is relatively small. With over 20 ecolodges located on private ranches, it is doubtful that 18 the present influx of tourists can provide a continuous source of income apart from peak seasons. Little is known about actual occupancy rates and bed-nights in ecolodges in and around Laikipia presently. For more details, please see Annex O. Water Capacity Building. Integrated water resources management (IWRM) practices used by WRMA encourages the building of partnerships by bringing stakeholders and decision-makers together. These partnerships have enabled WRUAs to progress through the nine planning stages (found in Annex D) in a short span of three years. Ten of 14 WRUAs now have a SCMP for their sub-catchments. The SCMP provides the foundation for the further development of the WRUA and catchment area. However, as diverse activities captured in specific SCMPs are implemented, WRUA-specific training will need to be provided. Support is currently needed so that the trainings can trickle down to user groups. Apart from the training provided through LWF, exposure trips and peer meetings have proven to be useful. Now that WRUAs are ready to implement their SCMPs, activities will need to be consolidated for the diverse use of resources. It will be important to ensure that all income-generating activities take place in an environmentally responsible manner. The WRUAs have been able to stem the frequent conflicts that have occurred in the past. Also, the duration of water supply to the lower sections of the basin has increased; demonstrating that bylaws can be effective in addressing water-related conflicts and should be supported by WRMA. The lack of operational funds for WRUAs during the establishment and approval of the SCMP is critical as WRUAs become discouraged by the lack of basic resources available to run their organizations while awaiting financial support from the WTF. It can be concluded that governance training was effective, and that leadership quality in the WRUA makes a difference in its progress; strong leadership with good ideas enables the effective development of WRUAs. There is a possibility of the loss of institutional memory when a new executive management board is elected as the trainings have always targeted current office bearers. Forest Capacity Building. Gathiuru CFA is an example of a user association that, through strong leadership, has reached sustainability and proves that CFAs can become self-sustainable and even profitable. No detailed income data are available at present. The CFAs expect to receive substantial financial support from CDTF after completing the official stages with KFS, but competitive proposal development has to be undertaken by the CFA to obtain this financial support. Currently, this is not a well-developed capacity amongst CFAs, and is being supported by LWF. An additional problem CFAs face is the weak cooperation with and support from KFS, generally. The time it takes KFS to ratify and sign the agreements with CFAs is often too long; some CFAs have been waiting five to seven years now for this to happen. There is an urgent need for intervention to ensure that KFS internalizes the Forest Act of 2005 and all issues pertaining to it, including the acceptance of CFAs as part of overall forest management. The centralized management by KFS is rooted in the fact that gazette forests are nationally owned and not affected by the recent devolution of government. The PELIS (shamba) system is one of the major income-generating factors within CFAs. In other places, like Shamanek CFA, people are focusing on activities surrounding the forest. Thus CFAs are slowly developing their own strategies to attain sustainability. Shamanek forest is a maternity ward for elephants and this could be a valuable tourist destination. The communities around the forests need continued support so they can stem the degradation of habitats in the forest within the framework of their Forest Management Plans. 19 Peer group exposure visits by Shamanek, South Marmanet, and Gathiuru CFAs to the Kakamega Forest and Arabuko Sokoke Forest have been effective. The CFAs are now utilizing energy saving stoves at home and in schools as a direct result. More exchange visits between CFAs in the area should be considered. Recommendations Rangelands. HM is an effective approach and should be continued and further developed by LWF as the main driving force for NRM in rangelands. However, the training of herders in the HM grazing system should be given a more formal status by LWF as a key function of HM grazing. Apart from on-the-job training, some form of formal short-term training should be considered that would elevate the status of herders to a professional level; this could include expanded knowledge for rangeland monitoring. Any support by LWF to the herders should be clearly defined and community contributions should be required. This support may be initially important to introduce the concept of herders, but it should be restricted to a specific time limit. LWF and its partners should review and redefine the concept of wildlife tourism and its benefits for GRs. LWF should review the potential for developing ecolodges and campsites across Laikipia County with regard to accommodating the numbers of actual visitors and develop projections of the various types of visitors (up-market, middle market, etc.) to get an indication of market saturation levels. It should promote community-based conservancies as “landscape” environments and investigate how this can be more effectively marketed, what basic facilities are required, and how they can be established. Water. In order to ensure that there is no loss of institutional memory and knowledge, LWF and its partners need to extend training to all group members, especially on issues of leadership, finance, and recordkeeping and not only target individuals presently in charge. In addition, elections should occur in a partial system at different timelines so skills are passed on to new officeholders. LWF needs to help WRUAs explore alternative revenue streams, such as a levy on farm produce grown using irrigated water and the collection of water levies prior to the installment of meters to finance the operational costs of the WRUA. Water utilization in the upper catchment of the WRUAs needs to be reviewed with the assistance of LWF and excessive water use for irrigation needs to be curbed. This can be done by agreeing on crop calendars with periods of no irrigation at all. The better use of technical information on irrigated crop production should also be considered to ration and reduce water use. LWF should continue its strong cooperation with WRMA to ensure that mechanisms of abstraction control are adhered to in support of WRUAs. Forests. LWF and partners need to facilitate the signing of forest management and agreement plans through strong advocacy at high levels within KFS to rationalize and devolve agreements between CFAs and KFS. LWF and its partners should organize trainings for the Forest Staff on the Forest Act, and on the responsibilities of KFS and CFAs and their mutual cooperation so that communities can benefit from the opportunities available, especially in PELIS, in overseeing grazing systems and firewood collection. LWF should focus on income-generating activities with CFAs that are built upon the potential of each individual CFA. This process needs LWF guidance and technical training for CFAs to realize these activities in a profitable and responsible manner. QUESTIONS 2 AND 3. MONITORING SYSTEMS AND THEIR USE IN DECISION-MAKING 20 Questions 2 and 3 have been integrated as the findings are strongly linked. A detailed discussion of the monitoring systems can be found in Annex T. Findings During this program phase, two external monitoring systems and an internal M&E system were to be developed for LWF to include its partners and support organizations. The two external monitoring systems were expected to measure the impact of the program on NRM and the communities involved. It should be noted that a hydrological network for measuring river flow is now rehabilitated and functional through CETRAD in cooperation with WRMA. It has yet to be integrated into the information system by LWF. Ecological and Ecosystem Processes Monitoring Program. The Ecological and Ecosystem Processes Monitoring Program (EEPMP) was developed and tested by Mpala Research Center (MRC) between 2009 and 2013. It was then submitted to LWF. The EEPMP has two components, one for rangelands and another for forests. LWF states that the EEPMP is not the product they expected and it is not being used in its present form. LWF wanted a simple, low-cost monitoring system that includes community inputs and that can be used by communities and ranchers. However, according to MRC, they were not contracted to deliver such a product. MRC believes that they have delivered products in line with the contract. A more detailed discussion can be found in Annex T. The terms of reference for the subcontract were very broad and little follow-up and feedback was provided by LWF during the development of the EEMP. Socioeconomic Monitoring. Initial discussion on the socioeconomic monitoring system took place in June 2010 between CETRAD and LWF. After which, no discussion took place till January 2012 when the contract was signed and backdated to December 1, 2011. The main tasks of the project included the designing of the socioeconomic monitoring system and the conducting of a socioeconomic baseline. The baseline, still under development, is presently being tested in 18 locations. The system has been designed, and the baseline will be ready in July 2013. Relevant indicators were identified in the broad areas of gender issues; primary livelihood systems; social infrastructure and related services; level of community organization and resource governance profiles; and the resource use patterns of stakeholders and actors, including their understanding of natural resources and its links with land use practices (to include well-being, attitudes, and perceptions). In addition, 48 more indicators for assessing welfare status at the household level were elaborated upon.* Internal Monitoring. M&E is presently used for information gathering for donor reporting, either semiannually or annually and does not function as a continuous management tool. Progress reports are voluminous and hard to digest; the data are often inconsistent, inaccurate, or incomplete. The evaluation team found it difficult to extract reliable and consistent data from the various progress reports from LWF. Data provided by support organizations do not tally with the data found in LWF’s progress reports, and actual planned targets and achievements are difficult to track. In addition, monitoring is not linked to budget lines at the activity level. While an organogram of the LWF and annual workplans exist, there are no job descriptions for individual staff positions. *CETRAD, LWF. 21 A reporting challenge faced by LWF is that it is financially supported by USAID and KNE. Both donors have different planning documents for the 2009–13 implementation phase, namely, the PMP (USAID) and 2011 Logical Framework (KNE). In addition, both donors have different reporting timelines. Some basic monitoring exists at the community level, such as grazing within HM, WRUAs reporting to WRMA, and CFAs monitoring the forest for smoke to detect charcoal making according to the five Community Liaison Officers (CLOs) deployed by LWF across the county. However, no standard information gathering and reporting tools exist and information flows between the communities and LWF remains irregular. The feedback of information to the communities from LWF is at the discretion of the CLO. There is also no monitoring system to gather detailed information from community groups about progress based on income from NRM related activities. Information flows between LWF, its partners, and support organizations are also not organized on a regular schedule and takes place when the need arises. No regular schedule of progress meetings is adhered to apart from large annual meetings. In addition, there is no system to provide feedback from M&E findings and analyses to partners, support organizations, and community groups. Conclusion Ecological and Ecosystem Processes Monitoring Program. Presently, there is a lack of communication, dialog, and follow-up by LWF in developing an ecological and biodiversity monitoring system. The rangeland monitoring system developed by MRC is delinked from the land users. Community involvement in ecological monitoring is a crucial learning process and includes traditional knowledge as added value. Socioeconomic Monitoring System. The monitoring system is well designed and has benefited from the long-term experience of CETRAD in socioeconomic studies and monitoring in Laikipia County. While the CETRAD system has some linkages to NRM, these could be strengthened with direct linkages to an ecological monitoring system. Internal Monitoring Systems. LWF has insufficient monitoring systems to efficiently manage all of its activities. Internal monitoring systems are weak and the flow of information into M&E is irregular and without preplanned content, making its analysis difficult. Currently, indicators lack clarity and there are too many in use to enable a practical and effective internal M&E system. There is also a lack of information on income gains resulting from community group activities, which is a major gap in view of the fact that NRM has to provide tangible benefits to be sustainable. Lastly, there is no systematic feedback from the monitoring system for partners, support organizations, and community groups. The CLOs have a crucial task at present to provide links between communities and LWF on all activities ongoing in the field; it is a formidable task under often difficult circumstances (due to security and road networks). As the only link for information flow between communities and LWF, however, it is insufficient. They also require M&E tools to make this information flow consistent and regular. The internal M&E system is not linked to budget lines of activities to provide management with a continuous overview of progress and financial status. Progress reports are weak and lengthy, making it difficult for outsiders and donors to digest. Data are often lacking, inaccurate, or inconsistent and it is hard to see a line of progression on any particular aspect that interests the reader. The flow of information is further complicated by unclear lines of command, as observed from the LWF organogram. 22 The multiple planning documents used by LWF for the two donors and the different timelines put additional reporting burdens on LWF. Use of Monitoring Systems In Decision-Making. Given the disagreement between MRC and LWF on the ecological and ecosystem processes monitoring system, ongoing baseline, recently finalized hydrological network, and the use of internal monitoring for reporting, no decisions about formal and functional monitoring systems and analyses of reliable and regular monitoring data have been made at the forum or community levels. However, as part of the HM system, communities do use traditional indicators such as length and species of grass and the presence of butterflies and birds to make decisions on how to plan grazing. WRUAs use water levels in “their” rivers as an indicator. Recommendations Ecological Monitoring. LWF should initiate a dialog with MRC to develop a practical system to monitor ecology and biodiversity based on the work done by MRC and incorporate the monitoring system currently used on GRs for grazing planning to include, where practical, elements from the socioeconomic survey carried out by LWF in 2009. LWF should ensure that NRM and ecological and biodiversity monitoring are closely linked to socioeconomic monitoring to assure that impact can be measured. The end goal of monitoring is to measure the impact of NRM activities to benefit the communities. In addition, data from the hydrological network for rivers in Laikipia should also be included in the monitoring system to support and verify WRUA contributions to the monitoring of the river network. The forest monitoring system should be revisited by LWF in five years’ time, but LWF should include community-level observations to continually add value to satellite imagery. It will provide answers to why, rather than how much, change takes place. Internal M&E Systems. External short-term support should be given to assess the internal M&E system and information flows, and to develop templates that can be used by the various stakeholders. The internal M&E system should be developed in a participatory manner to produce an effective and practical M&E system that is also a management tool and include regular information flows on a biweekly or monthly basis, rather than a five-year cycle, as is the case with the monitoring of a baseline survey. Monitoring data can be further enriched by data from the hydrological network (WRMA and CETRAD) in the case of WRUAs and inconsistencies can be detected. In addition, there are several components required in internal monitoring to allow LWF to be an effective NRM coordinating body. These include: 1) the progress monitoring of activities carried out by partners and support organizations, linked to detailed activity budget lines and expenditures; and 2) progress monitoring of activities by associations and group ranches, including information on income and indirect benefits. CLOs remain crucial in their liaison role, but are also valued as innovators and in providing guidance to community groups. They should have the sole responsibility of gathering data from the field and reporting it to LWF using standard templates. Special requests by community groups or additional training requirements should also be identified by the CLO. External short-term support is also required to assist LWF in developing a concise planning framework based on a logical framework. The planning framework should encompass all the planned activities of LWF. From this plan, donors can extract the blocks of activities they prefer to finance. Furthermore, external support is required to look into the organizational structure of LWF as a whole to review lines 23 of command, staff responsibilities (e.g., terms of reference), and to strengthen the organizational structure with regard to its core function as a coordinating body. QUESTION 4. EXTERNAL FACTORS Findings Based on observation and interviews with key informants, the evaluation team identified several external factors as existing or potential threats to the overall ecosystem of Laikipia County. Foremost, water remains a scarce resource in Laikipia County and its main source is the rivers. The groundwater on the plateau away from the foot of Mount Kenya is not an adequate substitute for river water. Boreholes are deep, up to 80 percent dry or poorly yielding, and often have high salinity or excessive fluoride levels. A hydrogeological survey exists from the national Water Master Plan (1992), which was done with assistance from Japan International Cooperation Agency and will be updated in 2013. One concern is the present development “explosion” around Nanyuki town and eastward. The land in this area has increased in value and thus, land speculation, the subdivision of land, and the construction of residences are spreading fast. For example, four golf courses have been planned with residential areas in them. Outside of these municipalities, no planning or zoning of development exists. This development has been ongoing since 2010. LWF has not undertaken any action during the implementation phase being reviewed for this evaluation. Another concern is the increasing establishment of large-scale commercial farms not only around the eastern foothills near Timau, but also in the area surrounding the Pesi Swamp in the west. The companies are members of relevant WRUAs and are large-scale water users. Although the storage of water is practiced and boreholes are used, the impact on the water household of springs, rivers, and swamps is unclear. The companies also use smallholder growers in the vicinity. LWF undertook action during this implementation phase and included a wetlands program in its activities, resulting in a cost extension by USAID to LWF. The abandoned lands in the northwestern part of the county, around 300,000 acres, are used seasonally by pastoralists from the Samburu, Pokot, and Baringo areas. These lands were bought by land-buying companies in the 1960s and 1970s, and then subdivided and sold to farmers. As farming proved unsuccessful under the climatic conditions, the land was abandoned but remains individually owned. As such, the extension of HM grazing into these areas poses an additional challenge because of the lack of ownership or formal rights of access. LWF is aware of the problem and a confidential study with regard to these lands was completed in 2013, but is not yet ready for publication due to the sensitive nature of the findings. The recent devolution of government has created new structures at the county level and can bring unknown positive or negative effects. LWF has begun a dialog with the new governor, who expressed positive outlooks on NRM and LWF’s work. Droughts are not regarded as a significant external threat as they are an integral part of life and livelihoods in Laikipia. The severe drought in 2008, for example, affected the progress of the HM grazing program, but provided lessons at the same time. LWF has integrated “drought” as part of its capacity building activities in rangeland, water, and forest. However, the last three years of good rainfall make it difficult to assess the effectiveness of this integration. Poaching is also a concern, the operation of which has become increasingly sophisticated. The main reasons are the high prices fetched for rhino horn and elephant tusk and the channels available for its marketing. According to KWS, poaching has increased since 2011. LWF is aware of the situation and 24 runs the radio network in Laikipia County, providing links between members and partners to report incidents of insecurity, human–wildlife conflict, and poaching before this phase started. Conclusions The increase in land value, at times more than tenfold, has brought land speculation and land subdivision for development far outside of the Nanyuki Municipality. Since no land use planning or development zoning exists outside of the municipality, the construction of residential areas, golf courses, and other amenities occurs largely uncontrolled. The danger is that the free movement of pastoralists, livestock, and wildlife along these existing routes will be blocked. In addition, development occurs along the rivers, increasing pressure on scarce water resources and large projects, such as golf courses, use inordinate amounts of water. If river water is used for these purposes, it will have a negative effect on downstream users and the present experience with boreholes indicate that this method will not resolve the problem. Another concern is the large irrigated farms that produce export crops such as flowers and vegetables. They are members of respective WRUAs and it is feared that these powerful companies will become the “big brothers” of the WRUA and dominate decision-making on water usage. An example is the Ngushishi WRUA where a large-scale irrigation farm is a member and provides a lot of support to the WRUA. The companies around the Pesi Swamp could also be a potential threat to these important wetlands, especially as the Rumuruti Forest has virtually been destroyed as a contributing water tower. There may an opportunity for LWF to take advantage of the devolution process to bring NRM in Laikipia to the foreground of the county plan. This may be facilitated by the fact that the governor understands the importance of NRM. The possible advocacy and coordinating role that LWF can play at various levels of the county government are provided in Annex I. Drought has been accepted as a natural part of the environment in Laikipia and has been well integrated into rangeland activities. Grazing management includes the production of grass for dry seasons and grazing plans include drought alleviation strategies. In WRUAs, drought is considered a part of the control system, and stricter adherence to water abstractions upstream in the upper catchments is part of a strategy to maintain water flows downstream. Recommendations To address the negative externalities highlighted in this report, LWF needs to develop strong advocacy strategies. This is a matter of urgency as a new county government is currently in place, presenting an opportunity for LWF to push NRM issues forward. Special emphasis has to be given to land use planning that incorporates water resources, wildlife and pastoralist movements, and ecosystems that result in a landscape plan for Laikipia County. The landscape plan could form the foundation for development zoning and function as a control mechanism and investment tool for developers. Lastly, LWF should strengthen its partnership with WRMA to look at issues of water resource use around the Pesi Swamp near Rumuruti to ensure that this important wetland and source of water is not lost. QUESTION 5. BENEFITS TO WOMEN, MEN, AND YOUTH Findings A reliable breakdown of men and women (and age disaggregation) benefiting from the HM system is extremely difficult to find and those that are available differ depending on the source. According 25 to Natural Capital, there are 3,521 households (both resident and nonresident) that are members of GRs. The LWF progress reports state that 540 households (with a total of 540 men and 750 women) have adopted improved NRM practices, while a total of 3,250 people (2,140 men and 1,110 women) have directly benefited from the various capacity building trainings conducted.* The team was unable to get any further detailed data on women and youth from LWF reporting. In group ranches, women are not involved in grazing management since this has traditionally been the domain of men. However, in the two GRs visited by the team, women are represented in committees that oversee interest groups and are involved in firewood collection for sale and farming.† The evaluation team observed that youths are playing an increasingly important role in executive and grazing committees. Two GRs have recruited young men in managerial positions. A key informant from a private ranch was of the opinion that the involvement of youths has had a positive influence on the governance, planning, and management of all CFAs and WRUAs in the surrounding Mukugodo area. Youths are also being involved in resource management through employment with KWS and KFS, which have employed 17 youths as scouts in the Mukugodo area. In WRUAs and CFAs, however, women and youths are more involved in the management of the organization. In the six CFAs and six WRUAs visited by the team, it was observed that women and youths are now involved in decision-making at the executive levels. Their numbers, however, are limited. Women and youths compose the majority of members in all WRUAs supported by LWF, but they represent less than 30 percent of the decision-makers at the executive level of community-based organizations (CBOs). WRMA rules stipulate that women must make up 30 percent of leadership roles in WRUAs. There are no such rules for GRs and CFAs. It is unclear how far the inclusion of women in WRUA leadership will translate into true, as opposed to token, leadership. At present, the extent to which women are able to influence executive level decision-making cannot be determined.‡ Women’s involvement, as reported by CFAs interviewed, consists mostly of income-generating activities such as firewood collection, and practicing PELIS. In Shamanek CFA, women members have invested in energy saving stoves, which allows them more time to get involved in activities of their choice. The women and youths of Shamanek CFA are also using these energy saving stoves for a poultry project. Conclusions Representation of women and youths in leadership and decision-making remains small. While they are involved in and benefit from income-generating activities, they have very limited ability to influence decisions that affect them. However, the improved governance structures are opening up increased possibilities for women to become more involved in leadership, as is already apparent with youths. Recommendations LWF should disaggregate indicators by age to capture youth and ensure that they are receiving project benefits and training. If a gap is recognized from the monitoring data, then LWF will be well placed to address the issue. *Natural Capital and LWF Progress Reports † Group discussion with two GRs and a KII at Borana Ranch ‡ In group discussions with WRUAs. 26 LWF should facilitate women and youth participation in CFA and GR leadership through bylaws that require minimum representation. Further, LWF should facilitate the enforcement of the 30 percent quota in WRUAs’ bylaws, and for CFA and GR leadership once the bylaws are passed. LWF should broaden leadership training to all members of an association or group, especially to committees and user groups where women and youths play a larger role, to allow members to better understand the responsibilities and competencies of leaders and increase accountability. LESSONS LEARNED The “lessons learned” concern the broad fields of activities implemented by LWF with support from USAID during the period 2009–2013. 1. Ownership of or access to natural resources and knowledge of responsible use and good governance within communities are pre-conditions to success and sustainability. Building capacity to develop strong governance structures in community-based organizations (CBOs) is, therefore, important to the long-term development of natural resources in Laikipia County. 2. HM grazing can be considered a breakthrough for improved group ranch management and for the recovery of rangeland ecosystems. The HM grazing system is a good model for replication and requires longer term support from donor agencies. 3. Strong and regular communication with partners is important in ensuring that all parties are on the same page. It is in the evaluator’s opinion that if LWF had better communication and follow-up with MRC, the rejection of the ecological monitoring system would not have occurred. 4. An organization, such as LWF, that is not administratively experienced in receiving large amounts of external financial assistance needs assistance in developing an organizational structure that can apply funds to implementation effectively. In addition, such an organization needs close monitoring by donor agencies and support to become administratively competent, which includes monitoring systems, reporting, organizational structure, lines of command, position responsibilities stated in clear job descriptions, and information management. 5. Drought in the Laikipia is an ever-present reality. Thus, it is vital to integrate mitigation strategies with program activities, as part of a natural cycle. 6. Communities will never become guardians of the landscape without direct or indirect benefits. Thus far, the link between wildlife conservation and direct benefits to most communities does not exist or is negligible. Communities tolerate wildlife at present. The indirect benefit group ranches and associations receive at the moment is capacity building through LWF and its partners, resulting in a sound basis for governance. This can open opportunities for income-generating activities by user groups to attain tangible monetary benefits. 7. To make NRM sustainable, communities need to benefit its activities. LWF should explore a variety of avenues to increase income. For example, LWF could follow-up on the potential and possibilities of carbon credits being introduced in Laikipia County and make an exposure trip to “Wildlife Works” in Tsavo-East with some key members of LWF. 27 ANNEX A. EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This final performance evaluation will examine the Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program, implemented by Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF), from October 2009 to March 2013 with a budget of $2,605,104 in Laikipia County. The program aims to build the capacity of the people of Laikipia to manage their natural resources including rangelands, water, and forests. The evaluation will be conducted by Management Systems International (MSI) and is intended primarily for accountability and learning. The evaluation will serve three main purposes: 1) to examine the extent to which the project’s goal of building capacity has been achieved against the challenges the project has faced, 2) to understand how LWF applied funds with other monies, and 3) to capture lessons that can be applied for future partners and programs, particularly with respect to capacity building, monitoring, and policy. The evaluation seeks to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent has the program met its goal: to build the capacity of the people and member associations of Laikipia to manage their natural resources, including rangelands, water, and forests? 2. To what extent are the various monitoring systems established as part of this program effective and transferable? 3. To what extent is monitoring information used in decision-making at the forum and community level? 4. What external factors played a significant role in affecting, positively or negatively, the underlying challenges the project sought to address, and what was done to adjust the project design to those factors (e.g., policy environment, British Army movement, conflict, or drought)? 5. In what ways has the program made a difference to women, men, and youths through its interventions in water, forests, and rangelands? The data collection and analysis uses a mix of methods to answer the questions. Data collection methods include desk reviews, key stakeholder interviews, and group discussions. The data analysis will employ various techniques, comprising comparison analysis, pattern/content analysis, response convergence/divergence analysis, and mix methods integration/findings synthesis as appropriate for the data collected. The three-person evaluation team consists of an international evaluation technical expert as team leader, a national sectoral expert, and a LWF staff member. The participatory nature of the team composition is intended to enhance learning and the ownership of the evaluation and its recommendations by the partner, as well as serve as an opportunity for capacity building. The evaluation will begin April 23, 2013, and the final report is expected by July 1, 2013. 28 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT HYPOTHESIS 1.1. Identifying Information 1. Program: Agricultural, Business, Environment Office (ABEO) 2. Project: Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program 3. Award Number: AID-623-A-09-00002 4. Award Dates: October 2009 to April 2013 5. Funding: $2,605,104 6. Implementing Organization: Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) 7. Project COR/AOR: Beatrice Wamalwa 8. Type of Evaluation: Final Performance Evaluation 9. Period to Be Evaluated: October 2009 to April 2013 1.2. Development Context 1.1.1 Problem or Opportunity Addressed. The lives and livelihoods of Laikipia County’s pastoralists, ranchers, smallholder farmers, and tourism operators are closely connected to the well-being of the area’s natural resources, including the “big five” mammals and a significant number of endangered species. At the same time, Laikipia faces increased pressures that can potentially disrupt its balance. Population growth stretches the use of land and natural resources. Frequent droughts and water scarcity threaten land management and community livelihoods, and increases competition over natural resources. A lack of knowledge and access to sustainable building materials and water to irrigate crops leads to the unsustainable use of forests and rivers. Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) was created in response to an initiative by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) designed to engage landowners and land users in the conservation and management of wildlife in unprotected areas. Since its inception in 1992, there has been a significant expansion of localized conservation efforts and expertise in relation to wild animals. While wild animals remain central to the conservation effort, LWF has taken an increasingly holistic approach to emphasize crosscutting environmental issues that affect larger sections of the population. This approach covers: Rangeland Rehabilitation and Management, Water Resources Management, Forest Management, and Conservation Enterprise Development. 29 1.1.2 Target Areas and Groups. LWF works in all communities in Laikipia County, and with communities in Nyeri, Meru, Samburu, and Isiolo counties. Membership to the forum is open and includes over 40 community environmental or conservation groups, including pastoralist group ranches, tourism operators, conservation organizations, schools, 12 CFAs in 10 forests, community conservancies, and grazing management committees in 13 pastoralist ranch groups. A partial list of user groups provided by USAID/Kenya is included in the annex. 1.3. Intended Results A.1.1. Program Goal. The Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program was created as a follow￾on to the 2003–08 Forests Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Strengthening Program. The new program takes a more integrated approach that focuses on strengthening communities across the management of rangelands, water, and forests. The stated goal of the follow-on program is to build the capacity of the people of Laikipia to manage their natural resources including rangelands, water, and forests. The 2009 Program Description outlines specific objectives aligned with the goals:  Increase the capacity of Laikipia communities to manage their natural resources.  Improve the quality and diversity of natural resources in Laikipia, including water quality and its availability for domestic use.  Expand and diversify economic opportunities for Laikipia communities and thus provide incentives for conservation of biodiversity.  Develop a Laikipia-wide ecological and socioeconomic monitoring program to track change in ecosystem health and human well-being in relation to land use and natural resource management.  Improve governance and transparency at community and producer group levels. 30 Recognizing the interlinkages and interdependency between all objectives, all work planning and monitoring* and reporting are broken down according to LWF’s programs, which consist of river water resource management, rangeland management, forest management, conservation enterprise, and ecological/socioeconomic monitoring. While impact-level improvement on the ecosystem† was not expected during the period of the grant, it is understood that the program would help create a sustainable foundation for long-term results. As such, the development hypothesis applied in this program is that over the long run, the increased capacity of community-based natural resource associations will lead to improved management of ecosystems and better livelihoods. 1.4. Approach and Implementation On October 15, 2009, the LWF was awarded a grant of $2,405,104 with a cost-share contribution of $1,737,479 (Cooperative Agreement: 623–A–004–00010–00) to implement an ecosystem-wide natural resources management and biodiversity conservation program in Laikipia. In August 2012, USAID expanded the total cost of LWF’s budget by $200,000 to specifically finance water resource management activities, increasing the total estimated cost of the project to $2,605,104. Through USAID support, LWF has scaled up conservation of natural resources and biodiversity in Laikipia. The forum brings stakeholders in Laikipia together to exchange ideas, pool resources, and seek solutions to conservation, environmental, and livelihood challenges. The forum also provides a neutral platform for its members and the people of Laikipia to actively discuss issues and seek ways forward for Laikipia and beyond. LWF also holds trainings to enhance community capacity and inform them of government regulations and user rights. With USAID funds, LWF partners have collaborated with the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA) in building the capacity of water resource user associations (WRUAs), most of which are presently governing rivers across Laikipia County. Their work includes enforcing efficient river water use through the installation of meters and payment for water use and ecosystem services. The program has worked to improve the co-management capacity of CFA, some of which have signed co￾management agreements with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and are currently implementing their management plans. Several pastoralist community conservancies in Laikipia now have functional grazing committees, some of which are implementing their grazing management plans. Ecological monitoring results in 2011 show that to date, the program has put significant hectares of land under improved management through rangeland, forest, water, and enterprise activities. Through the conservation enterprise activities, LWF reports that over 800 individuals (48 percent women) are benefiting from sustainable production and trade in plant-based products. The majority of activities USAID funds include  Developing strategies to guide the work of the LWF into the future.  Providing extension services through programs in the different areas to build the capacities of individuals, groups, and communities to better manage their rangelands, forests, and river water resources, and to harness the livelihood opportunities that indigenous biodiversity provides.  Supporting the development and establishment of a comprehensive monitoring program. *There is no results framework or logical framework identified for this project. †It should be noted that the long-term results of ecosystem improvements are tied to the objectives. 31 The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (KNE) is also a major donor of LWF. They provide un￾earmarked funds that directly support LWF’s implementation of their Strategic Plan. Its recent focus aims to enhance the monitoring and evaluation capacity of LWF. 1.5. Existing Data The following is a list of collected documentation shared by USAID, the Dutch Embassy, LWF, and can be found online. This should not be considered exhaustive for the document review of this evaluation. Documents Collected  October 15, 2009, Follow-On Award, $2,405,104, October 14, 2009, to October 14, 2012: Project Proposal  Program Description, July 2009  Grant Agreement, October 2009  Cooperative Agreement Amendment, incrementally fund agreement by $850,000 to scale up conservation of biological resources to ecosystem-wide scale for mutual benefit of livestock and wildlife, April 11  USAID No cost extension Work Plan, November 2012 to April 2013  LWF Rangeland Management Strategy (2010–15): Executive Summary, March 2010  USAID/Kenya Strategic Objective 5 (SO5) Forests Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Strengthening Initiative Activity Approval Document, June 2002  USAID/Kenya Midterm Evaluation of USAID/Kenya NRM projects, DTs, January 2011  Developing Sustainable Wild Harvest Protocols for Cape Chestnut Seed Pilot Project, October 2010 to September 2011  Performance Monitoring Plan, October 2009 to October 2012, dated January 2010  SO5 Performance Monitoring Plan, dated July 2010  Semi Annual Progress Report, April–September 2011  Progress Report: Establishing a socioeconomic baseline for monitoring the impact of the bioenterprise development program in Laikipia, February 10  Semiannual progress report, October 2009 to March 2010  Semiannual and annual performance progress report, October 2009 through September 2010  Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Laikipia County 2001–30  LWF Follow-On to USAID Year 1 work plan  LWF Follow-On to USAID Year 3 work plan  Aerial Surveys 2011  Baseline Socioeconomic Assessment in View of Assessing Impacts of LWF’s Rangeland Management Program, Sept 2009  Yearly Socioeconomic Monitoring for the Bioenterprise Development Program, Kirisa Area, May 2011  Stakeholders’ Perspectives of Tourist Satisfaction in Laikipia, Kenya: Preliminary Review  Access and Benefit Sharing in the Context of the Convention on Biodiversity, August 2011 32  “Frontiers and challenges,” High-Level Evaluation of Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands–funded interventions in the arid and semiarid lands of Kenya: A report to the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, February 2013  Report to Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Conserving Biodiversity and Natural Processes and Improving Livelihoods in Laikipia, August 2011–12  Embassy of Kingdom of the Netherlands’ Response to Report: Conserving Biodiversity and Natural Processes and Improving Livelihoods in Laikipia, August 2011–12 2. EVALUATION RATIONALE 2.1. Evaluation Purpose The final performance evaluation of the Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program is primarily for accountability and learning. The evaluation will serve three main purposes: 1) to examine the extent to which the project’s goal of building capacity has been achieved against the challenges the project has faced; 2) to understand how LWF applied funds with other monies; and 3) to capture lessons that can be applied for future partners and programs, particularly with respect to capacity building, monitoring, and policy. The LWF project will likely receive a cost extension until December 31, 2013, and continue with the same goal, objectives, and approach. USAID is currently developing a new integrated program that aims to strategically link community-based natural resource management approach to a larger geographic area. The period to be evaluated is October 2009 to March 2013. 2.2. Audience and Intended Use The primary audience for the evaluation report will be the Agriculture, Business, and Environment Office (ABEO) within USAID/Kenya. In addition, ABEO expects findings to be shared with Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) and other funding partners engaged in similar activities in Laikipia County. 2.3. Evaluation Questions The evaluation questions below address key issues of project impact on the institutional capacity building of associations and user groups, lessons that are relevant for future programming and for particular programmatic areas of interest such as monitoring systems, gender, and new approaches. The questions should be considered both at a partnership or management level across LWF activities and also look at the activity level for each resource: rangelands, forests, wildlife, and water. The evaluation questions posed are: Capacity 1. To what extent has the program met its goal to build the capacity of the people and member associations of Laikipia to manage their natural resources, including rangelands, water, and forests?* *This question will not examine achievement of the objectives, as per the expectations of USAID. 33 Monitoring 2. To what extent are the various monitoring systems established as part of this program effective and transferable? 3. To what extent is the monitoring information used in decision-making at the forum and community level? External Factors 4. What external factors played a significant role in affecting, positively or negatively, the underlying challenges the project sought to address, and what was done to adjust the project design to those factors? (e.g., policy environment, British Army movement, conflict, and drought) Gender and Youth 5. In which ways has the program made a difference to women, men, and youths through its interventions on water, forests, and rangelands? While gender is directly addressed in Question 4, it will also be viewed as a crosscutting theme to be explored where appropriate throughout the answering of the evaluation questions (particularly, Questions1 and 2). The evaluation team is expected to be responsive to USAID's expectations for treating gender appropriately by: a) gathering sex disaggregated data; and b) identifying differences in gender participation in/benefits from aspects of the program where differences on this basis are possible. There is interest in gathering lessons learned (particularly regarding new approaches) by USAID that are applicable to scaling up and replicable for LWF and partners working on similar issues in different geographic areas. Toward this end, an understanding of the relevant issues for USAID’s new program planning is needed by the evaluation team. Relevant documentation will be shared with the evaluation team at the onset of the evaluation. 3. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 3.1. Evaluation Design The final performance evaluation will be retrospective and prospective, looking backward to examine changes from the beginning of the project until now, as well as maintaining an eye toward learning for future programming. In doing so, the evaluation team will need to reconstruct a “before” and “after” picture, especially given that there is no logical framework for this project. The evaluation will examine the institutional capacity of user groups and LWF, particularly with respect to governance and decision-making. More attention will be paid to the strengthening of the associations as this was the main aim of the project. At the same time, gauging the forum’s current capacity will help USAID understand LWF’s ability to manage the dynamics of their partner organizations and maintain the momentum built in enhancing the capacity of the (expanding) community-based natural resource management associations. 34 The evaluation is designed to be participatory, with the LWF M&E officer serving as a team member.* The intention is to provide an opportunity for greater learning, ownership, and follow-up on the evaluation and its recommendations by LWF, and the capacity building of its staff. Attention will be paid to ensure that the findings, conclusions, and recommendations are objective and based on evidence. The evaluation team is expected to use well-developed data collection and analysis methods to address each of USAID’s evaluation questions. A preliminary version of a matrix for associating data collection and analysis methods with evaluations questions (Getting to Answers) is provided in Annex C, and illustrates the evaluation team’s initial thinking about appropriate methodological choices. The evaluation team is expected to review and refine this methodology, or suggest higher quality alternatives that could be employed at no additional cost beyond what USAID has allotted for this evaluation. Details added by the evaluation team to this preliminary plan for gathering and analyzing data on each evaluation question should be submitted to USAID for review/approval as part of the evaluation team’s Methodology and Workplan (Section 4.1). 3.2. Data Collection Methods Some key aspects of data collection are the following: Document Review. The evaluation team will be expected to review documentation provided by LWF and USAID on the program, and secondary research collected. A preliminary document audit was completed in Section 1.5. An instrument will be developed to codify and organize data from the document review for analysis to answer the evaluation questions. It is expected that the evaluation team will present initial findings from the document review as part of the Team Planning Meeting (Section 4.1) in the beginning of the evaluation. Group Discussions. The groups discussions (GDs) will attempt to tease out the context, help answer the “why” for how results were achieved, identify LWF’s role, and help reconstruct what has changed from the beginning of project until now. Discussion groups are planned for water management user groups, community forest associations, and grazing management committees. A purposively selected number of groups will be determined based on criteria of geography, best/worst case groups, and number of years of activity. LWF will need to provide details on the criteria of each group and the evaluation will select which groups will be involved in the GDs. The criteria used will cover a range of contexts and activities. Given the size of the team, time in the field, length of GDs, and logistical realities in Laikipia, 10 to 12 discussion groups will be scheduled. To address the institutional capacity of CBOs, the team may modify and contextualize a self-assessment Institutional Development Framework tool developed previously by MSI,† if found appropriate. The tool enables community groups to assess relevant aspects of the group, framed by community/management body relationship, natural resource management, and management body operations. The role of LWF in building these capacities will need to be teased out during discussions. Key Informant Interviews. The evaluation team will interview a selected set of key stakeholders, including USAID, LWF, the Dutch Embassy, Government of Kenya (Kenya Forestry Service, Water Resource Management Authority), and the Mpala Research Center. A semi-structured interview tool *This assumes that the LWF M&E Officer will be a full evaluation team member, but costs will be borne by LWF. †Mark Renzi. 1996. “An Integrated TOOLKIT for Institutional Development.” Public Administration and Development 16:469–83. 35 will be developed for different types of stakeholders to ensure the adequacy of questions and comparability across interviews. 3.3. Data Analysis Methods Comparison Analysis. The evaluation team will document trends and break the project timeline into segments of “before” and “after” comparisons to gather how the program has changed and/or been impacted by LWF in Laikipia over the period of the project. Because LWF and USAID have been active in the geographic area longer than the duration of the project, the evaluation team will need to make a distinction in assessing activities and results particular to the project time frame. Pattern/Content Analysis. Qualitative data will be used to examine patterns so that comparisons can be made between respondents and contexts to determine the effect pattern of LWF. This will involve broad trends and a more detailed examination of how different respondents answer the same question—for example, different community groups and government stakeholders. As the numbers of individuals and sites involved in this evaluation is relatively small, MSI will not use qualitative analysis software but will instead review interview notes by hand to code patterns of responses across individuals or groups. Response Convergence/Divergence Analysis. The team will review data collected to determine where there is significant response convergence from the varied stakeholders and beneficiaries. Where divergence is found, the team will follow-up to better understand the context and reasons for divergence in facts, perceptions, or opinions. Mixed-Methods Integration/Findings Synthesis. Using a mixed-methods approach, data from various methods will be integrated to arrive at findings. Where different methods produce conflicting evidence, the evaluation team will, to the extent possible, double back to examine why these data conflict, and weigh data from various methods in terms of strength in validity and reliability. 3.4. Methodological Strengths and Limitations The lack of a logical framework and limitations with the PMP, direct linkage to project activities will require the evaluation team to reconstruct a “before” and “after” picture of the project to be able to answer the evaluation questions. This information will rely significantly on available documentary evidence and the perceptions and experiences of involved partners and stakeholders. The reliance on qualitative data and historical memory will have some limitations if individuals have not have been part of the project from the onset. The capacity self-assessment tool is an opportunity to engage communities in growth. The process can be a learning experience to help the community leadership recognize their strengths independently of the USAID project. Given the objectives of the evaluation and timing, all user groups will not participate in using the tool, limiting the learning for all groups. Yet, LWF may choose to carry it forward outside of the evaluation to include all groups. Given that the M&E officer is part of the evaluation team, her experience will be well placed to continue these activities in the future. Having a team member from LWF has its benefits. It provides a greater opportunity for learning, and ensures that there will be increased ownership and follow-up on the evaluation and its recommendations by LWF. It also provides an opportunity for capacity building for the partner. At the same time, objectivity is essential for an evaluation. The team leader will ultimately be responsible for ensuring that this is an independent evaluation. In doing so, the team leader will have the authority to 36 include and preclude the LWF team member from any particular data collection and analysis that he or she feels are necessary. The fieldwork will take place during the rainy season. Since many of the community groups reside in remote areas, rains may impact the ability of the team to reach areas in a timely manner. Some flexibility may be required in the coordination and selection of user groups for discussion groups. 4. EVALUATION PRODUCTS 4.1. Deliverables Assuming the start date stated in the Statement of Work, the evaluation team will be responsible for delivering the following products on time. April 29 Through May 2 Team Planning Meeting. The four-day Team Planning Meeting will be held in MSI offices once the evaluation team is in country. It is expected that USAID and LWF will be engaged with this process. The outcomes of this meeting include the  Presentation of the initial findings of the document review by evaluation question  Clarification of team members’ roles and responsibilities  Establishment of a team atmosphere, share individual working styles, and agree on procedures for resolving differences of opinion  Review of the final evaluation questions  Review and finalization of the assignment timeline, to be share with USAID  Development of data collection methods, instruments, tools, and guidelines  Review and clarification of any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment  Development of a preliminary draft outline of the team’s report  Assignment of drafting responsibilities for the final report May 2 Workplan and Methodology. During the Team Planning Meeting, the team will prepare a detailed workplan which will include the methodologies (evaluation design, tools) and operational workplan to be used in the evaluation. This will be discussed with and approved by USAID prior to submission and implementation. May 28 Presentation With USAID and Partners. The evaluation team will present major findings of the evaluation to USAID and its partners in a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation will follow a similar structure to the final report and present major findings, conclusions, and recommendations. USAID and partners will have an opportunity to comment and provide inputs as part of the presentation. The team will consider the comments and revise the draft report accordingly, as appropriate. June 5 Draft Evaluation Report. A draft report will be submitted to MSI prior to the departure of the team leader. The written report should clearly describe findings, conclusions, and recommendations, fully supported by triangulated evidence. USAID will provide comments on the draft report within two weeks of submission. July 1Final Evaluation Report. The team will submit the final report, incorporating the team’s responses to Mission comments and suggestions. The format will adhere to standard reporting guidelines listed in 4.2. 37 The team shall provide USAID with a weekly report of ongoing activities during the course of the evaluation describing the process, any issues encountered, and relevant emerging findings. The evaluation report will adhere to USAID Evaluation Policy and as such, all raw quantitative data will need to be shared with USAID. Qualitative data will also be shared, if specifically requested by USAID. 4.2. Reporting Guidelines The format for the evaluation report shall be as follows, and the report should be a maximum of 25 pages not including annexes. The report format should be restricted to Microsoft products and 12-point font should be used throughout the body of the report, with one-inch page margins. Four bound hard copies and an electronic copy in Microsoft Word should be submitted. In addition, all data collected by the evaluation shall be provided to USAID in an electronic file in an easily readable format that is organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation. If the report contains any potentially sensitive information, a second report excluding this information shall be submitted (also electronically, in English). a. Executive Summary—concisely states the most salient findings and recommendations (3 pages) b. Table of Contents (1 page) c. Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions—purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 page) d. Project Background—brief overview of development problem, USAID project strategy and activities implemented to address the problem, and purpose of the evaluation (2–3 pages) e. Evaluation Questions, Design, Methods, Limitations—describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1 page) f. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations—for each evaluation question (10–15 pages) g. Lessons Learned—any pertinent lessons for the overall purpose and audience of the evaluation (1–2 pages) h. Annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interview lists, and tables should be succinct, pertinent, and readable. These include references to bibliographical documentation, meetings, interviews, and group discussions. 5. TEAM COMPOSITION The evaluation team will be composed of three evaluators: an international team leader, a national sectoral expert, and a LWF staff member. The following qualifications are sought for the recruited evaluators. Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Research Specialist/ International Evaluation Team Leader  A minimum of a master’s degree in monitoring and evaluation, research methodology, or related field.  Ten years of professional experience in implementing, monitoring, and evaluating development programs in developing countries, particularly in Africa, with extensive experience leading evaluations—preferably with experience on USAID economic growth evaluations relating to natural resource management and development projects.  Strong background in social and cultural issues affecting rural development, including gender.  In-depth understanding of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation.  Demonstrated written communications skills, especially in drafting evaluations, assessments, and reports required.  Familiarity with USAID Forward quality evaluation standards and requirements.  Must be willing to travel to remote areas of Kenya. 38 Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Research Specialist/National Agricultural Economics Expert  A Master’s Degree in monitoring and evaluation, research methodology, or related field  5+ years of professional experience in implementing, monitoring, and evaluating development programs in Africa, with extensive evaluation experience  Experience working on USAID economic growth evaluations relating to natural resource management and development projects  Strong background in social and cultural issues affecting rural development, including gender  In-depth understanding of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation  Demonstrated written communications skills, especially in drafting evaluations, assessments and reports required  Familiarity with USAID Forward quality evaluation standards and requirements  Must be willing to travel to remote areas of Kenya  Must be a Kenya national The third team member from LWF will be the M&E officer. The role and responsibilities for the M&E officer will be defined by MSI and agreed upon by LWF to ensure that the M&E officer has the time and capacity to fulfill the obligations of the position. 6. EVALUATION MANAGEMENT 6.1. Logistics USAID/Kenya will provide input through an initial in-briefing to the evaluation team to identify key documents and assist in introducing the evaluation team to the implementing partner. USAID/Kenya will also be available for consultations regarding sources and technical issues with the evaluation team during the evaluation process. MSI will assist in arranging meetings with key stakeholders identified prior to the initiation of field work. The evaluation team will be responsible for arranging other meetings as identified during the course of the evaluation. It will advise USAID/Kenya of any meetings with the Government of Kenya and seek advice from USAID/Kenya on whether they choose to participate. MSI is responsible for arranging vehicle rentals and drivers as needed for site visits around Nairobi and the field. MSI will also provide hotel arrangements, office space, internet access, printing, and photocopying services. It will also make all payments to vendors directly after team members arrive in country. 6.2. Scheduling Work will be carried out over a period of approximately six weeks, beginning on or about April 22, 2013, with a document review. Evaluators will deploy to Kenya on or around April 28 and field work will be completed the week of May 19th. A final report will be submitted and the evaluation will conclude on or around July 1, 2013. . 39 ANNEX A. AID–623–TO–13–000JJ Under Contract: AID–623–I–12–00001 Project Name: Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program Implementing Partner: Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) Agreement Number: 623–A–09–00002 Project COR/AOR: Beatrice Wamalwa Life of the Project: October 2009 to April 2013 Total Funding: $2,605,104.00 Task Order starts here A.1. Background LWF was created in response to an initiative by the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) designed to engage landowners and land users in the conservation and management of wildlife in unprotected areas. Since its inception in 1992, there has been a significant expansion of localized conservation effort and expertise in relation to wild animals. While wild animals remain central to the conservation effort, LWF has taken an increasingly holistic approach emphasizing crosscutting environmental issues that affect larger sections of the population. LWF takes a holistic approach to conservation and works through thematic programs with strategies, action plans, financing, and expertise. The core programs are: Wildlife Conservation and Management, Environmental Education/Literacy, Rangeland Rehabilitation and Management, Tourism Sector Support, Water Resources Management, Forest Management, Conservation Enterprise Development, and Peace and Security. LWF is also actively engaged at a national level in advocating for good laws and policies to support the conservation of wildlife and the environment. Laikipia is the first county to develop a Wildlife Conservation Strategy following the passing of the new national Constitution. Being a truly community￾based conservation organization, its membership is open and includes more than 20 community environmental or conservation groups, in addition to pastoralist group ranches, tourism operators, conservation organizations, schools, conservancies, commercial livestock ranches, research organizations, and local businesses. The principal resource and strength of the LWF is in its membership. A.1.1. Program Goal. The program was created as a follow-on to the Forests Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Management Strengthening program (2003–08). The goal of the follow-on program is to build the capacity of the people of Laikipia in managing their natural resources including rangelands, water, and forests. A.1.2. Program Objectives. In October 15, 2009, the LWF was awarded a grant of $2,405,104 with a cost-share contribution of $1,737,479 (Cooperative Agreement: 623–A–004–00010–00) to implement an ecosystem-wide natural resources management and biodiversity conservation program in Laikipia. In August 2012, USAID expanded the total cost of LWF’s budget by $200,000 to specifically finance water resource management activities, increasing the total estimated cost of the project to $2,605,104. The results desired through this program are 1. Improved condition and diversity of natural resources (rangelands, forests, wildlife, and river water resources) 2. Improved capacity of community natural resource governance structures for co-management (community group ranch, grazing Committees, WRUAs, and CFAs) 40 3. Increased and diversified economic opportunities and incentives for conservation among Laikipia pastoralists and small-scale farmers, and improved ecological monitoring of the Laikipia ecosystem to inform decision-making. A.1.3. Program Activities. Some of the activities proposed for implementation are  Develop strategies to guide the work of LWF into the future.  Provide extension services through programs in different areas to build the capacities of individuals, groups, and communities to better manage their rangelands, forests, and river water resources, and to harness the livelihood opportunities that indigenous biodiversity provides.  Support the development and establishment of a comprehensive monitoring program. Through USAID support, LWF has rapidly scaled up conservation of natural resources and biodiversity in Laikipia. With USAID funds, LWF partners have collaborated with the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA) in building the capacity of water resource user associations (WRUAs), most of which are presently governing rivers across Laikipia County, including enforcing efficient river water use through the installation of meters and payments for water use and ecosystem services. The program has helped to improve the co-management capacity of CFA, some of which have signed co-management agreements with the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and are currently implementing their management plans. Several pastoralist community conservancies in Laikipia now have functional grazing committees, some of which are consistently implementing their grazing management plans. Ecological monitoring results in 2011 show that to date, the program has put significant hectares of land under improved management through rangeland, forest, water, and enterprise activities. Through conservation enterprise activities, over 800 individuals (48 percent women) are benefiting from sustainable production and trade in plant￾based products. A.2. Statement of Objectives A.2.1. Evaluation Purpose. Under this task order, MSI will conduct a final performance evaluation of the Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program for compliance and learning purposes, primarily. The evaluation will serve three primary purposes: 1. To examine the extent to which the project’s objectives and goals—at all results levels—have been achieved 2. To understand if the interventions have resulted in improved conditions and a diversity of natural resources in the rangelands, forests, wildlife, and river systems 3. To capture lessons that can be applied to current and future interventions in the Laikipia landscape The period to be evaluated is October 2009 to March 2013. The primary audience for the evaluation report will be the Agriculture, Business, and Environment Office (ABEO) within USAID/Kenya. In addition, ABEO expects findings to be shared with Laikipia Wildlife Forum (LWF) and other funding partners engaged in similar activities in Laikipia County. A.2.2. Key Evaluation Questions. The evaluation questions below address key issues of project impact, design, sustainability, and lessons learned or best practices relevant for future programming. The 41 questions should be considered both at the partnership or management level across LWF activities and also at the activity level for each resource: rangelands, forests, wildlife, and water. 1. Project impact. How has the project performed in terms of achieving projected results and impact, and how effective is the M&E system in measuring them?  How well did the project achieve the intended results?  What additional evidence, qualitative or quantitative, exists that link project activities to the improved governance of natural resources and incentives for conservation due to perceived benefits?  What evidence exists to show that LWF activities have increased the conservation of natural resources in Laikipia County?  To what extent was the program a good investment in terms of “value for money”? 2. Impact sustainability and scale-up. Has project interventions resulted in improved conditions and a diversity of natural resources in rangelands, forests, and river systems and how can this be scaled up?  To what extent has the Conservation Enterprise Development Program changed the lives of farmers and what are the adoption rates of the ethnobotanical technologies proposed to farmers?  To what extent have beneficiaries/members of the various WRUAs continued to benefit from the water projects being funded through the LWF water program?  How has the holistic rangeland management being promoted by LWF contributed to range productivity and livestock production?  In what ways have beneficiaries/members of the various community forest associations (CFAs) benefited from the forest conservation projects being funded through the LWF forest program?  To what extent have household incomes changed in the targeted sites as a result of the project’s activities?  To what extent is the ecological monitoring improving decision-making and is the method cost￾effective? 3. Project design and lessons learned. What factors beyond the control of LWF played a significant role in affecting, positively or negatively, the underlying challenges the project sought to address, and what was done to adjust the project design to those factors?  What unintended/unexpected outcomes, positive or negative, resulted from project activities?  How have sociocultural factors, such as culture, economic status, gender, ethnicity, or geography contributed to or undermined the implementation of various programs?  What changes were made or might have been made to the project design to increase its impact?  What could the project have done to increase ownership of project goals and activities among stakeholders such as individuals, communities, government, private sector, and the like?  How well did funding levels, and staff competency and capacity, facilitate achievement of program objectives? A.2.3. Operating Constraints. The evaluation team might require police escort in insecure evaluation areas. Security incidences have been reported in parts of the project areas in the outskirts of Laikipia County such as Isiolo (Il Ngwesi conservancy) where some of the rangeland management activities are implemented. In addition, while the core implantation area of LWF is within Laikipia County, some 42 water resource management activities were implemented in the upstream areas of Aberdares and Mount Kenya as these are the major water catchments for most of Laikipia’s rivers. B.2. Period of Performance 1) By the end of April 2013 2) In Laikipia County (minimum county level) 43 ANNEX B. SCHEDULE The following schedule was proposed to complete the evaluation. LWF Evaluation Kenya Support Program April 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Team Leader arrives in Kenya 29 30 May 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Evaluation Team works on preliminary data collection and analysis Travel to Nanyuki; Data collection period; meet with LWF, conduct KIIs, and GDs Team Planning Meeting (4 days); meet with USAID, NBO-based partners; finalize logistics and tools 44 May 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Return to NBO 20 21 22 23 24 F/C/R Workshop 25 26 27 28 Debriefing 29 30 31 June 1 2 3 4 5 Draft report submitted USAID 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 In Nanyuki; Data Collection continues with KIIs and GDs In Nairobi for Data Analysis 45 June 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 16 17 18 19 Comments from USAID on draft 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 July 1 Final Report to USAID 2 3 4 5 6 46 ANNEX C. GETTING TO ANSWERS Program or Project: Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program Implemented by LWF Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed Methods for Data Collection Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods Data Source(s) Method 1. To what extent has the program met its goal to build the capacity of the people and member associations of Laikipia to manage their natural resources, including rangelands, water, and forests? Yes/No LWF and USAID documents, Secondary Resources, Beneficiaries and Key Stakeholders (LWF, USAID, Dutch Embassy, KFS, KWS, WRUA, Water Municipalities, Land Owners, Mpala Research Center, etc.) Document Review, Group Discussions, KIIs KIIs purposively selected for relevancy to project. User Groups for GDs will be purposively selected across water, forest, and rangelands to cover a range of geographical contexts; best and worst case group; and years of activity. Pattern/Content Analysis, Comparison Analysis (Before and After), Response, Convergence/Divergence Analysis, Mix Methods, Integration/Findings Synthesis X Description X Comparison* X Explanation† 2. To what extent are the various monitoring systems established as part of this program effective and transferable? 3. To what extent is the monitoring information used in decision-making Yes/No LWF and USAID documents, Secondary Resources (on Monitoring Systems; outside best practices), Beneficiaries, Key Stakeholders Document Review, KIIs, GDs Comparison Analysis (to best practice/outside systems), Pattern/Content Analysis, Response, Convergence/Divergence Analysis, Mix Methods, Integration/Findings X Description X Comparison X Explanation * Comparison – to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms † Explanation – for questions that ask “why” or attribute an effect to a specific intervention (causality) 47 Evaluation Questions Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed Methods for Data Collection Sampling or Selection Approach Data Analysis Methods Data Source(s) Method at the forum and community level? LWF, USAID, Mpala Research Center, KenWeb, other users of the monitoring information Synthesis 4. What external factors played a significant role in affecting, positively or negatively, the underlying challenges the project sought to address, and what was done to adjust the project design to those factors (e.g., policy environment, British Army movement, drought, or conflict)? Yes/No LWF and USAID documents, Secondary Resources, Beneficiaries, Key Stakeholders (LWF, USAID, Dutch Embassy, KFS, KWS, WRUA, Water Municipalities, Land Owners, Mpala Research Center, etc.) Document Review, Group Discussions, KIIs Pattern/Content Analysis, Response, Convergence/Divergence Analysis, Mix Methods, Integration/Findings, Synthesis X Description Comparison X Explanation 5. In which ways has the program made a difference to women, men, and youths through its interventions on water, forests, and rangelands? Yes/No LWF and USAID documents, Secondary Documentation, Beneficiaries, Key Stakeholders (LWF, USAID, Dutch Embassy, KFS, KWS, WRUA, Water Municipalities, Land Owners, etc.) Document Review, Group Discussions, KIIs Pattern/Content Analysis, Comparison Analysis (Before and After), Response, Convergence/Divergence Analysis, Mix Methods, Integration/Findings, Synthesis X Description X Comparison X Explanation 48 ANNEX D. CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT MSI APPENDIX I CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OFTHE EVALUATION REPORT • The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what ......,oo,d m the proM what did not and wI1)' • Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions l!lduded in the scope of won:. • The evaluation report should include the srope of'MXk as an annex_All modifications to the scope ofwori, whethef" in technM:aJ requirements, evaluation questions. ev.aJuation team comfX>srtion, methodology or t.neline need to be agreed upon", writing by the technical officer. • Evalu,,6on methodology shall be explained in det.lil and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides wiU be included in an Annex in the fina] report • Evaluaron findings will assess outcomes and impact 00 males and females. • limitations to the evaluation shall be tfJSdosed in the report with porticular attention to the Imitations assoeJ￾ated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias. recall bias, unobservable dofferences between comparator groups. eb::,). • Evaluation find",gs should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people's opinio", Findings should be specific, concise and supported by sttong quantitative Of" qualrtative evidence_ • Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex. • Recommendations need to be supported by a speafic set of findings_ • Recommendations should be action-Oriented,practical and spealie; with defined respollSlbirtty for the action_ coffey·> international development 49 ANNEX B. HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT IN GRAZING HM grazing has three technical components: bunch grazing, boma rotation, and planned grazing blocks. Bunch grazing is the active herding of dense groups of livestock in rangelands that are not paddocked (fenced in smaller blocks) to ensure that not only the most palatable grasses are grazed. In this manner, better use is made of grass resources and all grass species are used. The herders ensure that the area used is not overgrazed and that the herds move on in a timely manner to the next patch of grazing. An added advantage of bunch grazing is that the trampling of hoofs creates indents in the soil, providing small catchments for rainfall water harvesting and pushing grass seeds into the soil. Lastly, animal manure and urine is concentrated in one area, which benefits the growth of pasture. The boma, where animals are kept protected overnight, is moved or a new one is created after one or two weeks. The boma contains a lot of manure and becomes an “island” for grass species to thrive and spread its seeds in the rangelands. On private ranches practicing HM grazing, a mobile metal boma has been developed, while group ranches have boma that is made of cut thorny shrubs. These are often later used in gullies to stabilize them. Grazing planning consists of sub-dividing the rangeland into blocks that are not demarcated by fences. An agreement is reached with all users to close and open them for periods of time to allow for the regeneration of pasture or to allow pasture to produce adequate grass for the dry season. The continuous monitoring of ecology and biodiversity is used in implementing grazing plans based on traditional knowledge and scientific inputs. Training is provided as part of the HM grazing system. Capacity building is done through several complimentary components:*  Holistic management principles for decision-making and land management  Community Action Cycle for engagement/partnership process with communities  Experiential learning as an approach to training  Cascade training through community-based trainers as a means of reaching wide audiences  Outcome mapping as the principle approach to monitoring and evaluation in combination with more conventional “indicators of success” approach. * Source: LWF Progress Report and Natural Capital 50 ANNEX C. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS DATA COLLECTION Methods used by the team to collect data included:  Document Review. The evaluation team reviewed documentation provided by LWF and USAID on the program. A preliminary document audit was completed. An instrument was developed to codify and organize data from the document review to analyze and answer the evaluation questions. The evaluation team shared initial findings from the document during the May 2, 2013, Team Planning Meetings with USAID.  Group Interviews. The group interviews attempted to tease out the context and to answer the “why” of how results were achieved, identify LWF’s role, and help reconstruct what has changed from the beginning of project until now. Group interviews took place for water management user groups, community forest associations, and grazing management committees. A select number of groups were determined based on criteria of geography, best/worst case groups, and years of activity. LWF provided details on the criteria of each group and the evaluation team selected groups for the group interviews. The criteria cover a range of contexts and activities. Given the size of the team, time in the field, length of group interviews, and logistical realities in Laikipia, 17 groups were engaged in group discussions. The group discussions were based on the Community Management Profile (CMP) tool.  Key Informant Interviews. The evaluation team interviewed a select set of key stakeholders, including USAID, the Laikipia Wildlife Forum, the Dutch Embassy, the Laikipia County Governor, the Government of Kenya (Kenya Forestry Service, Water Resource Management Authority), and partners of LWF, such as the Africa Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and World Vision, and support organizations, such as Mpala Research Center, CETRAD, and Rural Focus. A semi-structured interview tool was developed to ensure the adequacy of questions and comparability across interviews.  Triangulation Discussions. The evaluation team held various discussions to triangulate findings and ascertain in-depth understanding on issues such as the cooperation between private and group ranches, relationships between MRC and LWF, and the reality of tourism benefits and its potential for communities, especially in relation to group ranches. Discussions were held with, among others, LWF staff and its executive director, the owner of Borana Ranch, Natural Capital, and private developers in Nanyuki. DATA ANALYSIS Data analysis methods used included the following:  Comparison Analysis. The evaluation team documented trends and divided the project timeline into segments of “before” and “after” comparisons to gather how the program has changed or was affected by LWF in Laikipia over the period of the project. Because LWF and USAID have been active in the geographic area longer than the duration of the project, the evaluation team will need to make a distinction in assessing activities and results particular to the project timeframe. 51  Pattern/Content Analysis. Qualitative data were used to examine patterns so that comparisons can be made between respondents and contexts to determine the effect of LWF. This involves broad trends and a detailed examination of how different respondents answered the same questions—for example, different community groups and government stakeholders. As the numbers of individuals and sites involved in this evaluation is relatively small, the MSI evaluation team will not use qualitative analysis software but will instead review interview notes by hand. For group interviews, the CMP scoring system was used with scoring ranges per group to determine the performance for each group interviewed. Details can be found in Annex X.  Response Convergence/Divergence Analysis. The team reviewed data collected to determine significant response convergence among the varied stakeholders and beneficiaries. Where divergence was found, the team followed-up to better understand the context and reasons for it in facts, perceptions, or opinions through triangulation discussions.  Mixed-Methods Integration/Findings Synthesis. A mixed-methods approach was used to arrive at the findings. Where different methods produced conflicting evidence, the evaluation team sought, to the extent possible, to double back to examine why data conflicted and weigh data from various methods in terms of its strength in validity and reliability. The team also continued dialog with various key informants after the fieldwork to ratify specific issues such as bed-nights in community￾based lodges and to verify the numbers and type of user groups amongst water resource user associations, community forest associations, and group ranches. 52 ANNEX D. BENCHMARKS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF GROUP RANCHES AND WATER RESOURCE USER ASSOCIATIONS GROUP RANCHES Before 2009, group ranches were trained on experimental learning grounds in the private ranches. There were no formal stages of development. However, during 2009 – 2013, LWF established nine steps to use as benchmarks in the development of a group ranch and its graduation through the holistic management (HM) system. These are: 1. Area under management defined 2. Decision-making body in place 3. Decision-making body actively supports program work 4. Implementing body in place (HM team) 5. Implementing body effective 6. Holistic goal developed (including desired livelihood and development goals, and desired land state) 7. Planning process in place (i.e., grazing plans developed) 8. Plans implemented effectively 9. Decisions on actions are tested against future visions for social, economic, and environmental appropriateness WATER ASSOCIATIONS During 2009–2013, the Water Resource Management Authority, Rural Focus, and LWF developed a nine stage water resource user association (WRUA) formation process. Prior to this, there had not been any development stages. WRUA Formation & Establishment – Key Stages 1. Realisation of problem 2. Idea Stage 3. Mobilisation (community support) 4. Organisation: •Management Committee 5. Registration: •Constitution, bank account •Registration (MCSS, Reg. Societies) 6. Situation Analysis: •Issues & causes 7. Strategizing: •Action, resources 8. Catchment Management Plan Community awareness & involvement increasing 53 ANNEX E. WATER RESOURCE USERS SUPPORTED BY USAID Name of WRUA Supported By USAID Year of Registration List of User Groups No. of User Groups For Each List of Trainings Conducted M F 1 Ewaso Narok 2003 Riparian land owners 98 113 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Community water projects 3 Individual member - Observer member 2 2 Ngobit 2010 Riparian land owners 126 38 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Water sector reforms Community water projects 5 Individual member Observer member 2 3 Upper Ewaso Ngiro 2012 Riparian land owners 13 0 170 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Community water projects 8 Observer member 2 4 Burguret 1999 Riparian land owners No trainings conducted during this funding period Community water projects 3 Observer member 3 5 Nanyuki 2001 Riparian land owners 62 21 No trainings conducted during this funding period Community water projects 5 Observer member 3 6 Ontulili 2003 Riparian land owners 68 40 Water sector reforms Community water 20 54 Name of WRUA Supported By USAID Year of Registration List of User Groups No. of User Groups For Each List of Trainings Conducted M F projects Observer member 2 7 Timau 2002 Riparian land owners 129 80 Water sector reforms Community water projects 50 Observer member 2 8 Middle Ewaso Ngiro 2010 Riparian land owners 49 35 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance Legal affairs WDC framework Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Group Ranches 5 Observer member 2 9 Muhotetu 2010 Riparian land owners 39 19 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Water sector reforms Community water projects 6 Observer member 2 10 Kinamba 2010 Riparian land owners 44 27 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Community water projects 5 Observer member 2 11 Ngare Ndare 2001 Riparian land owners 52 25 Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Community water projects - Observer member 12 Ngusishi 2002 Riparian land owners 42 26 No training conducted during this funding period Community water projects 20 Observer member 2 13 Nyahururu 2010 Riparian land owners 265 156 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance 55 Name of WRUA Supported By USAID Year of Registration List of User Groups No. of User Groups For Each List of Trainings Conducted M F Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Monitoring and evaluation Community water projects 6 Observer member 2 14 Kareminu Pending Riparian land owners 69 42 Leaders sensitization meeting WRUA governance Legal affairs WDC Development of SCMP Community water projects - 56 ANNEX F. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS GROUP ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE Capability Sub-title Key Questions Findings I. Group Characteristics A. Participatory Approach Gender NRM roles reflected in decision￾making/community involvement Are women and youths actively involved in meetings? Do they have a recognized voice in decision￾making? Are there examples? Type of meetings held by the group (dissemination of training, exchange visits, discussions) How many scheduled committee meetings are held in a year with the group? How many special meetings were held in the last six months to inform the group or make decisions? Is information gained by group/committee members from training, visits and meetings shared with everybody and how? Transparency/accountability of Executive Committee to community Does the Committee report during regular meetings on progress, regulation changes, and finances? Do members of the group have access to accounts and other financial information freely? B. Group Management Structure Registration status and duration Is the group formally registered, where and what date was the registration? Did the group receive assistance for registration? Group membership by gender, age minority List of membership by name, gender, and age group Note PMP (range, 20 percent women; forest, 40 percent women) Composition of Executive Committee Represents age groups, minority, gender, and class. List. Election process How often do elections take place? Do all members vote and is the ballot secret? How long does the Committee serve before new elections? Are there special rules for elections or can members stand for election? 57 Capability Sub-title Key Questions Findings Group strategy towards Resource Management Does the group have a strategy for NRM? Is there a time plan in which to achieve the strategy? Has the strategy changed during the time the group existed? Did all members participate in the formulation of the strategy and any changes? Structure for distribution of tangible direct and indirect benefits Are there tangible benefits that have made a change to members’ lives as a direct result of the NRM activities? Are there indirect benefits from the NRM activities? Have there been any financial benefits? Have all members benefited or only some? Regulation (NRM laws and bylaws) Group understanding of NRM based laws and bylaws Have you heard, learned, or know about the Kenyan laws related to NRM? If so mention them. How did you learn about those laws? Does the group have bylaws? Who made the bylaws? Do members have copies of the bylaws? Dispute resolution If there is a dispute within the group, how is it solved? Is there a committee for solving disputes? Are there disputes that do not get solved? Example(s). Do disputes ever occur with other groups and organizations? If yes, give examples. How are external disputes resolved? Are there still existing disputes with other groups and/or organizations? Enforcement of laws and bylaws How are bylaws enforced within the group? Does enforcement work? C. Coordination and Cooperation Ability to work with other local communities (e.g., conservancies, grazing) in basic landscape land use and planning Does the group work with other groups in the area? Mention the groups and the type of work that is shared with other groups. Is implementation shared only or is the planning of the activities also done together? How do you plan together and how often do planning meetings take place? Are these planning meetings useful and are there results? Do all groups follow the plan made together? If 58 Capability Sub-title Key Questions Findings not, how is it enforced? Are there plans for a conservancy? Are there plans for income-generating activities? Mention them. Cooperation in working with government bodies Which government departments or entities is the group aware of that are relevant to the group? How often does the group interact with this department or government entity? Is this a regular or occasional interaction? Do government departments or entities come to visit the group to follow-up on issues and discuss progress? Which government department or entity provides the best support to the group? Apart from government, are there other organizations that provide assistance? What assistance is provided and how useful is it for the group? External funding or support in-kind Does the group receive assistance from outside in-kind sources or cash for their activity? If yes, which sources? If the group is provided with support by LWF, specify the support received so far. Does the group know the source of finance LWF uses to provide this assistance? Advocacy capacity of the group Are there issues in which the group requires government support? Does the group try to actively approach concerned government agencies to obtain an answer or/and assistance? Has the group approached other organizations (private sector, NGOs) for support? Recognition in practical terms of the group in management by other development partners Do organizations and the government consult the groups on their management plans, progress, and ideas? Does the group provide information formally and regularly to organizations and government departments? Which organization and government departments receive regular information from the group? What information specifically? List. List external partners List II. Natural Resources Management 59 Capability Sub-title Key Questions Findings A. Vision and Planning Vision for community-wide NRM (range, water, or forest) Is the entire group participating and contributing to NRM? Is there a vision for the future? Is this the vision of the group or were they assisted to create the vision? Group strategy towards resource management (range, water, forest) Does the group have a strategy for NRM? How was the strategy formulated? By the group itself, with outside assistance, or was it provided with a strategy by an organization or government department? Sustainability of NRM activities If the group is implementing activities, do these activities need outside support or can they be done by the group itself? List activities that need support and those that can be done by the group itself. Can the group achieve its future goals without external support? B. Natural Resource Base Monitoring Presence NRM monitoring system Does the group monitor the results of their activities and see a change in NRM? Is the monitoring done by the group itself or with outside assistance? How is monitoring done, and how is change measured? Indicators for monitoring and frequency What indicators is the group using for their monitoring? How often is the group monitoring? Who monitors? The entire membership or just certain members? Are the results shared with other parties? Information sharing system How does the group share information? C. Socioeconomic Benefits Benefits or income accrued from wildlife (in-kind or cash) Benefits or income derived from economic activities linked to NRM Do groups have wildlife in the vicinity, occasionally or common? Is that positive or negative for the group? (Expand and list positive and negative aspects.) Are there direct benefits in cash or in-kind for the group from wildlife? Does the group vision and plan include benefits from wildlife? How? Does the group have economic (income￾generating activities) directly linked to NRM activities? List activities. Are these activities promising for expansion? Do these activities bring more income or benefits compared to other income-generating activities within the group? 60 Capability Sub-title Key Questions Findings What problems are encountered in the carrying out of these activities (production, marketing)? III. Management Group Operations A. Organizational Management Purpose of the Group Objectives Mission statement for development activities is clear and consistent with activities, but not all members capable of articulating it. Planning Existing work plans (SCMP, Participatory Management Plan, land use plans, grazing plans) What work plans exist? Who made the plan? What assistance was received in the making of the plan? Do all the members know the details of the plan? Are the plans used day-to-day for implementation? Mode of planning implementation/division of responsibilities How does the group plan its activities? Are these plans written down or verbally agreed upon? Do all members participate in the planning? Is there a special planning committee? Do plans change with time? Can members request for a change to the plans or are only committee members allowed to do this? Does the group receive assistance in planning activities? Is there a standard plan (template) the group works with or do they make their plan by themselves according to their own ideas? Is there a division of responsibilities in the group for planning and implementing activities? Resource mobilization Does the group have its own resources? Free manpower, local materials, transportation, funds raised within the group? Does the group try to get external assistance in kind or cash for their activities? Yes, but they are limited Yes, from LWF, WRMA, WTF Administrative systems Records (membership, meetings, assets) Does the group keep records and what records? Who keeps the records? Does any member at any time have access to the records kept? Yes, and have an office with an active Secretariat and a filing system Working guidelines of the Are there guidelines in written form for the group for day-to-day activities, responsibilities, No, but there are clear responsibilities 61 Capability Sub-title Key Questions Findings group and tasks? If not, how is work assigned every day? shared among the user groups and committees Monitoring and Evaluation Ongoing M&E system Does the group follow-up on their activities and assess if they are useful and bring a benefit? Is the group keeping a record of progress, problems, failures, and the reasons why? If an activity is not beneficial, how are changes made? Yes, the activities are useful; one of which is the availability of water for domestic livestock and irrigation Community feedback Does the group report progress, problems, and any other observations to an external organization, such as LWF or government partners? Does the group feel this feedback has assisted in improving things? Give examples of actions taken in response to feedback, if any. Yes, through various meetings held and also during the Annual General Meeting Yes Progress on river pegging B. Group Capacity Building Type and number of training Technical training What technical trainings has the group received? Did the whole group receive the training or only certain members or only members of the committee? Did those who received training share the knowledge gained with other interested (or all) members? Who conducted the technical training? Were the trainings of good quality and does the group need more technical training? Development of a SCMP, leadership skills, financial management, and riverine protection, Through meetings of various groups and Barazas Require more training in resources management Organization and management training Who trained the group on organization and management? Was the whole group trained or only committee members? Do members feel that the training was enough or that it needs to be more focused on all the members? Does the committee feel that they need more training? In what specific aspect? Rural Focus Executive and the committees Requested for refresher trainings Special interest group training Were there any trainings for special interest groups within the group? List the trainings. Is there a need for more training? Specify for Leadership, water management, financial management 62 Capability Sub-title Key Questions Findings interest groups. Keen on more trainings for agriculture production Exchange visits Peer review visits Have any visits taken place to or with other groups? Who participated in these visits? Were the findings from the visits shared across the entire membership? List visits. WRUAs in other parts of the Laikipia area Executive and some user groups and local leaders Conflict resolution over water allocation Educational tours Were any educational tours organized for the group? Who organized these tours? Who went on the tours and how were participants selected within the group? Were the tours useful? List any tours made. Participation in forum Problem discussions and resolution Has the group ever been invited to participate in a forum to discuss problems, progress, and issues pertaining to their activities? What forum? Exchange of experience Is there a platform where the group shares experiences with other group? Is this done as a self-initiative or organized externally? Who organizes the sharing of experiences? C. Financial Resources Financial Management Bookkeeping, supporting, and documentation Who does the bookkeeping for the group and who manages financial transactions? Does the committee report on the financial situation of the group? When and how often? Group access to financial information Can members see the bookkeeping and records of financial transactions at any time they wish? Participation in financial decision-making When purchases take place or products or assets are sold, does the committee consult the group members? Audits Do audits take place? Who carries out the audits? 63 LWF PARTNER ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE Date of Completion: May __, 2013 Organization: Contact person: Capability Sub-title Key Questions I. LWF Biodiversity Conservation Program Implementing Partners Characteristics Participatory Approach Composition of LWF Biodiversity Conservation Program partners Who are the active implementing partners in the LWF (at inception and currently)? Are there new partners? If yes, name them. Roles and responsibilities of Partners List the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Transparency/accountability of implementing partners to the community Does the LBCP committee report during regular meetings on progress, regulation changes, and finances? Do community members of the group have access to the accounts and other financial information freely? How has the partnership affected your organization’s work in Laikipia? Has the partnership affected your organization’s work in Laikipia? If yes, please explain. C. External factors that influence program implementation What external factors have altered program implementation? List external factors that have affected program implementation. What strategies have you put in place to ensure the successful implementation of the program for each of the above mentioned? Ability to work with government bodies to realize program objectives Which government ministries and partners have you worked with in program implementation? Are there any other government partners who need to be engaged? Ability to serve as advocate for community issues with government agencies (KWS,KFS, WRMA, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries) What are some of the issues your organization has lobbied for, in the community interest, with various government agencies? Please list the issues and the government agencies or departments. Ability to access more resources for community groups Has your organization’s participation in program implementation attracted more funding to the community? If yes, please list the funds and the sources. II. Natural Resources Management 64 Capability Sub-title Key Questions A. Vision and Planning Vision for community-wide NRM What is the community vision toward NRM? Who created the vision? Approach to NRM decisions by community supported by the program How does the community make decisions in relation to NRM for water, rangelands, and forests where applicable? NRM sustainability Are current community NRM structures capable of sustainably managing the resources on behalf of the community? Please explain your answer. B. Regulation and guidelines Dispute resolution Are there dispute resolution mechanisms between implementing partners? How are disputes resolved when they arise? Policy and use of data generated jointly Are there guidelines on how data generated jointly is used? Who is the custodian of the data and how is it stored and shared? Reporting format, frequency and the working organogram Is there a reporting format in place for the program? How frequently are reports made? Explain the working organogram of program implementation. A. Program Organizational Management Participatory Leadership Decision-making at various levels How are decisions made in the team that implements the program? How are they communicated? Communication between implementing partners and the community What are the communication structures between the team and the community? How is information generated and shared between the partners and the community? Planning Participatory system used What planning structures are in place for the implementing partners? How are the plans generated and shared? Administrative systems Record keeping system Who is the custodian of the records produced? Can the community access the records? Are there guidelines to accessing the records? Monitoring and Evaluation Has the program PMP been integrated into the ongoing M&E system? Is M&E integrated into your organization’s PMP? What are the shared indicators that you monitor? Partner and community feedback How are the data generated? Are the community given an opportunity to contribute and do they provide feedback? 65 Capability Sub-title Key Questions How are women and youth interests captured? B. Human Resources . Staff Skills Match of staff to skills required in program implementation Does your organization have the staff to implement the program effectively? Did you recruit any staff to undertake assignments? Staff Development Staff development Have any of the staff undergone specific training to implement the program? If yes, how many and what trainings? COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PROFILE: SCORE CALCULATION SHEET Date of Completion: May ___, 2013 Organization: Capability Sub-title Score Comments I. Group Characteristics A. Participatory Approach Gender NRM roles reflected in decision-making and community involvement Type of meetings held by the group (dissemination of training, exchange visits, discussions) Transparency/accountability of Executive Committee to community Sub-total B. Group Management Structure Registration status and duration Group membership by gender, age minority Composition of Executive Committee 66 Capability Sub-title Score Comments Election process Sub-Total Structure for the distribution of tangible direct and indirect benefits Regulation (NRM laws and bylaws) Group understanding of NRM based on laws and bylaws Dispute resolution Enforcement of laws and bylaws C. Coordination and Cooperation Ability to work with other local communities (e.g., conservancies, grazing) in basic landscape land use and planning Cooperation with government bodies External funding or support in-kind Advocacy capacity of the group Recognition in practical terms of the group in management by other development partners List external partners Sub-total II. Natural Resources Management A. Vision and Planning Vision for community-wide NRM (range, water, or forest) Group strategy toward resource management (range, water, forest) Sustainability of NRM activities Sub-total B Regulatory Dispute resolution 67 Capability Sub-title Score Comments Framework Implementation Enforcement of laws Sub-Total C. Natural Resource Base Monitoring Presence of NRM monitoring system Indicators for monitoring, and frequency Information sharing system Sub-total D. Socioeconomic Benefits Benefits or income accrued from wildlife (in kind or cash) Benefits or income derived from economic activities linked to NRM Sub-Total III. Management Group Operations A. Organizational Management Purpose of the Group Objectives Planning Existing work plans (SCMP, Participatory Management Plan, land use plans, grazing plans) Mode of planning implementation and division of responsibilities Resource mobilization Development of simple thematic manuals and reports from trainings, exchange visits, and discussions to share within the group Sub-Total Administrative systems Records (membership, meetings, assets) Working guidelines of the group Sub-total: 68 Capability Sub-title Score Comments Monitoring and Evaluation Ongoing M&E system Community feedback Sub-total: Average of sub-totals for Organizational Management: B. Group Capacity Building Type and number training Technical training Organization and management training Special interest group training Sub-total: Exchange visits Peer review visits Educational tours Sub-total: Participation in Forum Problem discussions and resolution Exchange of experience Sub-total: C. Financial Resources Financial Management Bookkeeping, supporting, and documentation Group access to financial information Participation in financial decision-making V Audits V External partners audited Sub-total Scoring ranges: 1–3, weak; 4–6, fair; 7–9, good; 10, excellent 69 ANNEX G. SOURCES OF INFORMATION DOCUMENTS REVIEWED  October 15, 2009, Follow-On Award, $2,405,104, October 14, 2009, to October 14, 2012: Project Proposal  Program Description, July 2009  Grant Agreement, October 2009  Cooperative Agreement Amendment, incrementally fund agreement by $850,000 to scale up conservation of biological resources to ecosystem-wide scale for mutual benefit of livestock and wildlife, April 11  USAID No cost extension Work Plan, November 2012 to April 2013  LWF Rangeland Management Strategy (2010–15): Executive Summary, March 2010  USAID/Kenya Strategic Objective 5 (SO5) Forestry/Range Rehabilitation and Environmental Strengthening Initiative Activity Approval Document, June 2002  USAID/Kenya Midterm Evaluation of USAID/Kenya NRM projects, DTs, January 2011  Developing Sustainable Wild Harvest Protocols for Cape Chestnut Seed Pilot Project October 2010 through September 2011  Performance Monitoring Plan, October 2009 to October 2012, dated January 2010  SO5 Performance Monitoring Plan, dated July 2010  Semi Annual Progress Report, April–September 2011  Progress Report: Establishing a socioeconomic baseline for monitoring the impact of the bioenterprise development program in Laikipia, February 10  Semiannual progress report, October 2009 to March 2010  Semiannual and annual performance progress report, October 2009 through September 10  Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Laikipia County 2012–30  LWF Follow-on to USAID Year 1 work plan  LWF Follow-on to USAID Year 3 work plan  Aerial Surveys 2011  Baseline Socioeconomic Assessment in View of Assessing Impacts of LWF’s Rangeland Management Program, September 2009  Yearly Socioeconomic Monitoring for the Bioenterprise Development Program, Kirisa Area, May 2011  Stakeholders’ Perspectives of Tourist Satisfaction in Laikipia, Kenya: Preliminary Review  Access and Benefit Sharing in the context of the Convention on Biodiversity, August 2011  “Frontiers and challenges,” High-Level Evaluation of EKN-Funded Interventions in the Arid and Semiarid lands of Kenya: A report to the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, February 2013  Report to Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Conserving Biodiversity and Natural Processes and Improving Livelihoods in Laikipia, August 2011–12  Embassy of Kingdom of the Netherlands’ Response to Report: Conserving Biodiversity and Natural Processes and Improving Livelihoods in Laikipia, August 2011–12  HM Manual by Savory Foundation (2011)  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (UNEP), carried out during 2001–05  Internal Evaluation M&E Natural Capital (May 2013) 70  Rangeland Strategy LWF  LWF Strategy 2012–30  Water Resource Strategy LWF (2010–15)  Nature, Wealth and Power (2004)  Forest Management Strategy LWF (2013–30)  Trainer Manual for Community Managed Water Project, Ministry of Water and Irrigation 2012 LIST OF GROUPS VISITED Date Type of Group Name/Role of Key Participants Contact May 8 th Gathiuru WRUA Executive and committee members May 9 th Ngare Ndare CFA Ngare Ndare CFA/Executive and committee members Saita Kitonga May 9 th Ngare Ndare WRUA Ngare Ndare WRUA/Executive and committee members Peter Kahindo 0724452546 May 10th Il Mamusi CFA Il Mamusi CFA/Executive and committee members Chairman O712394442 May 10th Il Ingwesi Group Ranch (GR) Il Ingwesi GR/Executive and grazing committee Morias Kasio 0721399188 May 10th Makhurian GR Executive and Grazing committee Moses Nokisha 0710908985 May 10th Twala Women Group Community Enterprise Group Executive and members May 10th Olsukutu WRUA Executive and members May 11th Burgeret WRUA/IG Matu 0720 811 792 - May 11th Kibol Dam Self Help Group – Water User group John Warutere 0724635443 May 13th Gathiuru CFA Executive and committee member Moses Githiria 0720175604 May 14th Lower Ewaso Narok WRUA Executive and committee member Peter Kinyua -Chairman 0721837499 Nkweei Ekalale – monitoring 0717147590 lowerewasonarok@yahoo.com May 15th Igwamiti Primary School School principal May 15th Shamanek CFA Executive and committee members Amos Kingori 0721879706 May 15th South Marmanet CFA Executive and members Muthui Ndiranga 0735294452 May 15th Nyahururu WRUA Executive and committee members Peter Wachira Ngatia 0725222013 May 16th Brief discussions Rumuruti Livestock Auction Travel Nanyuki 71 Date Type of Group Name/Role of Key Participants Contact May 16th Timau /Ngusishi WRUA Executive and member Chairman May 17th Lamuria/Ruai Bee Keepers Society Philip Ngure LIST OF KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS EXTERNAL FROM LWF Date Organization Partner/SO Contact person Contact May 6 th Mpala Research Center (MCR) Partner and SO Dr. Margret Kinnaird Dr. Timothy G. O’Brian Senior Conservation Zoologist/Conservation Support +254 (0)6232758 mkinnaird@mpala.org +254 (0)2 352 5953 tobrien@wcs.org May 6 th Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) Partner Vincent Ongwae Deputy Warden, Laikipia County 0722 393225 ongwae@yahoo.com May 7 th Wilson Kamau Partner Wilson Kamau Forest Manager, Nanyuki Kahurura Forest 0722 596977 May 7 th World Vision Partner Emmanuel Fondo(GEL Project Manager) Peter Ngure (Livelihoods and Resilience Officer) 0724577287 Emmanuel_Fondo@wvi.org 0722406667, peter_ngure@wvi.org May 7 th African Wildlife Foundation Benson Lengalen (Heartland Coordinator) 0722582966 benson@awfke.org May 7 th WRMA Partner William Hamisi (Sub- Region Manager) Ochillo (new Regional Manager ENN CA) 0720305299 0735409991 May 8 th Rural Focus SO Tom Traexler (Director) Christine Muuthia WRUA specialist/trainer 0733 990879 tom@ruralfocus.com christine@ruralfocus.com May 8 th Department of Social Services Partner Eliud Nderitu (District Gender & Social Services Officer) 0721 214211 May 8 th Kenya Forest Service Partner Danson Kamau (Ontolili Forest Manager) Robert Kimathi (Forest Guard) 0728823700 0722890911 May 8 th LWF Praxides Nekesa, M&E specialist 0720 363556 monitoring@laikipia.org May 8 th LWF Anthony Ochieno, Forestry Coordinator forest@laikipia.org May 8 th Desert Edge Partner Maxwell Lumbasi 0703503554 production@biotrade.co.ke May 8 th Laikipia County Partner Joshua Irungu, Governor May 9 th LWF David Masere, CLO (North) 0722 243 689 May 12th Lengetia Farm Sarah and Laurie Sessions (Owners) 0722 331001 May 12th CETRAD Partner/SO Dr. Boniface P. Kiteme (Director CETRAD and LWF Board Member) 0722 835 863 cetrad@cetrad.com May LWF Martin Kahindi Community 0723 248284 72 Date Organization Partner/SO Contact person Contact May 15th Liaison Officer Rumuruti May 15th Kifuko Ranch Partner Maria Dodds Laikipia Aloe 0721 440941 laikipia.aloe@gmail.com May 15th LAICONAR NGO (NRM) David Wanjohi (Coordinator) 0725 149076 May 16th LWF Dr. Modecai, Executive Director 0722 823998 executivedirector@laikipia.org May 16th Borana Ranch/Conservancy Partner Michael Dyer 0721 427013 michael@borana.co.ke May 16th Holistic Management SO Richard Hatfield 0723 506 331 May 17th LWF Stephen Nyaga, Wildlife conservation PO 0725 821 971 wildlife@laikipia.org May 17th LWF Sandra Obudo, Tourism & Communications PO 0735 728 349 communications@laikipia.org MAP OF SITES VISITED The sites visited to conduct the group discussions and key informant interviews are marked in red. (Source of base map: AWF) 73 LIST OF PEOPLE – VALIDATION MEETING Date: May 20, 2013 Location: Rural Focus Conference Hall, Nanyuki Name Organization Mobile email 1 Christine Muuthia Rural Focus 0727309994 christine@ruralfocus.com 2 Anthony Ochieno LWF 0722462535 forest@laikipia.org 3 Otieno Okwach LWF/CEDP 0722881601 progmanager@biotrade.co.ke 4 Fred Opundo MSI 0722572142 fopundo@msi-kenya.com 5 Ogeli Makui AWF/CDO 0721563926 omakui@awfke.org 6 Sandra Obudo LWF 0735728349 communications@laikipia.org 7 Hamisi W. O. WRMA 0720305249 Wrma.nanyuki@yahoo.com 8 James Mwangi LWF 0727998319 water@laikipia.org 9 Benson Lengalen AWF 0722582966 blengalen@awfke.org 10 Stephen Nyaga LWF 0725821971 wildlife@laikipia.org 11 NorinWali Mohamed USAID/Kenya 0729871111 nwalimohamed@usaid.gov 12 Ben Wandago USAID/Kenya 0722771235 bwandago@usaid.gov 13 Beatrice Wamalwa USAID/Kenya 0714606503 bwamalwa@usaid.gov 14 Mordecai Ogada LWF 0722823998 executivedirector@laikipia.org 15 Richard Hatfield Natural Capital 0723506331 Richard@naturalcapitaleastafrica.com 16 Tom Traexler Rural Focus 0733990879 tom@ruralfocus.com 17 Vincent Ongwae KWS 0710884484 ongwaev@yahoo.com 18 Ibrahim Mwangi World Vision Kenya 0721118455 ibrahimkamithi@wvi.org 19 Sammy Njoroge LWF 0720353198 education@laikipia.org 20 Emmanuel Fondo World Vision Kenya 0724577287 Emmanuel_fondo@wvi.org 21 Praxides Nekesa LWF 0720363556 monitoring@laikipia.org 22 Josephat Musyima LWF 0722335478 community@laikipia.org 23 Theo Hendriksen MSI/Evaluation team 0712267836 copso@africaonline.co.ke 24 Fabian Musonye Musila MSI/Evaluation team 0735630631 fmusila@hotmail.com 74 ANNEX H. FINAL GETTING TO ANSWERS Program or Project: Final Evaluation LWF Team Members: Theo Hendriksen and Fabian Musila EVALUATION QUESTIONS Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection (e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey* ) Sampling or Selection Approach (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods (e.g., Frequency Distributions, Trend Analysis, Cross￾Tabulations, Content Analysis) Data Source(s) Method 1. To what extent has the program met its goal to build the capacity of the people and member associations of Laikipia to manage their natural resources, including rangelands, water, and forests? Yes/No Documentation (progress reports, PMP, workplans, strategies, LWF case studies and proposal, external evaluations, planning and capacity documents of partners, baseline surveys, and formal agreements Beneficiary groups (WRUAS, CFAs, rangeland management Committees, producer Desk review KIIs Group discussions Field observations Group discussions purposively sampled, criteria considered: a) geography, b) years of activity, c) performance record – ranking done by LWF KIIs purposively selected: identified by LWF, USAID, and evaluation Team Quantification of group discussions Comparison analysis (before and after) Trend/pattern analysis PMP review Capacity ranking Validation meeting X Description X Comparison† X Explanation‡ * Data from evaluations are considered to be a deliverable and methods should indicated how data will be captured (e.g., for focus groups, USAID requires a transcript). † Comparison–to baselines, plans/targets, or to other standards or norms ‡ Explanation–for questions that ask “why” or attribute effects to a specific intervention (causality) 75 EVALUATION QUESTIONS Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection (e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey* ) Sampling or Selection Approach (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods (e.g., Frequency Distributions, Trend Analysis, Cross￾Tabulations, Content Analysis) Data Source(s) Method groups Support organizations (Rural Focus, Mpala Research, CETRAD, etc.) Partners (WRMA, KFS, KWS, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, AWF, World Vision, etc.) USAID, LWF, Dutch Embassy 2. To what extent are the various monitoring systems established as part of this program effective and transferable? Yes/No Documentation (progress reports, PMP, LWF proposal, workplans, strategies, monitoring reports, external evaluations, contractual arrangements, etc.) Support organizations (Mpala Research, CETRAD) Desk review KIIs Group discussions KIIs purposively selected and identified by LWF, USAID, and evaluation team Comparison Analysis (before and after; actual to best practice) Trend/pattern analysis Information flow and validation analysis PMP review X Description X Comparison X Explanation 76 EVALUATION QUESTIONS Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection (e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey* ) Sampling or Selection Approach (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods (e.g., Frequency Distributions, Trend Analysis, Cross￾Tabulations, Content Analysis) Data Source(s) Method Relevant partners (WRMA, KFS, KWS, MoALF, community groups) USAID, LWF, Dutch Embassy 3. To what extent is the monitoring information used in decision-making at the forum and community level? Yes/No Documentation (progress reports, PMP, strategies, LWF case studies, external evaluations, meeting minutes, planning and of partners, etc.) Beneficiary groups (WRUAS, CFAs, rangeland management committees, producer groups) Support organizations (Rural Focus, Mpala Research, CETRAD, etc.) Desk review KIIs KIIs Group discussions Field observation Group discussions purposively sampled, criteria considered: a) geography, b) years of activity, c) performance record – ranking done by LWF KIIs purposively selected and identified by LWF, USAID, and evaluation team Comparison analysis (before and after) Trend/pattern analysis Validation meeting Information flow analysis X Description Comparison X Explanation 77 EVALUATION QUESTIONS Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection (e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey* ) Sampling or Selection Approach (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods (e.g., Frequency Distributions, Trend Analysis, Cross￾Tabulations, Content Analysis) Data Source(s) Method Partners (WRMA, KFS, KWS, MoALF, AWF, World Vision, etc.) USAID, LWF, Dutch Embassy 4. What external factors played a significant role in affecting, positively or negatively, the underlying challenges the project sought to address, and what was done to adjust the project design? Yes/No Documentation (progress reports, PMP, workplans, strategies, LWF case studies, external evaluations, planning and capacity documents of partners, secondary documentation on external factors, etc.) Beneficiary groups (WRUAS, CFAs, rangeland management committees, producer groups) Desk review KIIs Group discussions Field observation Group discussions purposively sampled, criteria considered: a) geography, b) years of activity; c) performance record – ranking done by LWF KIIs purposively selected and identified by LWF, USAID, and evaluation team Comparison Analysis (before and after) Trend/pattern analysis Validation meeting X Description X Comparison X Explanation 78 EVALUATION QUESTIONS Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection (e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey* ) Sampling or Selection Approach (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods (e.g., Frequency Distributions, Trend Analysis, Cross￾Tabulations, Content Analysis) Data Source(s) Method Support organizations Rural Focus, Mpala Research, CETRAD, etc. Partners (WRMA, KFS, KWS, MoALF, AWF, World Vision, etc.) USAID, LWF, Dutch Embassy 5. In which ways has the program made a difference to women, men, and youths through its interventions on water, forests, and rangelands? Yes/No Documentation (progress reports, PMP, workplans, strategies, LWF case studies, external evaluations, planning and capacity documents of partners, LWF socioeconomic baseline) Beneficiary groups (WRUAS, CFAs, Desk review KIIs Group discussions Field observation Group Discussions, purposively sampled, criteria considered: a) geography, b) years of activity, c) performance record – ranking done by LWF KIIs purposively selected and identified by Comparison analysis (before and after) Trend/pattern analysis PMP review Validation meeting X Description X Comparison X Explanation 79 EVALUATION QUESTIONS Type of Answer/ Evidence Needed (Check one or more, as appropriate) Methods for Data Collection (e.g., Records, Structured Observation, Key Informant Interviews, Mini-Survey* ) Sampling or Selection Approach (if one is needed) Data Analysis Methods (e.g., Frequency Distributions, Trend Analysis, Cross￾Tabulations, Content Analysis) Data Source(s) Method rangeland management committees, producer groups) Support organizations (Rural Focus, Mpala Research, CETRAD, etc.) Partners (WRMA, KFS, KWS, MoALF, AWF, World Vision, etc.) USAID, LWF, Dutch Embassy LWF, USAID, and evaluation team 80 ANNEX I. MAPPING LWF TO A DEVOLVED GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE 81 ANNEX J. LIST OF PARTNERS AND SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS Name Status Main Activity Rural Focus - Nanyuki SO and Consultancy Firm Building WRUA Center for Training and Integrated Research in Arid and Semiarid Land Development (CETRAD) SO and Partner Research Institution Establishing the Socioeconomic Monitoring System Mpala Research Center (MRC) SO & Partner Research Institute Establishing the Ecological and Ecosystem Processes Monitoring Program (EEPMP), World Vision Partner Livelihood diversification for pastoralists, such as greenhouses and land rehabilitation AWF – African Wildlife Foundation Partner CEDP (Conservation Enterprise Development Program) KWS – Kenya Wildlife Service Partner Apart from wildlife issues, deploying scouts in the Mukugodo area KFS – Kenya Forest Service Partner CFA development for forest areas Department of Social Services Partner Initial group registration, guidance on association registration Private Ranches: Borana, OlMaisor, Loldaiga, OlJogi, Mpala Partners HM grazing implementation Provincial Administration Partner Field implementation 82 ANNEX K. PLANNED AND ACTUAL ASSOCIATIONS AND GROUP RANCHES Planned and Actual Associations and Group Ranches Under Capacity Building By LWF Type Actual Number Before 2009 Stage in 2009 Numbers Planned For 2009–13 Stage in 2013 Planned Total Actual Total 2013 Group Ranches 3 cont. support Early experimental 3 sites added 2 sites maintained (USAID funding) Technical developing and governance partly 5 sites 12 WRUAs 17 cont. support 10 working on SCMP 10 new added (USAID funding) 17 maintained Registered, functional and with SCMP 10 14 CFAs 5 Sensitization 5 new added (USAID funding) Registered, functional and with Forest Management Plan 10 12 83 ANNEX L. LAKIPIA COUNTY AND LAND UTILIZATION Laikipia County and Land Utilization* *Source: LWF • - .,-.... .. ~ ... ,"",,-, ... ,,~ , .... ~ • • g u • • • -., -.,~, - ---,-.... -- ....... - --- -_.- ." ..... _t- ,- - ! • • • • T 84 ANNEX M. AREA UNDER HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT Area Under Holistic Management By Ranch Type* GRs and HM Private Ranch Partners Group Ranches No. Hectares Private Ranch Partners No. Hectares Il Ngwesi 8,986.5 Mpala 19,464 Makurian 6,816.3 Soita Nyiro Farm 1,008 Kurikuri 7,253.5 OlJogi 17,552 Total Mukugodo East 23,056.3 Total Uaso Nyiro unit 38,024 Il Motiok 3,650.7 OlMaisor 12,137 Munishoi 761.6 Ngorare 15,700 Il Polei 1,985.8 Total Uaso Narok unit 27,837 Musul 2,748.9 Morupusi 10,848.5 Borana 11,909 Nkiloriti 2,879.3 Loldaiga 20,029 Kijabe 6,479.9 Total Eastern unit 31,938 Tiemamut 5,239.6 Koija 7,604.8 Ngorare 15,700 Total Naibunga GRs 42,199.1 Total 113,499 *Source: Internal evaluation by Natural Capital, April 2013 85 Greenhouse on Il Ingwesi GR ANNEX N. PICTURES FROM THE FIELD Woodlot on a CFA member’s farm 86 Common water intake that regulates abstraction Water tank broken as a result of a water conflict Energy saving stove in a CFA member’s kitchen 87 ANNEX O. TOURISM AND BENEFITS Findings There are five ecolodges on group ranches in Laikipia County. Community managed ecolodges include:  Il Ngwesi Ecolodge, based on Il Ngwesi Group Ranch  Ol Gaboli, based on Il Motiok Group Ranch (almost dysfunctional) Community-owned ecolodges with private partnerships include:  Tassia (Lekurukki Group Ranch–Neighboring Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Borana)  Koija Starbeds and Kiboko Starbeds ( Koija Group Ranch) run by Loisaba Ranch  The Sanctuary at OlLentille ( Kijabe Group Ranch) run by Regenesis, Ltd. The cost of constructing an ecolodge is estimated at KES 10 million.* The perception exists in group ranch communities that tourism through an ecolodge, campsite, or conservancy will bring substantial benefits, as it appears to do on private ranches. The Il Ingwesi Lodge was built in the 1990s and is often lauded as a successful community-owned and managed ecolodge. Its construction was entirely financed from external resources,† and it had substantial management support from neighboring private ranches. While the evaluation team was in Laikipia, LWF assisted the lodge in repairing its water supply as the lodge was unable to finance this project itself. The second community￾owned and managed ecolodge, Ol Gaboli, is no longer functional. Three other lodges are currently operating, and were constructed and managed in private partnerships with relevant group ranches. There are over 20 lodges and houses available on private ranches and conservancies. They are well managed and up-market destinations. The community managed campsites on group ranches are:  Ngare Ndare (Ngare Ndare Forest)  Wuakumbe Camp ( Morupusi group ranch)  Kurikuri (Kurikuri group ranch)  Il Polei (Il Polei group ranch)  Mukogodo Forest (three campsites)  Oreteti Conservancy (Makurian group ranch)  Nkiloriti (Nkiloriti group ranch)  Agriculture Development Corporation Mutara  Kaptuya Community Campsite (Kaptuya Community Conservancy) The campsites lack basic amenities and are not frequented much by tourists. The fees levied are very low. For example, in Il Ingwesi conservancy, a fee of KES 200 per person per day is charged and *LWF †KWS–COBRA. 88 according to receipts maintained at the conservancy, the last time the campsite was used by a tourist was in 2011. This indicates that the campsites generate very little income for group ranches. LWF does a lot to promote tourism in Laikipia County, but even up-market private lodges struggle to survive. * These lodges carry out their own marketing campaigns in Europe and the United States to supplement the tourism promotion activities of LWF. There are many conservancies in Laikipia County and their status and use is unclear since the new draft Wildlife Bill has yet to be approved by Parliament. There exists completely fenced off and protected conservancies, such as Ol Pejeta, and open areas for grazing and/or forest land set aside as conservancies. While conservancies like Ol Pejeta are able to preserve their ecosystems and wildlife, they attract a lot of tourism due to the presence of the “big five” animals, mainly. Being in a limited and enclosed area, tourists are guaranteed the chance to see the big five. The open conservancies that are located on the group ranches are not as rich in wildlife and depend on the migration of wildlife populations such as elephants. The tourism industry does not encourage livestock or people living on the conservancies. Conclusions All lodges on private ranches are up-market and expensive, providing a wide variety of entertainment such as horse and camel riding and beautiful landscapes. The services provided are of the highest standards. It is deemed impossible for a group ranch to invest around KES 10 million for the construction of a lodge and attain the level of services necessary to compete with private ecolodges. As seen from the experience of Il Ingwesi Lodge, that once had a claim to fame and is now in serious decline, and the Ol Gaboli Lodge on Il Motiok GR, which is now dysfunctional, there are only two community-based lodges that are functioning in partnership with professional companies, which invest in their construction and maintenance. Awareness by communities about the investments required, the level of services to be provided, and the general complexity of marketing such destinations is low and it is anticipated that an ecolodge will provide big profits for the community. Campsites are many and the numbers probably exceed the 10 campsites, located on conservancies on group ranches, listed by LWF. Without basic amenities, campsites have very low occupancy rates. Payments are low and provide little income for group ranches at present. Conservancies have no clear legal definition or status presently, and are purported to conserve nature and wildlife. KWS defines it as follows: “Wildlife Community Conservancy means a sanctuary, conservancy, or group ranch established on community land and managed by a community for the purposes of wildlife conservation.” Many natural resource management sources clearly state that if wildlife and landscape conservation do not provide direct benefits to communities they will not be considered an asset to be protected. In looking at group ranches and forest areas, there was no feeling amongst community members of any direct benefits from wildlife conservation; rather, wildlife is tolerated as a part of life. *Borana Lodge. 89 Conservancies like Ol Pejeta are more like sanctuaries that preserve rather than conserve. These conservancies call for high maintenance costs in fencing and security to protect animals within such areas. Returns are significant as visitors are able to see a lot of wildlife, including the “big five.” In contrast, the conservancies on group ranches are not fenced and wildlife are seen either seasonally or in small numbers. Tour operators tend to avoid such conservancies as there is little wildlife to be seen. To prohibit group ranch conservancies from being used for grazing and residential purposes deprives people of livelihood opportunities as many conservancy areas are large (around 10,000 acres) and reduces the grazing lands available if not used for livestock. Conservancies are often located in prime areas with a water source; its restricted use will have negative effects on people and livestock. The limited uses of a conservancy, in terms of grass and water, does not compare to the small benefits accrued from these areas and their campsites. At present, community conservancies on group ranches fail to attract significant tourism. Despite general perceptions among communities, they believe that wildlife brings substantial benefits to them; however, the evaluation team could not find any evidence to this effect. It is concluded that grazing and livestock remain the “engine” that drives group ranches and that tourism is far from becoming the prime income generator for group ranches. At the moment, the main benefits for group ranches does not come directly from wildlife, but indirectly through activities such as holistic management capacity building by the LWF. 90 ANNEX P. ACTIONS TAKEN BY LWF FOR FORMATION AND PARTICIPATION OF COMMUNITY FOREST ASSOCIATIONS Several actions have been and continue to be undertaken in the formation and participation of CFAs in forest conservation, including the following:  Participatory development of comprehensive and all-inclusive bylaws to govern user groups  Awareness campaigns on new policy changes  Educating communities on the provisions of the Forest Act through means they can understand— for example, murals, posters, and discussions in Swahili  Capacity building of committees in organizational aspects like leadership skills, conflict resolution, local governance, and recordkeeping  Grassroots provision of awareness materials and visual aids to forest associations, user groups, and other stakeholders  Networking community forest associations and linking them to important networks such as the Kenya Forest Working Group, Kenya Association of Forest Users, and Forest Action Network  Exposure visits to successful groups  Involvement of the Kenya Forest Service and others at all stages of community forest association development  Use of participatory tools—for example, Participatory Rural Assessments as an educative process 91 ANNEX Q. INNOVATIVE CROSSCUTTING INTERVENTIONS UNDERTAKEN WITH WRUAS 1. Reforestation of degraded patches using indigenous tree species especially along riverbanks (riparian land). 2. Conservation awareness on river catchment during World Forest Day, World Water Day. 3. The use of community scouts in partnership with KFS to minimize forest degradation through active policing of the forest. These scouts will also patrol for other illegal activities such as poaching, charcoal burning, and illegal grazing. 4. Linking bee keeping to forest conservation, especially in the riparian areas, and minimizing the use of pesticides/herbicides and preventing deforestation and forest fires. 5. Supporting on-farm forestry/agroforestry through the cultivation of trees that meet the domestic, fodder, fuel, and nutrition needs of farmers and their livestock. Farmers now plant fast growing multi-purpose tree species on their lands or on the periphery of their farmlands or homestead as a crop. On-farm forestry reduces pressures on public forests by providing firewood, building materials, fodder, furniture, and the like to most households from their own plantations. 6. Encouraging schools and private farmers to establish tree nurseries and raise seedlings. 7. Giving school children seedlings to take home and plant around their family homesteads. 92 ANNEX R. LWF AND NORTHERN RANGELANDS TRUST While Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) activities are spread over a large area to the north of Laikipia County, including Samburu and Isiolo counties, the potential for the overlapping of activities exists along the borders. The Lekurukki group ranch, for instance, is under NRT while it is located in Laikipia County, and the Il Ingwesi Group Ranch is member of NRT and LWF in the same time. The evaluation team was told that an agreement is being considered to resolve this situation between LWF and NRT. It is recommended that a formal agreement be established between LWF and NRT about the areas of operations and the roles and responsibilities for each organization where there are shared activities. The defined areas of operation do not necessarily have to follow administrative boundaries. 93 ANNEX S. INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IWRM) Integrated water resources management (IWRM) is defined as a coordinated, goal-directed process for controlling the development and use of rivers, wetlands, and other water assets. IWRM is a comprehensive, participatory planning and implementation tool for managing and developing water resource in a way that balances social and economic needs, and ensures the protection of ecosystems for future generations.* Operationally, IWRM approaches involve applying knowledge from various disciplines and insights from diverse stakeholders to devise and implement efficient, equitable, and sustainable solutions to water and development problems. This open and flexible process brings together decision-makers that impact water resources and stakeholders who set policy to make sound and balanced decisions in response to specific water challenges. *Global Water Partnership/INBO. 2009. Handbook for IWRM in Basins. 94 ANNEX T. THE ECOLOGICAL AND ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES MONITORING PROGRAM This annex further discusses issues surrounding the various monitoring systems established during this past phase of implementation, as financed by USAID. Findings MRC was provided with an USAID sub-grant, under contract by LWF, to provide the following (as stated in the contract and quoted below): Activity 1. Forest Monitoring Program Sub-Activity 1.1. Determine the past and current status of forests and agents of forest change: Remote sensing will provide a historical overview of forest change across Laikipia. Acquisition of LANDSAT or MODIS images from the early 1970s to the present and the comparison of these images using GIS will allow for the evaluation of rates and patterns of forest change. MRC will conduct aerial surveys to assess forest-wide disturbance of the canopy layer. Ground surveys will help identify agents of forest change. We will conduct line transects surveys and establish vegetation plots to determine activities in forests, species composition, and potential for regeneration. This will be done for three forests. Sub-Activity 1.2. Development of Forest Monitoring Program: Forest monitoring indicators will be evaluated on the basis of a consultation, data collected from three key forests, long-term cost effectiveness, and accuracy and sensitivity. These indicators will be integral to a rational conservation strategy for Laikipia forests and a monitoring program that will assess the effectiveness of the strategy implementation. Sub-Activity 1.3. Monitoring forest health: Once a baseline is established, MRC will monitor forest health via change in agents of disturbance, and change in wildlife populations.  Mist-netting and point count sampling of understory birds will be conducted in 1–3 selected forest areas.  Camera trapping will be used to monitor forest mammals. MRC already has a design for evaluating impact of livestock management on mammal communities using camera traps and it will adapt this to forest conditions to analyze accuracy, sensitivity, and costs based on previous experience. Activity 2: Rangeland Wildlife Monitoring Program Sub-Activity 2.1. Development of wildlife monitoring program: Because rangeland health is a complex topic requiring several areas of expertise, monitoring is split between plants, soils, and wildlife.  Large mammals are sensitive to overgrazing in their hunt for food and habitats. MRC will do bias-corrected aerial surveys for districts (based on DRSRS Surveys) and line-transect surveys in selected areas for demographic trends.  Medium-sized mammals are sensitive to land use, large carnivores, and habitat structure. Camera trap surveys will be used as the best monitoring method.  Birds are sensitive to habitat structure and fertility gradients. MRC will undertake point count surveys for small birds, line-transect surveys for raptors, vultures, and bustards. Sub-Activity 2.2 Monitoring rangeland wildlife: Based on assessments of effectiveness, cost, and ease of implementation, a replicable monitoring program will be designed by MRC to monitor changes in wildlife populations and assess the impact of natural resource management interventions on wildlife. Results expected  Current status and understanding of ecological context (forest, rangelands)  Ecological monitoring plans  Ecosystem process monitoring plans 95  Guide to rangeland monitoring According to MRC, they submitted six products during the contract. However, LWF was only able to provide the evaluation team with two of them: the bird and forest monitoring. The terms of reference also states that MRC will describe and develop a monitoring program for Laikipia that meets the needs of the wider population of land owners, managers, and users to enable more informed decision￾making related to the use and conservation of Laikipia’s natural resources. However, Tim O’Brien of MRC in his email of June 22, 2013, to the evaluation team leader said: “We (MRC) cannot find this statement anywhere in the 2009 document that guided our actions. However, we did describe monitoring methods in detail. We were not told to discern the needs of the wider population of landowners and users, so we did not. I suspect that LWF also did not discern these needs. However, we submitted the rangeland manual, a how-to manual targeting the wider community of non￾scientific ranchers and communities.” While the forest monitoring system is relatively simple, using satellite imagery on a five-year basis, the rangeland monitoring is more complex as it must respond to seasonally and continuous changes such as drought spells or the misuse of grazing lands. If forests are protected, as is the case in Mukugodo, there will be no dramatic or negative changes expected. In fact, Mukugodo forest has expanded by about 10 percent since the 1980s, as evidenced by the monitoring system developed by MRC. With the varying characteristics of the rangelands, LWF requires a more frequent observation cycle that includes the assistance of communities and ranchers in regular observations. LWF feels the product provided by MRC does not provide this as a stand-alone monitoring system. There has been no dialog between LWF and MRC to resolve the issue. In an email to the team leader, MRC noted that they did not know that LWF was unhappy with the products submitted and were under the impression that all issues with LWF had been resolved. According to MRC, it provided the best scientific approach for rangeland monitoring through grassland and condition monitoring (biodiversity) combined with The International Centre for Research in Agroforestry ICRAF soil analysis on sample plots, and the identification of degradation risks and methods of recovery. MRC also provided a state-of-the-art scientific approach for forest monitoring based on remote sensing (Quick Bird) every five years, and provided analyzed data of the testing stage. The best use of these tools is through overlay monitoring of birds and mammals to refine findings. During the development phase of the monitoring system there was little dialog between MRC and LWF on the content and progress of the system. Contractually, the terms of reference for the design were relatively broad and did not specify the involvement of communities; it rather states that it should meet their needs to make informed decisions. Conclusions Monitoring systems are urgently needed to not only capture the progress of activities but its impact on natural resource management (NRM). It is also crucial to capture the actual benefits for communities derived from NRM. Improved forests and rangelands provide people with productive and sustainable use of natural resources and incomes. It is evident that the lack of dialog between MRC and LWF, together with the lack of specific and detailed terms of reference as per contract, has resulted in a rangeland monitoring system that is not being used. On the other hand, the forest monitoring system has been accepted by LWF and is currently in use. 96 Recommendations It is strongly recommended that LWF initiates a dialog with MRC and agree on the basic use and content of the monitoring system for rangelands. It is also recommended that the various monitoring systems be reviewed, and the possibility of incorporation be considered, to arrive at a workable and practical monitoring tool. To be considered are: 1. The holistic management grazing monitoring as used by the grazing committees in the group ranches. 2. The LWF Socioeconomic Base Line Study for four ranches (2009 by Delphine King), which has not been updated. 3. Any simple monitoring that can be done by private and group ranches based on regular observations of their rangelands, such as diversity of species and growth, without the need for significant input requirements. These can be combined with scientific methods to ensure that findings are scientifically grounded and responsible and can be used practically by land users in Laikipia. To achieve the latter, it is suggested that after an initial agreement between LWF and MRC on the components of the monitoring system and the need for information gathering, a workshop should be held with relevant land users. This workshop will validate how monitoring outcomes will assist land users, and consent should be obtained for the relevant information collected by them. Information gathered should be analyzed and results disseminated to land users for practical action. LWF, for instance, may consider developing a rangeland classification system that classifies the level of pasture quality as a result of the monitoring system. 97 ANNEX U. LWF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAND AND PROGRESS REPORT ANALYSIS PFM THREE YEAR PROGRESS AGAINST TARGET INDICATORS The following tables were extracted from the PMP and the latest LWF progress report available to the team. The evaluation team is of the opinion that there are too indicators. In addition, these indicators are weak and not SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound). The indicators used in the PMP do not have any quality statements and are not specific in this context. For example, there is an indicator that measures grazing lands improved, but does not define the extent of the improvement. Similarly, an indicator on the economic benefits of people, direct or indirect, does not define the extent of the definite. LWF also reports the number of hectares showing biological improvement, but does not clearly define “biological improvement.” The Logical Framework developed by LWF in 2011 for KNE has over 150 indicators, which is also not practical. In view of this fact, that the evaluation team recommends that a logical framework be established by LWF for future planning. Based on the review of the existing PMP and Logical Framework, the team recommends that external support be required to establish a workable and concise logical framework. External support in the form of a short-term consultancy could also address other issues highlighted in the evaluation such as: 1. Internal organizational structure needs to be reviewed and improved 2. Job descriptions and lines of command need to be clearly defined 3. Internal M&E systems need to be developed 4. Information flows defined and timelines established  S Specific  M Measurable  A Achievable  R Relevant  T Time-bound 98 Table 1.Summary of Progress in Relation to Performance of the Rangelands Management Program Indicators, October 2009–September 2012 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Total Number of ha under improved NRM 13,909 ha 12 550 ha 19,909 ha 24,027 hectares (57,665 acres) 19,909 ha 38,000 hectares (91,000 acres) The program is indirectly influencing the management of an additional 200,000 acres of community and private land that interfaces with communities 74,527 Number of ha showing biological improvement 13,909 ha 14,000 ha 13,909 ha 16,000 hectares 19,909 ha 18,000 hectares (43,200 acres) 48,000 Number of people with increased economic benefits derived from sustainable NRM and conservation as a result of U.S. government assistance 1,015 men, 1,015 women 285 men, 285 women 1,232 men, 1,232 women 2,200 people 2,770 Number of people receiving U.S. government supported training in NRM 115 men, 28 women 421 men, 129 women 400 men, 100 women 3,000 adults received direct exposure (8,000 received indirect exposure) 1,500 men, 500 women 2,140 men, 1,110 women 6800 Number of people who adopt improved NRM practices in target area 538 men, 134 women Estimated 2,022 people (1,018 men and 1,018 women) 1,018 women and 1,018 men (sustained practices in Year 2) 3,600 people 2,000 600 men 540 women 6762 99 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Total Increased capacity of CBOs 3 CBOs reach level 4* 1 CBO reach level 7 2 CBOs reach level 8 1 private ranch reaches level 9 2 sites at level 0 6 sites at level 1 1 site at level 4 1 site at level 7.5 1 site at level 9 5 HM CBOs reach level 7 1 HM CBOs reach level 6 2 HM CBOs reach level 4 Level 0: 2 sites Level 4: 3 sites Level 5: 3 sites Level 7: 8 sites Level 9: 1 site 8 sites reach level 9 6 sites reach level 8 2 sites reach level 7 1 site Level 9 4 sites Level 8 4 sites Level 7 Number of policies, laws, agreements, or regulations promoting sustainable natural resource management and conservation that are implemented as a result of U.S. government assistance 14 plans implemented (grazing) So far 2 plans are implemented, 4 others are pending implementation 5 plans implemented (grazing) 1 plan implemented continuously due to rain failures 14 plans implemented (still realistic) 17 grazing plans implemented: 6 on continuous basis; 8 sporadic basis; 3 “one-offs” 17 100 Table 2. Summary of Progress in Relation to Performance of the Water Management Program Indicators, October 2009–Sept 2012 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Number of ha under improved NRM 0 300 ha (to reflect the fact that year 1 focuses on 5 WRUAs rather than 10) 1,200 ha 1,200 ha of land Number of ha showing biological improvement 0 0 60 ha 24 ha showing biological improvement Number of people with improved access to water (including drinking water). This was changed as percent of flow regulating intakes, percent of users licensed and with permit 0 50% of intakes guarantee flow for minor users, 80% for major users. 90% of major users are metered and water access measured in 5 WRUAs. Proposed new target: 50% of intakes guarantee flow for minor users, 80% for major users. 90% of major users are metered and water access measured for 3 WRUAs (abstraction surveys will be done as part of the SCMP and this information will be obtained) Target not achieved as plans have not begun implementation, but the process has been initiated 50% of intakes guarantee flow for minor users, 80% for major users. 90% of major users are metered and water access measured for 3 WRUAs (abstraction surveys will be done as part of the SCMP and this information will be obtained) 24 intakes allow equitable allocation to all users. 1 common intake completed on upper Ewaso Ngiro river, 2 more common intakes awaiting approval by WRMA for construction 40% of intakes guarantee flow for minor users, 80% for major users 60% of major abstractors along Timau, Ontulili, Nanyuki, ,Upper Ewaso and Ngiro are already metered 101 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Number of people receiving U.S. government supported training in NRM 100 men, 100 women 298 men and 91 women 100 men, 100 women 630 men and 262 women were trained On the basis of Year 2 target. 300, 200 (WRUAs at level 2) Total of 1,480 (950 men and 530 women) trained Number of people who adopt improved NRM practices in target area 0 1,250 men, 1250 women 2,500 people 1,250 men, 1,250 women Total 1,250 men, 1,000 women adopt use of measuring devices to monitor usage and pay per use Increased capacity of CBOs 10 WRUA reach level 5 2 WRUAs have been consolidated and have partially reached level 4 (and in process of reaching level 5), 1 WRUA partially at level 3, 3 WRUAs are in process of being registered and interim committees selected (partial 3) 7 WRUAs achieve level 6, and 3 achieve level 5 (to reflect delays in activity start) 4 WRUAs level 4, 5 reached level 5, 1 reached level 3 and initiated level 4, 3 have achieved level 2 and initiated level 3 9 WRUAs reach level 7 8 WRUAs have achieved level 6, the remaining 1 is in level 3 102 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Number of policies, laws, agreements, or regulations promoting sustainable natural resource management and conservation that are implemented as a result of U.S. government assistance 5 SCMP implemented (to reflect focus on 5 WRUAs in Year 1) 4 WRUA are at the initial stages of implementing their SCMPs 9 SCMPs implemented 11 SCMPs under implementation through the USAID funds 103 Table 3.Summary of Progress In Relation to Performance of the Forest Management Program Indicators, October 2009–Sept 2012 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Actual progress for Year 3 (October 2011– September 2012) Number of ha under improved NRM 71,552 ha 71,552 ha 38, 357 ha (28 357 ha covered by CFAs with signed agreements, 9,850 by CFA with approved plan and progress towards implementation) 71,552 ha 75,452 ha The PFMP for South Marmanet forest approved & launched to add to the list of approved & launched management plans (3,900ha) 75,452 ha Number of ha showing biological improvement Feedback on analyzed satellite images from Mpala Research Center, yet to be reported, will give indications on biological improvement. Work on this is currently ongoing at forests in the former Marmanet block Feedback on analyzed satellite images from Mpala Research Center, yet to be reported, will give indications on biological improvement. Work on this is currently ongoing at forests in the former Marmanet block 104 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Actual progress for Year 3 (October 2011– September 2012) Number of people with increased economic benefits derived from sustainable NRM and conservation as result of U.S. government assistance 617 Forest user groups at Gathiuru forest implementing income-generating activities proposed in the PFMP developed through U.S. government support to date— 617 Number of people receiving U.S. government supported training in NRM 108 men, 72 women 288 men, 192 women 49 men, 15 women (+ 36 men through Royal Netherlands Embassy funding) Target not achieved under U.S. government 200 men, 100 women 178 Males and 47 Females (225 total) Six training workshops & one exchange visit organized within the reporting period 178 Males & 47 Females (225) Number of people who adopt improved NRM practices in target area 300 men, 300 women 1,050 men, 1,050 women 8,640 women, 6,180 men 1,500, men, 1,500 women 8,640 women, 6,538 men Included in the membership list of forest user groups at Lariak, Shamanek, Nanyuki,& Gathiuru forests are 358 grazers practicing controlled grazing through developed grazing plans ; 8640 women, 6538 men 105 Performance indicators Target Year 1 Actual Yr 1 Target Year 2 Actual Yr 2 Target Year 3 Actual Yr 3 Actual progress for Year 3 (October 2011– September 2012) Increased capacity of CBOs 4 CFAs reach level 4 3 CFAs reach level 5 2 CFAs reach level 6 1 to be determined 4 CFAs reach level 5 5 CFAs reach level 6 1 CBO (alliance) reaches level 2 4 CFAs reach level 5 2 CFAs reach level 4 (but have already effective accounting processes) 3 CFA at level 3 (partially level 4, 2 recently developed PFMPs, and one has stayed at level 3.5) 6 CFAs reach level 5 3 CFAs reach level 4 1CFA & CFA platform reach level 1 2CFAs reach level 4 1 CFAs reach level 5 1CFA & CFA platform reach level 1 2CFAs reach level 4 1 CFAs reach level 5 Number of policies, laws, agreements, or regulations promoting sustainable natural resource management and conservation that are implemented as a result of U.S. government assistance 2 PFM plans implemented Plan cannot be implemented until agreements are signed, steps have been taken to initiate the development of agreements between the KFS and 5 CFAs 6 PFM plans implemented 4 CFAs can start implementing their plans (signed agreements) 6 plans implemented 6 PFMPs under implementation CFAs implementing management plans: Nanyuki, Gathiuru, Ngare, Ndare,Lariak, and Shamanek 6 PFMPs under implementation 106 ANNEX V. RESPECTING BYLAWS The Il Ingwesi Group Ranch has a fining system in the event grazing rules are transgressed. The fine is payable in small stock (one or more goats) for each incident where animals are found grazing in closed blocks, depending on the numbers transgressing. According to the Chairman of the Executive Committee, the proceeds are used to pay for work done on feeder road maintenance within the ranch by young men, as witnessed by the evaluation team. However, there are currently very few instances of bylaws being defied, which limit the funds available to pay for road maintenance. Thus, this particular activity is in decline. 107 ANNEX W. DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluations Instructions: Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest. * For external evaluations, all evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project being evaluated.† Evaluators of USAID projects have a responsibility to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by third parties. Evaluators and evaluation team members are to disclose all relevant facts regarding real or potential conflicts of interest that could lead reasonable third parties with knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances to conclude that the evaluator or evaluation team member is not able to maintain independence and, thus, is not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting and reporting the work. Operating Unit leadership, in close consultation with the Contracting Officer, will determine whether the real or potential conflict of interest is one that should disqualify an individual from the evaluation team or require recusal by that individual from evaluating certain aspects of the project(s). In addition, if evaluation team members gain access to proprietary information of other companies in the process of conducting the evaluation, then they must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.‡ Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Immediate family or close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant/material though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant/material though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. * USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 8); USAID Contract Information Bulletin 99-17; and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 9.5, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Subpart 3.10, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. †USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 11) ‡FAR 9.505-4(b) 108 Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members Name Hendriksen Title Mr. Organization MSI Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member Evaluation Award Number(contract or other instrument) USAID Project(s) Evaluated (include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program by Laikipia Wildlife Forum Award Number: 623-A-09-0002 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date 109 Disclosure of Real or Potential Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluations Instructions: Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest. * For external evaluations, all evaluation team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project being evaluated.† Evaluators of USAID projects have a responsibility to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by third parties. Evaluators and evaluation team members are to disclose all relevant facts regarding real or potential conflicts of interest that could lead reasonable third parties with knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances to conclude that the evaluator or evaluation team member is not able to maintain independence and, thus, is not capable of exercising objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting and reporting the work. Operating Unit leadership, in close consultation with the Contracting Officer, will determine whether the real or potential conflict of interest is one that should disqualify an individual from the evaluation team or require recusal by that individual from evaluating certain aspects of the project(s). In addition, if evaluation team members gain access to proprietary information of other companies in the process of conducting the evaluation, then they must agree with the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.‡ Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 7. Immediate family or close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 8. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant/material though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 9. Current or previous direct or significant/material though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 10. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 11. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 12. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members Name Fabian Musonye Musila Title NRM National Sectoral specialist Organization MSI Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member * USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 8); USAID Contract Information Bulletin 99-17; and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 9.5, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Subpart 3.10, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. † USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 11) ‡FAR 9.505-4(b) 110 Evaluation Award Number(contract or other instrument) AID–623–I–12–00001 (Task Order No. AID–623–TO–13– 00011) USAID Project(s) Evaluated(Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number(s), if applicable) Laikipia Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation Program I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose Yes No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 7. Close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 8. Financial interest that is direct, or is significant though indirect, in the implementing organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 9. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 10. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 11. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 12. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date Monday, June 03, 2013 111 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523